Plainly Speaking

Another Victim of Political Correctness; Soros Media Puppets On Rampage

2010-10-21T12:02:00.001-04:00

Juan Williams, longtime NPR news analyst, was fired after a discussion he had on FNC's "The O'Reilly Factor" with host Bill O'Reilly.

Williams said he feels "nervous" if he gets on an airplane and sees people in Muslim garb, who "are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims."

This is because Muslims all over the world have repeatedly used their religion as a basis for attacks -- both verbal and physical -- against innocent people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Williams qualified the statement with the contention that people should not blame all Muslims for "extremists."

So NPR fired Williams for offering his opinion, on an opinion show. He didn't say anything hateful, he didn't advocate intolerance or violence, but he got fired anyway.

If you are not familiar with Williams, let me just say this: He often appears on FNC and offers a more liberal opinion than many of the analysts on the network. The difference between Williams and other liberal commentators is that Williams uses logic, not name-calling or misstated "facts" to support his arguments.

He is a good, even-handed commentator.

Also, it should be noted that the firing comes right after NPR received a HUGE "donation" from George Soros, mastermind and financier of liberal media outlets. Soros, who funds groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, both blatant left-wing propaganda outlets, is going on a rampage against Fox News because FNC is the only place on TV that actually tells the American people who is funding the propaganda machine.

Roaches don't like the light, and if they could cut the power, they would.

I want you to read these materials for yourself, not take my word for it. Here are some reading links, and you should Google them to get other versions of the story and other tidbits:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/national-politically-correct-radio_511450.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/george-soros-fox-glenn/2010/10/20/id/374340
http://www.dronetek.net/dronetek/george-soros-gives-npr-money-and-buys-reporters
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs

Consumers Have Power

2010-10-08T13:10:00.000-04:00

These days, more and more people are complaining about capitalism. They argue against price increases, executive compensation and corporate greed. But what they fail to realize is the true power consumers have to get things to go their way.

True, some businesses make it nearly impossible to negotiate, leaving the consumer with a choice of "take it or leave it." An good example is Comcast Cable. In my neck of the woods, the only choice I have for cable TV and Internet service is digital cable through Comcast or satellite TV with DSL Internet access. Cable beats DSL, so if I want that service, I pretty much have to pay whatever price Comcast sets. If I feel the price is too high, I can call and argue for a decrease, which I have done, but ultimately my choice is either pay or not get the service.

But when it comes to retail, consumers seem to ignore how much power they have, how much they can manipulate corporate greed to their advantage. A greedy business knows that any profit they can get from you is better than nothing, and often will negotiate with you if the entire sale -- and possibly future sales -- is on the line.

I have two stories about this in two days:

(1) Amazon.com

In July, I ordered an electric guitar from Amazon.com. The item was not even in stock, and had an estimated shipping date between September and December. The $500 guitar was on sale for $150 with free shipping, as long as I was willing to wait months to get it.

Of course I was, for that kind of deal. (Such a sweet guitar, too!) I've scoped them out used and, being somewhat hard to find, the same guitar sells used for $250-$300. So to get a brand new one for $150 shipped was worth the wait.

But in early September, I got an e-mail from Amazon telling me that since they were unsure of when the item would be in stock, they were canceling the order, even though I was willing to wait almost indefinitely in order to get that ridiculously low price.

At that point, Amazon took the product off their site, and showed it as only available from a third party for $439 plus shipping.

I called Amazon, and after some wrangling, the customer service rep told me he would add a note to the account and to check the site periodically, and that if Amazon did put the item back up for sale themselves, I would be allowed to order one for $150, regardless of the current price.

Then today, I checked Amazon, and they again were offering the guitar for sale from Amazon for $200 plus shipping, albeit still with a "you'll get it when we have it" shipping date. But, again, for that price, I can wait. I put it in my cart and called Amazon to get the price reduced to the original $150 total cost.
This time, the CSR told me that they were unaware of any note on my account, and that the $200 plus shipping was the best they could do, seeing as it was so far reduced already.

BS, right? I actually asked the CSR, "So, when the other rep told me they would note the account that I could get this item for $150, they were lying?" The CSR apologized and repeated that I could get it for $200 plus S&H. I asked to speak to a manager/supervisor, because I couldn't believe that the CSR would just feed me a line of crap, knowing that at some point, I would be back expecting the deal he promised.

I spoke to an alleged manager, Mark, and within less than a minute, he had adjusted the price of the item in my cart to $149.99 shipped.

I didn't yell, I wasn't rude. All I did was politely tell him what I had been told by the first CSR, and that if it was not honored, I would no longer patronize Amazon.com, because they are not exclusive sellers of anything, so I would gladly pay more elsewhere out of principle. Looking at my account, he could see that I give Amazon a fair amount of business, and realized immediately that any cut in profit he would have to take in order to appease me this one time was far outweighed by the amount of profit he would make from me in the long run.

(2) Citizens Bank

I had an RBS Mastercard. They changed over a month ago to Citizens Bank, and sent me a new card and fee schedule. But things were different.

For some reason, my interest rate went from 13% to 18.5%.

I had no issues with the account, wasn't ever late or anything like that. The bank just assumed they could raise the rate and I would accept it.

Nope.

So I called the 800 number and had a very short conversation with the CSR. I explained my concerns, that with excellent credit and a perfect track record with RBS, I couldn't understand why my interest rate would jump after 5 or 6 years of 13%. He told me that the bank simply was "going by new federal regulations" and that my options were to accept the new rate or cancel the account.

I told him to cancel the account.

I was transferred to the department to close the account, and they asked why I was closing it, so I told them the same thing I told the first CSR. They informed me that if the interest rate was an issue, they certainly could negotiate that. I told them the choice the first CSR gave me, and this CSR was not impressed by that and said the first CSR

Within a minute or two, my new card was activated at 13%.

Again, no yelling, no cursing. Just a reminder that the bank had made money off me the past few years, and could either continue to make that amount or nothing at all, seeing as there are plenty of banks looking for profits.

---------------------------------------------

I realize that you may have read all this and are really angry that it was so long, and so dull. But it's important for people to realize that, if you're willing to sacrifice convenience or savings, you can make a stand as a consumer. A business cannot survive without customers (unless it's in bed with the government, then it can make money for doing nothing, but that's another post!). Switch the choice onto them: Do they want the business you offer them, or none at all?

You have to be willing to do without, though, so be prepared. Comcast again is a great example.

They offer a bundle (phone, Internet and TV) for $100 a month, but only for a year. After the year, the price goes to a little more than $140. For several years, I have been able to keep paying only $100, because when they raise the price, I call and tell them I simply will do without cable and will go to satellite/DSL; I know the service is not as good, but it's a matter of principle -- $100 a month to get e-mail, watch regular cable TV (no pay stations here) and make a couple of phone calls is simply the max I am willing to pay.

What usually happens is that they tell you to take it or leave it. Tell them you'll leave it. When they transfer you over to the "retention department," suddenly it IS possible for them to extend the $100 promo price -- "but just for one more year."

That was about 4 years ago. At some point, they may be willing to lose a customer, and that's when it's on you, the consumer, to stand on principle, and show them that $100 a month is better than nothing.

So that's it, as long-winded as it was. Do it, and tell your friends to do it, too. You can't bitch about corporate greed if you willingly let them get away with it. Just make sure you're ready to carry out your threats. You may lose some convenience, like I would hate to not shop at Amazon, but if you let yourself be victimized by bad business, then it's more your fault than it is the businesses'.

Howard Dean is a Liar

2010-07-25T17:58:00.000-04:00

Here is a story about Howard Dean's appearance on "Fox News Sunday," in which he flat-out lies.

The crime is that the only way you can know he is lying is if you actually WATCH Fox News. So everyone that doesn't watch Fox would likely just take what Dean says at face value because he is a party big-shot, and would then be walking around misinformed -- intentionally lied to.

Dean is following the typical lib playbook: If someone is right and you're wrong, you can still beat them by slinging mud; and no mud is as tasty to a liberal as a charge of racism.

I watch Glenn Beck's show. He's irritating sometimes, and a little too emotional at other times. But I will tell you this with certainty: I have never heard him call for violence, I have never heard him say or endorse anything racist. I've asked people, after they tell me Beck is a racist, to find me the clips. But they haven't, because there are none.

POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”

Who Decided Paul McCartney Knows Anything?

2010-06-25T01:41:00.000-04:00

Paul McCartney has a lot to say about American issues lately.

He started by mocking a former U.S. president during a visit to the White House to accept an award, something I find offensive as an American.

Now, he's popping up in the news with strident support for President Obama, complete with the standard American liberal rhetoric.

(Standard liberal rhetoric: Talk about unrealistic, impossible liberal goals, then blame conservatives for reality not being that way.)

That he's ultra-liberal isn't really the problem.

What I don't understand is why his political and social opinions merit worldwide broadcast.

To me, he's a singer, so if it's not a song coming out of his mouth than I have no interest in it.

Why should I? Aside from really good songs and music, who is Paul McCartney? He's just a super-rich, old, white liberal. He's got really socially progressive views, and wants to influence American politics in that direction.

And he's not a U.S. citizen.

So to come to America, to the White House, and insult not only a former president, but the half of America that voted for that president -- twice -- is just poor behavior.Classless.

And Obama is classless for not chastising McCartney. It's called pride in your country.

Obama Administration Needs Dictionary

2010-06-21T12:32:00.000-04:00

Simply put: "Illegal" means "not legal."

How can anyone say, with a straight face, that people in this country illegally are entitled to anything? It would seem to me that if someone's very presence in this country is a violation of law, then the only thing they are entitled to in America is a ride back to their homeland.

The left wing loves illegals, because most illegals are Hispanic, so then the party can say it's protecting Hispanics, and then the Hispanics are supposed to be obligated to vote Democrat. It's really disgusting.

Illegal immigration is bad for the country, bad for legal Americans and bad for the illegal immigrants themselves. An unsecured border is terrible for a country, Americans have to foot extra bills, and illegals have to live substandard lives because their being here is a criminal act.

But Democrats exploit this, they keep it going for the votes, for the power and control, and in doing so keep a huge number of people -- the illegals -- as modern-day slaves.

Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation

Obama Analysis from Washington Examiner

2010-06-21T10:51:00.000-04:00

This isn't a partisan hit piece, but rather a reasoned explanation of some of the Obama administration's mistakes.

Finding links between politicians and people who give those politicians money is always intriguing to me, especially when those links seem to influence policy to go against the interest of the nation in favor of those links, because it shows the need for (a) removal of such politicians from office and (b) the need for campaign finance reform.

If we want the government to act in the interests of the common man, then we need common men in charge. It really is that simple. There are so many smart, honest, trustworthy people out there in our great country that will never have a chance to lead simply because of their circumstances.

And the onus is on us. We technically are still in control; it's just a matter how how and if we act on it.

Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill | Washington Examiner

The Intolerance of the Left, Part XXI

2010-06-20T23:46:00.000-04:00

This is a well written story about a man who does not agree with liberal policy, so he put up a sign.

Unlike so many similar stories, this one does not try to paint the man as a rabid Republican or white supremacist, just a hardworking man with a valid opinion.

However, people who disagree with him lit his sign on fire, twice, as well as his farmhouse. The story does not say how the police came to the conclusion that it was political beliefs that brought the arson incidents, versus a general firebug, but such reaction from the left is all too common. From book signings to college auditoriums to street corners, conservatives are repeatedly shut down by the left.

Ask Karl Rove, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh how polite liberals are when faced with speech they disagree with.

It seems that the people preaching tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant; the ones who cry the most about civil liberties are the first ones to take them away from others.

Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire - KansasCity.com

Obama Wants You -- Unless You're a White Male

2010-04-26T12:35:00.000-04:00

Facing growing opposition from surveyed Americans, President Obama and the Democratic machine are gearing up for the 2010 elections, with Obama calling for the votes of the "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008," even as new polls reveal growing displeasure for the administration's "accomplishments."

The Democratic National Committee Monday released a video clip of Obama touting the administration's achievements in health care reform and economic recovery, urging the first-time voters recruited in the 2008 election to return to the polls to fight those who, Obama says, are looking to "put their allies back in power" -- "insurance companies, Wall Street banks and special interests."

With immigration, health care and government spending to be among the top issues in upcoming elections, new poll results seem to show disconnect between the administration and the American public, however.

According to national survey results released Monday by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of those surveyed favor repealing the hastily-passed health care reform bill, with only 38 percent against repeal. While Obama's video told viewers of the progress being made to improve conditions in the country, the poll found that, overall, 52 percent of respondents feel the current health care reform bill will be bad for the country, with only 39 percent feeling it will be good.

It comes as no surprise that the Obama administration is looking for the so-called "surge" voters from 2008 to reappear in 2010: Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday showed only 29 percent of voters strongly approve of the way the administration is performing, versus 41 percent who strongly disapprove. Generally, according to the poll, 47 percent somewhat approve of the job the president is doing, while 52 percent disapprove.

The largest demonstration of disapproval seems to be coming from tea party activists, a movement growing in power throughout the country. While mass protests have sprung up in major cities across the nation, drawing thousands of supporters, the movement has been vilified by congressional Democrats, liberal talk show hosts and mainstream news outlets for its supposed lack of black and Latino participants, which, when coupled with Obama's specific call to those groups for support, suggests that dividing the country through race and ethnicity may be the administration's only viable strategy when policy alone cannot garner enough support to keep Democrats in power.

He Who Shall Not Be Named (Quiet Terrorism)

2010-04-22T12:51:00.000-04:00

So, the Comedy Central show "South Park," an animated show that mocks celebrities, religion, politics and pop culture, has been censored by the network after receiving death threats from an Islamic group.

The show's creators are no longer allowed to say "Muhammad" or to depict him in any form, including the simple insinuation that he might be in a disguise -- so they can't show a cardboard box if they say that he might be in the box.

So you know, one of the show's recurring characters is Jesus Christ; Saddam Hussein is Satan's gay lover; Barbra Streisand is a 200-foot-tall robotic Godzilla-like creature; and the school's black chef has a cookie recipe for "chocolate salty balls."

One of the main characters is constantly harangued for being Jewish, while the schoolteacher has a gay bondage-slave lover, fittingly named "Mr. Slave," who actually is a very nice guy.

Paris Hilton was featured in a "whore-off" contest, Sally Struthers is a Jabba the Hutt character who steals food from starving African children, one of which is named "Starvin' Marvin."

And yet the show, which not only aired an episode based entirely on how many times the characters could utter the word "shit" but also brought the insult "douche" into the mainstream, is not allowed to do anything that could offend fanatical, violent Islamic terrorists.

There are episodes mocking gingers, the mentally retarded, alcoholics and addicts, Scientologists, illegal aliens, gays, priests, cops ... but Muslims are now off-limits.

Why?

The answer is frighteningly simple: Because followers of the so-called "religion of peace" answer anything they dislike with the threat of violence and murder, and they have proven the threats credible, as in the case of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad.

Every freedom we enjoy in America, and in other countries, seems not to apply if Muslims say it does not. Parker and Stone have the freedom to say what they want on their show -- unless the Muslims object. Van Gogh was free to make any film he wanted, until the Muslims decided against that. Newspapers were free to print editorial cartoons about any topic they wished, until violent Muslims threatened editors with death.

We think of terrorism as an event -- a bombing or a 9/11-style suicide mission. But this Muslim censorship is the epitome of terrorism, when one lives in a state of fear, modifying freedoms so as to avoid becoming a target of the fanatics.

Our government is far too silent on the subject, out of fear as well. Presidents and politicians will warn of American extremists from the far left or far right, from anarchistic groups to supremacy groups, but they refuse to confront the extremists that actually act upon their threats.

The the war on terrorism is no longer in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, it is here on our soil. When free people lose freedoms because of the threat of violence from one group, we are no longer free; we are only as free as the radical Muslims allow us to be.

How long will it be before a non-Muslim country sees neighborhoods under Muslim control? When "free" citizens of an American or British city are given the choice to follow Muslim law or be killed, what will happen?

Muslims long ago declared jihad, holy war, against America and non-Muslims; unfortunately we seemingly refuse to believe them. Our greatest asset, our compassion and understanding for every type of human, may prove to be our biggest weakness.

A Must-Read for Blumenthal Fans -- and Foes

2010-04-15T17:27:00.001-04:00

Here's a great Times story about Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's Senate quest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/nyregion/15blumenthal.html

Buying Booze for the Bums

2010-04-15T11:21:00.000-04:00

Taxpayers foot State Department's stiff liquor bill - Washington Times

This is not a new problem, as the article states. My question is, why do we keep giving the thieves in Washington more of our money?

On this Tax Day, ask yourself what would happen if no one paid.

Would the government -- could it -- find and prosecute everyone?

We need representatives that know how a person lives when there is a money shortage.

More to Come

2010-03-20T00:03:00.002-04:00

I haven't posted anything on this blog in a while.

I got tired of people at work reading it and then harassing me about it, from my social views to my religious beliefs.

It seems that, no matter how loudly liberals call for tolerance of every deviation under the sun, the only things they find deplorable are conservatives and Christians.

Yes, I'm a straight, white, conservative Christian male. I believe in honesty, hard work and responsibility. The posts that are to come will reflect such beliefs.

I do not believe in political correctness, and I cherish my right as an American to have my own opinion. I welcome comments and dialogue. But be warned --I like to argue.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

2009-12-29T10:14:00.000-05:00

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

My ADHD: Started on Rush, Ended on Something Else

2009-10-15T00:22:00.002-04:00

I had posted a link on Facebook about Rush Limbaugh getting ousted from a group that was planning to buy a sports team.

His involvement in the business deal drew fire from people that disagree with him ideologically, such as the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they raised enough noise that the business group decided to drop him from the deal so as not to endanger the deal.

So, a friend replied, and as I replied to that reply, I went off on a thought, and figured I'd post it here:

I totally agree with the business decision on the part of the other buyers. ... My beef is that none of us would even have known Rush was a part owner if he wasn't who he is. Without looking back at the story, can you tell me any of the other guys' names?

Off the top of your head, other than Steinbrenner, can you name any other teams' owners?

And, I find it amazing that a guy who *says* offensive things is treated worse by the left than people who *do* offensive things.

But check this: The whole concept of "owning" a sports team is garbage anyway, long before you bring Limbaugh into the picture.

Teams -- and players -- are bought and sold as investment properties by wealthy people. Sure, good players are paid tons of cash so they can buy shiny things to enjoy when their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore. And, if they get treated badly by the rich owner, well they can go be owned by someone else instead, and get shiny things from them until their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore.

And, no team *needs* to be owned. Imagine if people that lived in a state played a sport, and competed against other states? And non-players from those states would all get together and watch the games, and pitch in money for uniforms and equipment so they could enjoy the game?

And anyway, being a boss and having a stake in a team are two different things. Rush would have just been another one of the guys getting rich off the investment.

As an aside: Our culture treats athletes and entertainers better than teachers, soldiers, veterans and senior citizens. If all the athletes gave 25% of their huge salaries they get for playing a frigging game, and Hollywood actors did movies for $4 million instead of $6 million, there'd be no homeless problem, no hunger problem. Seeing as their wealth came directly from our adulation, shouldn't they "give back" a "fair share" ... ?

Maybe You Don't Like Glenn Beck, But I Don't Like Dylan Voltaire

2009-09-24T02:58:00.003-04:00

Glenn Beck has a new book, "Arguing With Idiots," ranked #3 on Barnes & Noble.

I wanted to see some of the reviews, and I found this:

Who's the idiot?by DylanVoltaire
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
"September 22, 2009: After listening to the preview and reading the excerpt I can see that Beck is a master at arguing with straw men he constructs. I love the idea of a domino effect mindset of people who argue that the Second Amendment is out dated; as though these people want to nefariously end free speech and jury trials. I would like him to produce one serious critic of the NRA who has this in mind. The better argument against the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the founders always believed in a state's power to regulate guns. The arguments that surrounded the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were centered on the power of states to maintain and train virtuous male citizens for their militia to provide for the "common defense" of a young untested republic against the manifold threats extant. One of those perceived threats was the standing army of the National Government. In those days (and I suppose Beck would consider me an idiot for understanding this) "the people" feared a regular army in the hands of the national government; they wanted a small force if any. Today I would suggest that Americans want a well trained regular army to defend our nation. Therefore, in a very real sense, the idea of the Second Amendment is outdated. Now, that doesn't necessarily call for massive gun control, but it does lend to the understanding that states should, and always did, retain the power to regulate gun ownership according to their unique circumstances. In other words, a guy living in Wyoming has very different needs and concerns surrounding gun ownership than a family living in an apartment building in Philadelphia. The family in Philadelphia would like to go to bed at night knowing that the persons living on either side of them isn't going to accidently discharge their AK-47 and kill their child sleeping in its crib.
Here's an idiotic use of evidence: In 1831 the state of Missouri limited the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. This was a factor in the case State v Mitchell. The statute, a state regulation of gun ownership, was found to be constitutional. That shows that states had the power to regulate gun ownership. Wow, what an idiot I am.
Hey, but Beck is dressed up as a soldier for Halloween this year. I'm convinced. At least he didn't try to dress up as a scholar."

Wow, Dylan, all that and you didn't even have to read the book.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

2009-09-06T01:33:00.001-04:00

If you don't know what this story is about, that's exactly the point. Google Van Jones and see for yourself.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

Shared via AddThis

The Times Conveniently Leaves Out Details

2009-08-26T12:26:00.003-04:00

Here's a story about U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel -- seems he has a problem with paying his "fair share" as the Dems keep saying "the rich" should do.

Best part is, the article never mentions that Rangel, under two House ethics investigations, is a Democrat.

In fact, the word "Democrat" never appears in the story.

Odd, how this rich guy keeps refusing to admit what he owns or pay taxes on it, and the fact that his party is the one complaining about the rich not paying enough to cover the poor, and the Times leaves out his affiliation.

I truly believe that if Rangel were a Republican, it would say so somewhere in the story.

Just another example of (a) shoddy writing, (b) left-wing bias or (C) both.

Here's the story:

Rangel Failed to Disclose $500,000 in Assets for ’07

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund-raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month.

Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,0000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.
The updated forms report that Mr. Rangel’s total net worth is between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000 — about twice the amount listed in the original disclosure statement, filed in May 2008, which declared assets totaling between $516,015 and $1,316,000.
Mr. Rangel declined to discuss the matter, saying he did not want to comment publicly while the investigations continue. In the past, he has explained omissions on financial statements, including his failure to declare $75,000 in rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic or pay $10,000 in taxes on it, as unintentional bookkeeping errors. A spokesman for the congressman issued a statement saying the amended disclosure forms were Mr. Rangel’s attempt to rectify recently discovered omissions in his financial reporting.
“Congressman Rangel is confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests,” said the aide, Elbert Garcia.
Republicans said that Mr. Rangel’s inaccuracies in disclosing his assets and income, along with other ethics questions, were so egregious that he should be removed from his powerful position as chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees the tax code.
“This, again, raises serious questions about whether he should continue as chairman, given the multiple ethics investigations,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Representative John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio and the House minority leader.
Two House subcommittees are investigating Mr. Rangel’s financial dealings. One is examining his failure to report, or pay taxes on, the income from the Dominican beach house; whether Mr. Rangel may have violated the ban on taking gifts worth more than $50 by accepting four rent- stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer at a price thousands of dollars per month under market value; and whether he improperly used his Congressional office to raise money for a charity — the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service — from donors with business interests before his committee.
The other subcommittee is investigating a complaint from an ethics advocacy group that has accused Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress of violating the restrictions on accepting travel from donors who employ lobbyists by attending a conference last November in St. Maarten. It was sponsored by Citigroup, which received billions in federal bailout money.
In his amended disclosure form, however, Mr. Rangel reported that his trip was paid for by The Carib News Foundation, which had underwritten the congressman’s travels in the past.
Ethics experts say that although members of Congress are required to fully disclose their assets, omissions do not usually result in sanctions unless they are part of an effort to deceive. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, said Mr. Rangel’s haphazard approach to his finances had undermined his credibility in Congress.
“Sloppy bookkeeping is not a valid excuse for a sophisticated member of Congress who is chairman of the committee that handles complex financial issues like the tax code,” she said.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

2009-07-23T02:23:00.000-04:00

Dirty Martini: How Do You Boil A Frog

The Intolerance of the Left

2009-07-22T10:47:00.001-04:00

I won't even comment, just read the story:

Conservative kiosk not allowed at mall
By BETH SHAYNE / NewsChannel 36

July 22nd, 2009

CONCORD, N.C. -- “Impeach Obama. “

“Al Qaeda’s favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08.”

“Work Harder. Obama needs the money.”

The bumper stickers and posters sold at “Free Market Warrior” at Concord Mills are meant to be “biting,” the kiosk’s owner Loren Spivack said.

At least one passer-by found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.

Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, “Free Market Warrior” will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain’s owner shared e-mail correspondence with Newschannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not “neutral” enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.

Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.

“Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective,” he said. “Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side.”

Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician, and wants a fair exchange of ideas. “The material that I sell is about politics and ideas,” he told Newschannel 36. “It’s all legitimate criticism.”

Concord Mills, owned by Simon Property Group, would not comment for this story, cited a policy against talking about tenant and landlord situations.

Spivack says the company first contacted him about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer. The author, recent UNCC graduate Jennifer Ibanez, wrote,

““Free Market Warrior,” a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

Ibanez told Newschannel 36 she was so offended, she wrote the mall as well. She says a friend of hers also wrote in. Both threatened not to return to Concord Mills.

The owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, has been a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama. Spivack thinks the decision about his lease is political.

“If they have decided to make their malls conservative/libertarian free zones, where those opinions can’t be expressed, I do think it’s their right to do that, but it’s our rights to publicize the fact that they are doing that,” he said.

If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent Newschannel 36 pictures of several t-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we’ve chosen not to share them.

“What I think the mall should have done if they thought that we were expressing one set of ideas and not another, is that they should have gotten another store to come in and sell their ideas,” he said. “I would’ve been all in favor of that. I would have helped them move in.”

Something to Think About

2009-07-09T12:07:00.001-04:00

From my inbox this morning .... feel free to cut and paste and send to everyone you know.

WHEN A SOLDIER COMES HOME
This email is being circulated around the world - please keep it going

When a soldier comes home, he finds it hard....

..to listen to his son whine about being bored.

....to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.

to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.

...to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.

..to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.

...to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.

..to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying.

....to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.

....to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.

....to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.

....to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog.

.....to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.

....to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.

....to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.

The only thing harder than being a Soldier..

Is loving one.

Campaign Donors Get All the Good Stuff

2009-06-06T00:39:00.001-04:00

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. John Murtha steered millions of dollars in defense work to a campaign donor and the Pentagon went along with it, even though two convicted drug dealers had been deeply involved with the company.

Records filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh starting in 2005 raise questions about whether the government ever checked into the background of William Kuchera of Windber, Pa., a constituent who has been doing government work for over 20 years.

The records point to the political peril of Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, and other members of Congress directing federal funds to particular contractors, an oft-criticized process known as earmarking that has directed hundreds of billions of dollars in the federal budget to favored contractors and programs over the past two decades.

The companies owned by William Kuchera and his brother Ronald — Kuchera Defense Systems and Kuchera Industries Inc. — have received $53 million in federal contracts in this decade alone.

According to the court records, Kuchera was convicted of marijuana distribution in 1982 in Wisconsin.

In addition, a man who describes himself as an early partner in Kuchera’s business in the 1980s is a convicted cocaine dealer who has served two terms in prison, according to the records.

The man, Peter Whorley, sued the Kuchera companies and William Kuchera for a share of the money the companies have collected in federal contracts. Whorley lost the case when it went to arbitration.

On Friday, Kuchera’s lawyer said that his client had served nine months in prison and since that time "has built two highly successful and reputable companies with enviable records of quality, first-rate work."

In April, the Navy suspended Kuchera Defense Systems, William Kuchera and his brother for "alleged fraud," including "multiple incidents" of incorrect charges, along with allegations of defective pricing and ethical violations. Kuchera is appealing the suspension.

In 2007 and 2008, Murtha sponsored $14.7 million in defense earmarks for Kuchera Defense Systems. Before 2007, Congress did not disclose the identities of earmark sponsors, so it is impossible to say how much in earmarked funds Murtha directed to the Kuchera family business.

In one early link to Murtha, Kuchera made a $1,000 campaign contribution to the congressman in March 1992.

Kuchera and his uncle started doing business in the mid-1980s and Murtha became chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee in 1989.

According to the court records, in 1985 William Kuchera approached his uncle, Michael, who was just starting up Kuchera Industries.

William Kuchera "confided to me that he had just spent time in prison and he was looking for a fresh start," Michael Kuchera said in an affidavit filed in federal court in 2005.

"After I agreed to go into business with my nephew, he introduced Peter Whorley to me," Michael Kuchera’s affidavit states. "One day shortly after I had met Mr. Whorley, Bill told me that Peter had agreed to invest in the business."

Under questioning in the lawsuit, Whorley said that he had invested $50,000 in the Kucheras’ new business. Before that, Whorley said, he had been in prison for drug trafficking. Answering questions in the lawsuit, William Kuchera said that the $50,000 from Whorley was a personal loan that "helped for my living expenses, it helped with marketing expenses, it helped with sales expenses."

Whorley said that he and William Kuchera were best friends and that they had been involved in "drug dealings."

In the statement Friday, Kuchera’s lawyer pointed to findings by the federal court in the lawsuit rejecting Whorley’s claims in their entirety. The court split the costs of the case, ordering Whorley to pay one-third and the Kuchera defendants to pay two-thirds.

"William Kuchera has built two highly successful and reputable companies with enviable records of quality, first-rate work," said Kuchera attorney Dennis McGlynn. "In doing so, he has also created 360 new jobs in the Johnstown area. He should be applauded for his accomplishments and not denigrated for a crime he committed almost three decades ago."

The government’s overall earmark spending reached $18 billion in 2009 and $18.3 billion for 2008, and adding to that to the decades of earmarks before, "you easily top a $100 billion and even more, into the hundreds of billions of earmark spending, in the last few decades," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional earmarks.

Savage to Continue Libel Suit

2009-06-02T12:07:00.002-04:00

Very interesting ....

The US "shock jock" banned from entering the UK said today that he would carry on with defamation proceedings against outgoing home secretary Jacqui Smith, saying he had never incited violence among his listeners.
Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner, was included on a list of undesirables banned by the government from entering the UK last month due to "stirring up hatred and promoting their extreme views".
Savage said his "honour" was at stake over the "crazy" Home Office decision. "None of my words have ever led to violence for the simple reason that I do not call for violence, I do not provoke violence, and moreover, I want to say that provoking violence is illegal in the US as well," he told Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5 Live today.

Here's the full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/02/shock-jock-michael-savage-jacqui-smith

I'm not much of a fan of Savage ... but to group him in with Klansmen and terrorists is a joke. Violent Muslims filling the streets, shouting "death to the queen" over a book, or a comment or a cartoon, that's left unchecked, but if someone voices their opinion in another country, and he's too dangerous to let enter the UK? He's the extremist?

Another Sotomayor-Connecticut Link

2009-05-29T12:17:00.003-04:00

In addition to the New Haven firefighters promotion case, Sonia Sotomayor also participated in another Connecticut case, one concerning our right to free speech. Here's the story, from AP/NBC:

Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"

12:16 PM EDT, Thu, May 28, 2009

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.

In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.

Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.

The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”

However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.

“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”

The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.

“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”

Here's my question to you: Let's say you work for a company, and on your non-work blog you referred to company officials in a disparaging manner, would it be OK for you to be punished at work? For voicing your opinion, on your own time, from your own home, on a blog not connected to your workplace?

Voter Intimidation Now Accepted Behavior

2009-05-29T12:08:00.003-04:00

Read this story and ask yourself, what do you think the outcome would have been if these guys were skinheads? ... Here's a story from the Washington Times:

Friday, May 29, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.
A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.
The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.
People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them.
Tensions between career lawyers and political appointees inside the Justice Department have been a sensitive matter since allegations surfaced during the Bush administration that higher-ups had ignored or reversed staff lawyers and that some U.S. attorneys had been removed or selected for political reasons.
During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them as the "backbone" of the department.
"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.
Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal deliberations.
The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."
To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.
Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."
Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."
The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.
Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant, nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."
Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their failure to appear.
But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.
That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a "weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.
Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Washington, D.C., resident.
Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia City Commissioner's Office.
Efforts to reach the Panthers were unsuccessful. A telephone number listed on the New Black Panthers Web site had been disconnected.
The complaint said that the three men were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party and that King Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style nightstick with a contoured grip and wrist lanyard.
According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.
The New Black Panther Party reportedly has 27 chapters operating across the United States, Britain, the Caribbean and Africa. Its Web page said it has become "a great witness to the validity of the works of the original Black Panther Party," which was founded in 1966 in Oakland, Calif.

Sean Penn: A Fool You Shouldn't Believe In

2009-05-22T17:37:00.003-04:00

Sean Penn, like many other Hollywood actors, constantly uses his fame as a platform to spread his twisted ideology across the globe.

And, sadly, many people listen to what he says.

But, Penn is an idiot, and you should not listen to him. He's a far-left loon with too much money and too much access.

I'm supposed to value Penn's opinions on war and peace, democracy and communism, life and death? When he can't even figure out if he wants to be married?

Yet again, Penn has changed his mind about separating from his wife of 13 years, Robin Wright.

They did it in 2007, too, filed for divorce then changed their minds.

Penn calls his latest request for separation "an arrogrant mistake."

Look, aside from situations where there's abuse, being married is a simple decision: either you love someone and want to be with them, or you don't.

If he can't figure that out, maybe he should spend less time hanging around with Hugo Chavez and more time with his wife.

Lack of Postings, Explained in an E-Mail

2009-04-15T11:07:00.003-04:00

You may have noticed that I haven't posted much at all since the recent elections.

It's not because "my guy" or "my side" fared so poorly in the elections; rather, it's because my idea of how this country should be has been tarred and feathered, labeled and lambasted, mocked and ridiculed by politicians, television and Hollywood. The decisions coming out of Congress and the White House are so backward, disgusting and sad that I can't even understand how any of them represent me.

I no longer feel like a part of this country. Instead, I feel like a servant, working each day to fund things I don't believe in, things I don't agree with. Every day I see bad things being protected and promoted, even though I know that in the long run those things will come back to haunt this nation.

There is no democracy here. The people are asked a question, and if the askers don't like the response they can get a liberal court to reverse that response. Or, liberal groups rally to collect as many ignorant and uninformed people as they can to vote for their side, with promises of easy money, freebies and sandwiches.

Nothing I care about seems to matter. No, all that seems to matter is how much tax money I can contribute to the voluntary destruction of my country.

But I received an e-mail today that sums up much of what I'm feeling, so I am posting it here. The only part of this that I don't agree with is the Subarus ... I like Subarus because they're great in the snow.

Here it is:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like re distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O' Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters and PETA people. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we won’t be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Bai Ya or We Are the World.

Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Who's Responsible?

2009-03-09T10:54:00.001-04:00

This is a good read:

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Ten Thousand Words

2009-01-30T11:32:00.003-05:00

Fairness Doctrine - From Multichannel News

2009-01-30T08:01:00.000-05:00

Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine

Reimposition Could Undermine Kids TV Regulations, Public Radio

John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 1/28/2009 3:27:00 PM MT

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to reimpose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.

He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.
Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.

In the speech, McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, adding that the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.
He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it.
McDowell warned that if the doctrine were revived, it might not "wear the same label. That's just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand," he told his audience.
He suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. "According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral," he said.
McDowell suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of community advisory boards to help determine local programming. McDowell says he is fine with those boards if they are voluntary--some stations already seek such input. But that if they are required, as the FCC has proposed, "Would not such a policy be akin to re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
McDowell also said that efforts to reimpose the doctrine could stretch to cable, satellite, and even the Internet. "Certain legal commentators have suggested that a new corollary of the Doctrine should be fashioned for the Internet, on the theory that web surfers should be exposed to topics and views that they have not chosen for themselves," adding: "I am not making this up."
In a move obviously calculated to strike fear into the hearts of regulatory-minded Democrats, the same ones who have meen making noises about liking the fairness doctrine when it comes to reining in talk radio critics, McDowell had this:
"Actually, in a string of media cases stretching back over more than 20 years, various judges on the D.C. Circuit - both Democratic and Republican appointees - have suggested that it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink the concept of spectrum scarcity as a justification for limiting broadcasters' First Amendment rights. A revived Doctrine would provide a big, bright bulls-eye for those who wish to make that happen. That development would have implications far beyond the Doctrine itself. Much of our content regulation of broadcasters - including most of the FCC's existing localism rules and the regulations requiring three hours a week of children's programming - rest on the spectrum scarcity rationale. If that rationale is invalidated, serious legal challenges to all those other content rules may follow."
McDowell said he was hopeful that the Obama administration understood all this.
"As I watched his inaugural address last week," he said, "I was struck by the relevance of the debate over the Doctrine to a section of his speech where he said, 'To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history ....' 'I am encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the Doctrine will come back to life during his term."

A Poem That Borders on Obscene

2009-01-26T11:08:00.001-05:00

I got this in my e-mail today:

*The Tax Poem*

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was
the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national
debt, had the largest
middleclass in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Bailouts - When Do We Get Our Share?

2009-01-26T10:52:00.001-05:00

When I think of my younger years, I recall that I owed both Bank of America and Citi a whole lot of money. And they didn't care that I had lost my job, they didn't care that rent and food had to be my top priorities -- they wanted the money I owed them, and every second until I was able to pay them, they tacked on fees and interest and penalties, increasing my debt while I struggled to lessen it.

And now that their greed has consumed them, they've come to *me* for help, and I don't have the option of saying 'no' ....

You know, these bailouts, for me, go far beyond partisan politics and power struggles -- to me, they represent the worst of American businesses' greed and the unfair role the common citizen plays.

They made their money on the backs of indebted Americans, then squandered the wealth they accumulated, and now the same Americans who were pillaged by these institutions are being forced to help them?

That's like a newly freed slave being told he has to go back to the plantation because his former master needs the free labor to keep his business afloat.

To add insult to injury, do you ever remember a time, when the banks were doing well, that they passed that good fortune on to us, in terms of high interest rates on our savings, or by lowering the interest rates on the money we owed?

No. They never helped us when we were down. Hell, kicking us when we were down made them even more money.

Just a few weeks ago, I had a credit card payment that was in 1 day after the due date (I forgot about the holiday), and my interest rate went from 12% to 22% -- no questions, nothing, just BAM, an additional 10% because of a 1-day-late payment.

And now that they're failing, it's up to us to save them?

And I know that there are jobs at stake, and a lot more at stake, but I can't shake the feeling that this is all so unfair. We're giving them money to continue the same pattern of behavior and greed, helping them continue to exploit us.

Sickening.

Who's Really Against the Environment?

2009-01-25T12:59:00.002-05:00

Here's an editorial from the Jan. 24 WSJ -- very interesting, just one more example of how politicians lie to you.

---------------------

For all the hype about the Bush Administration's oil-and-gas energy bias, one of its last official acts was to give the go-ahead to what could be America's first offshore wind farm -- thus enraging more than a few self-deputized environmentalists. Such are the ironies of the wilderness of mirrors known as the Cape Wind project.

For the last seven years and counting, the green entrepreneur Jim Gordon has been trying to build a fleet of wind turbines in federal waters near the upscale seascapes of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The site seemed ideal, given the stiff ocean breezes and the eco-friendly politics in Massachusetts. The company says its 130 towers could meet 75% of the region's electricity needs and reduce carbon emissions by some 734,000 tons every year.

The sort of people who can afford to use "summer" as a verb are in favor of all that. Completely in favor, really. But they did want to raise one quibble. Unfortunately, the wind farm would create "visual pollution" in Nantucket Sound, particularly the parts within sight of their beachfront vacation homes.

Mr. Gordon went ahead anyway, and the opposition rose to gale force. Supposedly the wind farm will lead to everything from the disruption of seabird habitats to "desecrating ancient American Native burial sites," in the words of Glenn Wattley, the head of an antiwind outfit funded by the likes of Bunny Mellon. But what really upsets these well-to-do Don Quixotes is the thought of looking at windmills that would appear about as tall on the horizon as the thumbnail at the end of your outstretched arm.

Then there is the political saga, with the Kennedy family as the Hyannis Port Sopranos, supplying the muscle. While Ted Kennedy was castigating President Bush for destroying the environment, the Senator was working furiously behind the Congressional scenes to kill Cape Wind. He even had the inspiration of getting former GOP colleague Ted Stevens of Alaska to slip wording into a spending bill that would have handed a veto to then-Governor Mitt Romney, another aesthetically minded opponent. Robert Kennedy Jr., a Time magazine "hero of the planet," tried to get the Sound designated as a national marine sanctuary to bar development.

Incredibly enough, this political sabotage has so far failed. And last week the Interior Department issued its long-awaited regulatory study, mostly finding "negligible" environmental impact -- apart from a "moderate" impact on the scenery. If the Obama Administration signs off, construction could begin next year.

Mr. Kennedy blustered that the report was rushed out: amusing, considering it runs to 2,800 pages. Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as "a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region."

Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices -- but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated. Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for "an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else." The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.

Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus-163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour -- compared to, say, 44 cents for coal. Despite these taxpayer crutches, wind only provides a little under 1% of U.S. net electric generation.

We'd prefer an energy policy that allows markets to shape the sources that predominate -- which would almost certainly put Cape Wind out of business. But President Obama seems determined to unload even more subsidies on green developers as he seeks to boost renewables to 10% of the U.S. electricity mix by the end of his first term and 25% by 2025; their share today is about 9% (5.8% of which is hydropower).

We wouldn't be surprised to see the President's green future wrestled to the ground by the likes of Mr. Delahunt, the Kennedys and other anticarbon Democrats. Environmentalists love the idea of milking Mother Nature for power, but they hate the hardware needed to make it work: huge windmills, acres of solar panels, high-voltage transmission lines to connect them to the places where people live. Of course, they still totally, absolutely, wholeheartedly support green energy -- as long as it gets built where someone else goes yachting.

No Dodd About It, He's Full Of It

2009-01-07T14:09:00.001-05:00

From WSJ Editorial Page :

Waiting for Dodd

Where are those Countrywide papers?

With the opening of the 111th Congress yesterday, all of Washington is tingling with the allure of a fresh start. Not so fast. We've got some leftover business from the 110th Congress -- namely, Chris Dodd's July 2008 promise to release the details of his sweetheart loans from Countrywide Financial.

The Connecticut Senator got favored treatment from the subprime mortgage purveyor, even as he was a power broker on the Banking Committee that regulates the industry. When the news broke, the Senator first denied that he sought or expected preferential treatment. He later admitted that he knew he was considered a VIP at the firm but claimed he thought it was "more of a courtesy." He also promised the Connecticut press that he'd come clean with the documents and details of the loans. But six months later -- nada, zip, nothing.

The rest of the press corps may have moved on, but we'd still like to know. All the more so because former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg told us last fall that Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program for the influential. Mr. Feinberg also reported that he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO, and Mr. Feinberg has offered to provide those documents to investigators.

Dodd Bedfellows

Dodd and Countrywide 10/10/2008 – The Senator should take the witness stand.
Mortgage VIPs 06/25/2008 – Sweetheart deals are just a phone call away.
Angelo's Angel 06/19/2008 – The senate bailout for Countrywide needs more scrutiny.
Congress and the Countrywide Scandal 06/18/2008 – Some senators want a bailout for big political donors. What a surprise.
Beltwaywide Financial 06/16/2008 – The new ARMs: Angelo-rated mortgages for senators.

Just before Mr. Dodd made his promise, Bank of America closed its acquisition of Countrywide and Mr. Dodd has continued to oversee BofA and the rest of the mortgage industry as Chairman of Senate Banking. He will now play a lead role in drafting legislation affecting the very business that gave him preferential treatment, yet he still refuses to release the mortgage documents that would illuminate this treatment. As the Senate Ethics Committee examines this case, Mr. Dodd's office reports that he is cooperating with the investigation and that he still intends to make good on his six-month-old pledge. But nothing in the Senate ethics process prevents Mr. Dodd from coming clean with the public whenever he wishes.

We suspect there's at least one habit of the 110th Congress that won't change in the 111th: The Members think they can get away with anything -- and usually do.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T06:53:00.002-05:00

A Merry Christmas to all!

And, for anyone who takes offense to such statements: Please, find a hobby, you have far too much free time.

Coulter on Palin

2008-12-22T14:37:00.003-05:00

Ann Coulter has a good column this week about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the unsuccessful GOP bid for the White House.

You can read it here.

But, here's a little piece that I found interesting:

True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.

She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.

Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.

Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.

She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.

She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.

Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.

As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.

Interesting, ain't it? Yet, Palin's been called every variation of "stupid" that liberals could think of, just like they did to Bush over his Yale grades ... never mentioning that their pick, John Kerry, did even worse in school.

Sigh.

Congressmen Get Raises Amid Recession

2008-12-19T11:23:00.003-05:00

With the economy in the state it is, with many Americans either losing their jobs or going day-to-day not knowing for sure if they'll continue to have a job, congressional lawmakers have voted to give themselves nice raises.

Here's the story:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”
However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”

Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.

In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.

“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”

When You Need a Gun, Nothing Else Will Do

2008-12-17T00:03:00.002-05:00

Watch this video, and keep in mind two simple facts: Laws only apply to the law-abiding; and it's not the law-abiding you have to worry about.

Here's the video.

Thin Skin, Thick Heads

2008-11-25T13:17:00.002-05:00

It's the end of the world as we know it. This is a story from the LA Times:

Claremont parents clash over kindergarten Thanksgiving costumes

Email Picture

Kathleen Lucas

Cody Lucas, left, and Vince Tran participated in last year’s Thanksgiving celebration, a four-decade-old Claremont school district tradition.

Some say having students dress up as pilgrims and Native Americans is 'demeaning.' Their opponents say they are elitists injecting politics into a simple children's celebration.

By Seema Mehta
November 25, 2008

For decades, Claremont kindergartners have celebrated Thanksgiving by dressing up as pilgrims and Native Americans and sharing a feast. But on Tuesday, when the youngsters meet for their turkey and songs, they won't be wearing their hand-made bonnets, headdresses and fringed vests.

Parents in this quiet university town are sharply divided over what these construction-paper symbols represent: A simple child's depiction of the traditional (if not wholly accurate) tale of two factions setting aside their differences to give thanks over a shared meal? Or a cartoonish stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups?

"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

Raheja, whose mother is a Seneca, wrote the letter upon hearing of a four-decade district tradition, where kindergartners at Condit and Mountain View elementary schools take annual turns dressing up and visiting the other school for a Thanksgiving feast. This year, the Mountain View children would have dressed as Native Americans and walked to Condit, whose students would have dressed as Pilgrims.

Raheja, an English professor at UC Riverside who specializes in Native American literature, said she met with teachers and administrators in hopes that the district could hold a public forum to discuss alternatives that celebrate thankfulness without "dehumanizing" her daughter's ancestry.

"There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype," she said.

Last week, rumors began to circulate on both campuses that the district was planning to cancel the event, and infuriated parents argued over the matter at a heated school board meeting Thursday. District Supt. David Cash announced at the end of the meeting that the two schools had tentatively decided to hold the event without the costumes, and sent a memo to parents Friday confirming the decision.

Cash and the principals of Condit and Mountain View did not respond to interview requests.

But many parents, who are convinced the decision was made before the board meeting, accused administrators of bowing to political correctness.

Kathleen Lucas, a Condit parent who is of Choctaw heritage, said her son -- now a first-grader -- still wears the vest and feathered headband he made last year to celebrate the holiday.

"My son was so proud," she said. "In his eyes, he thinks that's what it looks like to be Indian."

Among the costume supporters, there is a vein of suspicion that casts Raheja and others opposed to the costumes as agenda-driven elitists. Of the handful of others who spoke with Raheja against the costumes at the board meeting, one teaches at the University of Redlands, one is an instructor at Riverside Community College, and one is a former Pitzer College professor.

Raheja is "using those children as a political platform for herself and her ideas," Constance Garabedian said as her 5-year-old Mountain View kindergartner happily practiced a song about Native Americans in the background. "I'm not a professor and I'm not a historian, but I can put the dots together."

The debate is far from over. Some parents plan to send their children to school in costume Tuesday -- doubting that administrators will force them to take them off. The following day, some plan to keep their children home, costing the district attendance funds to punish them for modifying the event.

"She's not going to tell us what we can and cannot wear," said Dena Murphy, whose 5-year-old son attends Mountain View. "We're tired of [district officials] cowing down to people. It's not right."

But others hoped that tempers would calm over the long holiday weekend, and the community could come together to have a fruitful discussion about Thanksgiving and its meaning.

"Its always a good thing to think about, critically, how we teach kids, even from very young ages, the message we want them to learn, and the respect for the diversity of the American experiences," said Jennifer Tilton, an assistant professor of race and ethnic studies at the University of Redlands and a Claremont parent who opposes the costumes.

Mehta is a Times staff writer.

seema.mehta@latimes.com

Uh-Oh

2008-11-25T13:13:00.002-05:00

This is sure to get some folks all in a tizzy. ... This was the alert on Drudge this a.m.:

SHEEEEE'S BACK! COULTER DELIVERS BOOK EXPOSING 'GUILTY' OBAMA MEDIA Tue Nov 25 2008 10:52:15 ET

Bestselling author and controversialist Ann Coulter plans to crash Obama's inauguration party with her new work, GUILTY. Set for release first week of January, the book exposes and mocks, in graphic detail, the media's love affair with all things Democrat and Obama. Coulter presents exhibits A through Z. "GUILTY is a much-needed reality check on a Left gone wild," declares the book's jacket. "When it comes to bullying, no one outdoes the Left. Citing case after case, ranging from the hilariously absurd to the shockingly vicious, Coulter dissects so-called victims who are invariably the oppressors. For instance: While B. Hussein Obama piously condemned attacks on candidates' families, his media and campaign surrogates ripped open the court-sealed divorce records of his two principal opponents in his Senate race in Illinois." Developing...

Palin: First They Trashed Her, Now They Want Her

2008-11-22T16:55:00.002-05:00

Here's an interesting story from the Associated Press about the huge number of requests Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is receiving to appear on TV shows, write books, etc.

The part that really floors me is that some of the requests are from shows David Letterman, The Daily Show and Leno.

During the campaign, these people and others railed against her so unfairly, devoting more time to mocking her than any other candidate, spreading misinformation and nasty remarks.

Now they want her to appear on the shows, because they know people will watch, and the shows will make money.

I think she should ignore the outlets that were unfair to her. At the same time, I would love to see her sit down on Leno's show and tell him, point blank, 'Screw you, Jay, you panty-waisted liberal jagoff."

I'd tape that.

Anyway, here's the story:

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Sarah
Palin is juggling offers to write books, appear in films and sit on dozens of
interview couches at a rate astonishing for most Hollywood stars, let alone a
first-term governor.
Oprah wants her. So do Letterman and Leno.
The failed
Republican vice presidential candidate crunched state budget numbers this past
week in her 17th-floor office as tumbling oil prices hit Alaska’s revenues. Her
staff, meanwhile, fielded television requests seeking the 44-year-old Palin for
late-night banter and Sunday morning Washington policy.
Agents from the
William Morris Agency and elsewhere, have come knocking. There even has been an
offer to host a TV show.
"Tomorrow, Governor Palin could do an interview with
any news media on the planet," said her spokesman, Bill McAllister. "Tomorrow,
she could probably sign any one of a dozen book deals. She could start talking
to people about a documentary or a movie on her life. That’s the level we are at
here."
"Barbara Walters called me. George Stephanopoulos called me,"
McAllister said. "I’ve had multiple conversations with producers for Oprah,
Letterman, Leno and ’The Daily Show."’
Asked whether Winfrey was pursuing
Palin for a sit-down, Michelle McIntyre, a spokeswoman for Winfrey’s
Chicago-based Harpo Productions Inc., said she was "unable to confirm any future
plans" for the show.
Palin may have emerged from the campaign politically
wounded, with questions about her preparedness for higher office and reports of
an expensive wardrobe. But she has returned to Alaska with an expanded, if
unofficial, title — international celebrity.
John McCain plucked Palin out of
relative obscurity in late August and put her on the national GOP ticket. Now,
she has to decide how and where to spend her time, which could have implications
for her political future and her bank account, with possible land mines of legal
and ethical rules.
Palin is considering about 800 requests for appearances
from December through 2009, with 75 percent coming from out of state. A year
ago, just a sprinkle of requests came from beyond Alaska’s borders. They range
from invitations to speak at The Chief Executives’ Club of Boston to attend a
5-year-old’s birthday party, from a prayer breakfast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to a
business conference in Britain.
Michael Steele, the former Maryland
lieutenant governor who wants to be the next chairman of the Republican National
Committee, is seeking face time.
She has invitations to make appearances in
20 foreign countries, typically with all expenses paid, McAllister said. She has
more than 200 requests for media interviews, again from around the
globe.
"She has to pace herself," suggested veteran Hollywood publicist
Howard Bragman. "She wants a career made in a Crock-Pot, not a microwave."
In
her two months on the national stage, Palin energized the Republican base but
turned off moderates and independents, according to some surveys. Flubbed
answers in national television interviews raised questions about her competence.
She was embarrassed by the disclosure the RNC spent at least $150,000 for
designer clothing, accessories and beauty services for her and her
family.
The right book or movie deal could help Palin reintroduce herself to
the nation, on terms she could dictate.
While books and movie deals could be
worth millions of dollars, it’s not clear if Palin would be able to legally earn
it. State rules say she cannot accept outside employment for compensation. But
there appears to be little in the way of precedent left by former governors to
judge if book deals or lucrative speaking appearances amount to
"employment."
Palin has sent unmistakable signals she is open to running for
president in 2012, but to advance her political ambitions she must stay in the
public eye in the lower 48 states. As with any celebrity, there is the risk of
overexposure. At the same time, she’ll be under pressure to attend to governing
her home state, which is thousands of miles from the rest of the nation.
"She
has to deal with the perception that she bobbled her debut," said Claremont
McKenna College political scientist John Pitney. "She needs to stay home for a
while. If she wants a future in national politics, her No. 1 job is doing a good
job as governor."
Just this past week, shortly after conducting a string of
national TV interviews and skipping a state education conference, she was
scolded by the Anchorage Daily News. "There are ... low graduation rates,
plummeting North Slope oil prices, proposals to build alternative energy
projects, the gas pipeline," the paper said in an editorial. "It’s time for the
governor to refocus on Alaska’s needs."

The Funniest Thing I've Seen In A While

2008-11-21T03:15:00.004-05:00

I get a lot of mega-forwarded e-mail "jokes" -- half are crap and the rest are so-so, with one or two gems in the mix.

This is one of the funniest I've seen in a long time. It's called ...

How To Fail A Test With Dignity

Election 2008

2008-11-20T15:50:00.003-05:00

I'm still not ready to offer my opinions on the recent election -- still trying to cope with all the nagging issues -- but in the meantime, here's some interesting reading for you. It's pretty funny, actually, as it showed hundreds of Obama supporters that really didn't know much about the election, just that they supported who the media told them to support.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Here's a link to the actual results of the poll: http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf

This really disturbs me. If you look at the poll results, it's just disgusting. It showed that many Obama supporters have no idea what the hell is going on. Here are some highlights of the poll:

Only 43% of these people knew which party controls Congress.
87% of Obama voters attributed Tina Fey's "SNL" comments to Gov. Sarah Palin.
Only 28% were aware of Biden's plagiarism problem, and only 17% knew about Obama's political history, but 87% knew about Palin's clothing tab, and 94% knew about her pregnant daughter.
33% of people wrongly attributed Obama's "coal industry" theory to McCain-Palin, while only 12% knew it was Obama.
Only 44% knew of Obama's connection to members of the Weather Underground.
55% of these idiots graduated from college.

Something is really wrong here. How did these people make "intelligent" ballot decisions when they don't even know who is in charge? If they think things are bad now, and they're wrong about who's making it that way ... ?

This election was such a joke.

Yeah, the liberals' candidate won, but why? Because the libs rounded up every dope they could find and got them to vote based on misinformation and outright lies.

But, you know what? I don't even care. The libs are in charge, and they're going to screw things up SO badly, and there's no one for them to blame. Although I'm sure everything will somehow still be linked to Bush. That's just the way the libs work -- take credit for others' achievements and push blame for their mistakes on other people. It's awful, and deceitful, but it's the only way liberals can hope to look good at all as they continue to turn this country into the hole that it's become.

Puppies!

2008-11-13T19:33:00.001-05:00

Go here, watch puppies!

http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.45.swf?cid=317016

Woman Gets KKK-illed

2008-11-12T14:31:00.003-05:00

Here's a story from Breitbart about a woman who wanted to join a KKK group:

A woman who tried to flee a Ku Klux Klan initiation rite was shot to death by the group's leader in a remote campsite on a sandbar in the swamps of Louisiana, officials told local media.

The woman had found the Sons of Dixie group on the Internet and taken a bus down from her home in Tulsa, Oklahoma so she could be initiated into the secretive white supremacist group and then recruit others in Oklahoma.

She arrived on Friday and underwent several rites, including having her head shaved, St. Tammany Sheriff Jack Strain said at a press conference Tuesday.

She was then taken to the campsite that was accessible only by boat where the rituals continued, consisting mainly of lighting torches "running around in the woods," the New Orleans Times Picayune quoted Strain as saying.

At some point on Sunday evening, the woman decided she wanted to leave and got into an argument with group leader Raymond "Chuck" Foster, 44 who pulled out a .40 caliber handgun and shot her.

"We believe he then rolled her over and began a process of removing the bullet from her body" with a knife, Strain told reporters as he stood before the Ku Klux Klan costumes recovered from the campsite.

"That shows you to some extent the callousness of this individual."

Foster then ordered his followers to burn the woman's belongings and dump her body by the side of a nearby road.

"It's kind of impressive for a group with a pretty small IQ to be able to cleanse that site so well," Strain told reporters.

The group was discovered after Foster's son and another member went to a local convenience store on Monday and asked the clerk how they could remove bloodstains from their clothes.

The clerk recognized the men and contacted the sheriff's office, who soon found them and then raided the campsite.

Five of the remaining Klan members were caught in the woods and Foster later turned himself in.

Strain called the group a bunch of "kooks" and said he did not believe they had posed a serious threat to the public prior to this slaying.

He said no crimes more serious than some racist graffiti had linked to white supremacists in the area.

Officials from the St. Tammany sheriff's department and district attorney's office did not immediately return calls for comment.

However, local television stations and the Times Picayune reported that Foster was charged with second degree murder and the seven others were charged with obstruction of justice.

---------------------------------

I know I'll get some e-mails griping because I said this is a funny story. I think's it is funny because this woman wanted to be a part of a hate group, and then fell victim to that hate. It's called karma, and it's a bitch.

Militant Gays Are Such a Turn-Off

2008-11-12T14:15:00.002-05:00

Here's a story about some "radical queers," as they call themselves, who figure that disrupting a church service and blaspheming in someone else's house of worship will somehow make people more accepting:

DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.
Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.
Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.
In a released statement, David Williams said churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.
A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing on Nov. 7-9.
A posting on its MySpace page declared the convergence a "fierce success."
Fire alarm pulled

According to a report on the Bash Back group's news site, protesters inside the church pulled a fire alarm, unfurled a banner from the church balcony, shouted and threw fliers to the worshippers.
Outside the church, protesters carried picket signs and an upside-down, pink cross.
The conservative RightMichigan Web site posted an account of the incident Monday, and a number of conservative bloggers had picked up on the item by Tuesday.
Williams said the church had received 80 to 85 e-mails and phone calls by Tuesday, "from churches and individuals around the country to express their concern and general disgust for what happened on Sunday."
Nick De Leeuw of RightMichigan said he got his account of the incident from a church member who was there.
However, he said, the photo along with his report - of protesters dressed in black with their faces covered by pink, Middle-Eastern style headcoverings - was not from the protest at the church but from an earlier Bash Back protest elsewhere.
No arrests made

Mount Hope Church, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, teaches followers that homosexuality is a sin.
However, "Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin," Williams said.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department got a call regarding the protest at about noon Sunday, said Lt. Jeff Warder.
Warder said protesters outside the church left peacefully when someone from the team of pastors came outside and told them they were not welcome on church property.
Warder said deputies did not handle the protest inside the building.
No arrests were made.
In New York City on Tuesday, the conservative Catholic League said it would ask Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox to investigate the protest.
Typically, the sheriff's investigation would be turned over to the county prosecutor if the sheriff felt charges were warranted, said Matt Frendewey, spokesman for the attorney general's office. He said it would be rare for the attorney general's office to get involved in such a case.
---------------------------------------------

So, am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely ridiculous?

This kind of behavior makes me cringe. Yeah, that'll make people more open to your beliefs, if you act like that.

It's one thing to protest, it's wholly another to aggressively confront someone in their house of worship.

Can you imagine if this same scene was played out in a mosque? There'd be a lot of headless gay folks soon afterward, I imagine.

But, as usual, the liberal American double-standard applies. It's somehow OK for gays to harass straight people, but if a straight person even whispers a word like "homo" it's a hate crime.

Personally, I think all these protesters should face hate crime arrests, because unless I misunderstand "harassment based on bigotry or bias," that's exactly what these protesters did.

Good luck with that one, though, because America today says it's perfectly acceptable to pick on straight white Christian folks -- and safe, too, because they're not allowed to fight back.

Things to Come

2008-11-12T13:10:00.005-05:00

This was forwarded to me via e-mail.

I do not know if it is "true," as Snopes.com does not have an entry for it yet.

But, regardless, it is a plausible scenario, and a GREAT solution:

As owner of a business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

I figure that my clients will have to see an increase in our fees of about 8 percent but since we cannot increase our fees due to the poor state of the economy, we
will have to lay off 8 of our employees instead.

This has really been eating at me for a while, as I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled through our parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I'll be giving it to them.

---------------------------

Here's a funny cartoon:

--------------------------------------

And, finally, just something the Democrats should think about, from Ann Coulter:

"For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president. "

Some Words

2008-11-06T11:33:00.000-05:00

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.'

-Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress....But then I repeat myself.

-Mark Twain

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

- George Bernard Shaw

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.

-G. Gordon Liddy

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

-James Bovard , Civil Libertarian (1994)

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

-Douglas Casey

Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

-P.J. O'Rourke , Civil Libertarian

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

-Ronald Reagan (1986)

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

-Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!

- P.J. O'Rourke

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

-Voltaire (1764)

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!

-Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

-Mark Twain (1866 )

Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.

-Unknown

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal: a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

-Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

-Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.

-Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

-Herbert Spencer , English Philosopher (1820-1903)

There is no distinctly Native American criminal class ... save Congress.

-Mark Twain

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.

-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

-Thomas Jefferson

Election Day Reading

2008-11-04T12:34:00.003-05:00

Happy Election Day!

Here are a few articles to read before you set out to cast your ballot today:

The Fairness Doctrine - Chuck Schumer says it could make a comeback. Goodbye, conservative talk radio, welcome to the liberal dictatorship.
Voter registration forms on the side of the road in Tampa. What the f**k is wrong with Florida? Bad enough the people there can't figure out how the hell to vote, now they can't be trusted to drive papers from one place to another?
Some active military votes may not count, because someone forgot to mail them to the soldiers in time. Active military votes should count, period.
Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philly, with a nightstick. Very nice. I guess if you can't achieve, you can still get ahead by force.
An independent investigation has cleared Sarah Palin in the ridiculous 'Troopergate' non-issue.
Professor who bragged about stealing campaign signs has resigned. Hahaha!
GOP workers tossed from the polls in Philly. What's up with Philly?

Get Your Tissues

2008-10-31T11:38:00.001-04:00

OK, this story and video made me start bawling like a 10-year-old girl.

http://videos.komando.com/2008/06/26/christian-the-lion/

On the Street in North Branford

2008-10-29T12:17:00.003-04:00

I received a link to this essay today. It's a good read, looking at what people on the street there think about the looming election.

You can read it here.

Biden Interview, Angry Liberals

2008-10-27T15:33:00.003-04:00

As the election draws near, I thought I would post some videos ....

And after you watch that video, read about the fallout from the interview, in a story from the Orlando Sentinel:

Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."

Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

--------------------------------

Hm. Some folks seem real friendly until you ask them about things they don't want to talk about.

Spooky, Very Spooky

2008-10-27T15:25:00.002-04:00

Here, read this:

Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.

The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.

Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.

Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.

He says "it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary it's time to be spooky."

--------------------------------------------

So, outside of the fact that this display is not really appropriate -- come on, hanging an actual person in effigy is a little much; how would you feel if it was made to look like you -- is it odd that the guy who made this anti-Republican display is named 'Chad' ... ?

Some Election Reading

2008-10-24T11:31:00.003-04:00

Here are some interesting stories coming across the Net:

Pat Buchanan makes a good point about double-standards in the media.
Does the market fear Obama's economic policies? This NY Post piece thinks it might.
Rapper Jay-Z criticizes McCain and Palin in a concert. Aren't you glad he's shown you the light?
Charles Krauthammer says he will be supporting McCain for president -- and he makes some good points.

The Fairness Doctrine

2008-10-20T15:12:00.005-04:00

Updated

I've been interested in the Fairness Doctrine for a long time -- because it's simply such a bad idea.

It would mandate that broadcasters offer time to opposing viewpoints to any controversial issues it may air, or face the FCC.

It was taken out of commission during the Reagan administration, but, over the past several years, it has gotten support from many lawmakers, mostly on the left, especially from Nancy Pelosi.

It's a good idea, in theory. In practice, it would be virtually impossible to regulate the regulators.

You see, while it requires equal representation of opposing views, I can't seem to find out for certain whether there was discretion on the part of the FCC to determine if enough time had been devoted to the opposing views.

Note: There is an "equal time" mandate, but that applies to political campaigns -- if a broadcaster gives time to one candidate, it has to offer the same time to other candidates.

I'm trying to find the actual text of the mandate, but it seems all I can find are summaries and commentaries, so all I've been able to find so far are vague references to the representation -- I've found summaries that state "equal time" and others that say the alternate views can be presented in different formats than the original (e.g., a station could run 2 hours of one view in a news show, and then 5 minutes of opposition in an editorial), but without specifically mentioning actual time requirements.

And that's where it starts to become a bad idea.

Without really concrete, detailed requirements, there are elements of "fairness" that are quite subjective. So, depending on who's evaluating the fairness of something could easily manipulate the system.

Here's where it gets politically ugly.

Consider this:

The calls for implementing the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio is coming from the left.

Right-wing talk radio is very successful, while left-wing talk radio is not. Radio stations that carry conservative talk radio make a lot of money from it.

If a station that plays conservative talk radio is forced, by law, to play something that has proven unsuccessful, they would be being forced to do something that goes completely opposite the concept of market demand.

They might stand for it and do it to a point, if there is no time requirement -- so they could play 4 hours of conservative talk and then 20 minutes of money-losing liberal radio and just accept it. But, if there is no specific time requirement, then whoever is deciding whether it's fair or not could just say, "No, that's not enough," and fine the station until it plays what that evaluator considers fair.

The fear is that a station, if faced with having to play 4 hours of conservative and then 4 hours of liberal and knowing that that means they make money for 4 hours and then lose money for 4 hours, the station would just opt to play something completely different and make money for all 8 hours, thereby shutting down successful, popular talk conservative talk radio.

Even if there are detailed specific rules so there could be no room for interpretation, those rules have to put the power on the side of the station, because they are the business end -- if they are going to be forced to play money-losing programming, they should be able to decide when and how much to play. Even then, some stations may put profit before principal and just drop political talk radio anyway, just to spare themselves the headache.

And it's not a far-fetched fear, when you consider that the left constantly refers to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Larry Elder and Mike Savage as racist haters that should not be allowed to taint the airwaves. If they saw a legal opportunity to silence those people without having to actually compete against them, can you honestly say they wouldn't do it?

You know they would. And I can be objective enough to say that I know the GOP would do the same damn thing if the roles were reversed. That's why it's a bad idea, because it can -- and would be -- corrupted by whoever is in power.

Here are some links with more information about this, and the equal time rule:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm
http://www.ims.ccsu.edu/Radio.htm
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/315.notes.html
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The Most Convincing Argument For Obama So Far

2008-10-20T15:05:00.002-04:00

Up until a few minutes ago, I had not yet heard anything that really made me think about voting for Obama next month.

Then I came across this interview, with Bernard-Henri Lévy, and I really liked much of what he had to say.

He looks at the race in an interesting way. To me, he explains how the good ideas of the Democratic Party have gone too far, to a point that has become dangerous and unappealing to people that may have liked the original idea.

I feel that way very often.

So, read the interview, it's really good.

From WSJ: The Liberal Supermajority

2008-10-17T11:14:00.003-04:00

From WSJ:

A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

The Truth About Gun Control

2008-10-16T12:28:00.002-04:00

Here's a video that will explain the truth about gun control once and for all ....

Cultural Differences Lead to Jail Time

2008-10-16T11:34:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting story about a couple of Brits who wound up getting 3 months in prison for having sex on a public beach in Dubai.

Because Dubai has such a reliance on tourism, it was felt that a "lenient" sentence was called for.

Here's a quote from the story, from another British woman:

"Before I came here I read up on the dos and don'ts. I wouldn't dream of kissing my friend out on the street. This is an Islamic country. We have to respect their traditions. We expect the same in our country. You should dress and behave appropriately when you are somebody's guest."

Now that's interesting.

Murtha: Only Racists Don't Vote Obama

2008-10-15T22:10:00.002-04:00

I knew it was coming, I just didn't know for sure when it would start.

The Dems are going to start the major race issue now, as in, "If you don't vote for Obama then your are a racist."

Here's the story. If you go to the site, read the comments afterward, they're fun.

PITTSBURGH (AP) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha says his home base of western
Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama's victory margin in
the state by 4 percentage points.
The 17-term Democratic congressman tells
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site that, as
he put it: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."
He says it's taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to
liking Obama, but he should still win the state, though not in a runaway.
In a separate interview posted Wednesday on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Web site, Murtha says Obama has a problem with the race issue in western
Pennsylvania that could shave 4 points off his lead in the state.

Political Thoughts From E-Mail

2008-10-13T17:27:00.005-04:00

Just a couple of thoughts I received in various e-mails the past few days.

------------------------------------

Barack Obama put out an ad telling us how the simple-minded John McCain cannot use a computer.

The ad neglects to mention that Barack Obama cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier at night!

------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

Neat video ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxJ7t3U3TDg

-------------------------------------------------

Important 'Bailout' Reading

2008-10-10T02:19:00.002-04:00

Here are two very important items concerning the so-called bailout plan. The first is a series of "60 Minutes" clips; the 2nd item is a brief concerning some more appalling behavior by AIG executives.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/197/credit_default_swaps

and

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Waxman_probes_AIGs_postbailout_retreat.html

More Media Bias

2008-10-07T14:05:00.003-04:00

Funny -- I see multiple stories about everything Sarah Palin says, picking it apart to show that she's "dumb," as wealthy actor Tim Robbins implied in an appearance Monday on The Daily Show.

But, when Biden just spouts off things that are incorrect, or outright falsehoods, it takes Google to find a mention.

So here's a story from National Review. It's pretty funny how much Biden just says whatever sounds good, and people eat it up like it's got gravy on it.

I Didn't Know Kenya Was Full of Liberals

2008-10-07T13:57:00.004-04:00

Here's an interesting read about author Jerome Corsi -- he wrote a book, "The Obama Nation," where he looks at Obama in a light differently than the mainstream media.

It seems he was going to give a presentation about some of the things he found while investigating Obama, but magically, Kenyan authorities detained him and tossed him out of the country before he could do so.

Oh well. Obama's pretty popular, so I guess we should all get used to not being allowed to voice dissent. You should probably hide your guns, too, and anything religious in your house ... oh, and all your money.

Cindy Sheehan STILL around

2008-10-07T13:48:00.002-04:00

Here's the latest on Cindy Sheehan and her run for Nancy Pelosi's House seat.

There are 3 things in this story that caught my eye:

1. "You know, it's not easy having most of the country hate you," Sheehan said. "I know ..."

Yes, you may know, but you obviously don't comprehend it. If most of the country thinks you're a whackaloon, except for a small circle of other whackaloons ... then maybe it's you that's screwed up.

2. Her office, lined with photos of her children, all in their 20s, and her 4-month-old grandson, Jonah, is full of awards for speaking out against the war when it was unpopular to do so.

Wow! I didn't realize that you could win awards for calling a sitting president a "bastard" and a "nazi" and "Hitler." I also didn't realize that it was unpopular to speak out against the war, seeing as every time someone speaks out against the war, the liberal media immediately gives them superstar status, they get TV time and, well, the power to run for the House of Representatives.

3. "I think it's OK to enjoy life again. My grandson has made me realize that."

Well, if anyone can talk sense into Cindy Sheehan, it's a 4-month-old, seeing as they're pretty much the same mental age.

Rounding Up The Sheep

2008-10-07T13:38:00.002-04:00

Here's a neat little story about a group called Vote Today Ohio.

Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.
The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Isn't that wonderful?

See, that's why libs love the dregs of society -- if you keep people down in the dirt, you know where to find them when you need them.

I'm sure these 'voters' were told all about how Republican policy has caused their homelessness, drug addiction and such, and how the messiah Obama will turn them into millionaires and successful community citizens.

Which, for many of them, is something they could have done on their own, if they wanted to actually work for it. But this way, all they have to do is pull a certain lever, or mark a certain box on a ballot.

Barney Frank and the Housing Mess

2008-10-04T14:27:00.000-04:00

This is interesting ...

WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

A top GOP House aide agreed.

"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

Seems odd, doesn't it?

Sandra Bernhard 'Jokes' About Palin, Gang Rape

2008-10-02T00:48:00.005-04:00

This is interesting:

BOSTON - A women's shelter on Wednesday cut headliner Sandra Bernhard from its annual benefit after she said Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin
would be gang-raped if she ever visited New York.

Bernhard's made the remarks last month during her one-woman show in Washington before Palin visited New York to campaign. Bernhard said Palin would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" during a diatribe in which she also criticized Palin for opposing abortion rights.

Many guests at Rosie's Place, a Boston shelter, have been victims of violence, public relations director Leemarie Mosca said. "In light of our mission, we don't think violence against women is a laughing matter," she said.

So ... first off, I commendRosie's Place for having sense.

Second, if Sarah Berhard is the only person on stage, how can that be called a "one-woman show"? Wouldn't there need to be a woman there?

I'm all for political discourse, but (a) I do not like rape, and (b) I do not like when people try to make political points through stupidity, because it only hampers debate.

But, I don't expect Bernhard to understand that, because she never really came across as all that intelligent -- it seems her big claim to fame was being nothing more than an absolutely hideous "woman" who used lots of dirty words.

Pelosi Family Enjoys the System

2008-10-01T12:13:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting article about Nancy Pelosi paying her husband with money from one of her PACs.

It's something that politicians from both sides of the aisle have done, and have been chastised for; However, according to this article, Pelosi last year supported legislation that would have banned such payments.

I'm telling you, all these people are thieves and liars.

Something to Look Out For

2008-10-01T12:08:00.002-04:00

Here's a story about the moderator for tomorrow's vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill.

The story talks about how Ifill has a book coming out about black politicians and the changing face of politics.

From some of the quotes in the story, at least, Ifill doesn't sound really partisan; I'm sure she has her own opinions, but she doesn't come across as biased in terms of reporting.

She said she is concerned only about getting straight answers from candidates.

"You do your best to get candidates to answer your question. But I also trust the viewers to understand when questions are not answered and reach their own conclusions," Ifill told BlackAmericaWeb.

"Four years ago, when neither John Edwards nor Dick Cheney proved capable of answering a question about the domestic epidemic of AIDS among African-American women, viewers flooded me with reaction," she said.

So, while I don't think it's anything that would taint a debate, it's still something to look out for while you're watching.

No Title Necessary

2008-09-30T15:56:00.003-04:00

From a New Haven Register story:

Judge Earl Richards on Monday arraigned Akeem Gayle, 24, of Harding Place, New Haven, and Anthony Johnson, 19, of Highview Terrace, Hamden, on charges of felony murder, first-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery. Richards increased Gayle’s bail to $2 million.

Gayle has eight years of jail time hanging over his head from two convictions in which he received suspended sentences for drug sales and arson. Johnson, who was held in lieu of $1 million bail, has a minor criminal record.

Through an open, second-floor window on Harding Place, Gayle’s mother said, “He’s a good boy,” but declined further comment. No one answered the door Monday at Johnson’s residence.

Politics, War, Hunger and Money

2008-09-30T00:10:00.001-04:00

I really want to go live in Mayberry.

The Price of Oil

2008-09-29T15:30:00.002-04:00

Here's a story from Breitbart:

NEW YORK (AP) - Oil prices tumbled more than $8 a barrel Monday, dropping below the $100 level as traders bet that global demand for petroleum products will keep falling despite a planned $700 billion U.S. financial bailout.
A stronger dollar also weighed on crude prices as investors who bought oil and other commodities as a hedge against inflation sold their contracts.
Light, sweet crude for November fell $8.24, or 7.71 percent, to $98.65 a barrel in midday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier dropping as low as $98.76.
The contract fell Friday $1.13 to settle at $106.89. Crude has now fallen 31 percent since surging to an all-time record of $147.27 on July 11.
Monday's sell-off was tied to anxiety over the pending U.S. rescue plan. Following a week of intense negotiations, lawmakers could hold a final vote on the emergency measure Wednesday. But investors are doubtful whether the plan will be enough to unfreeze global credit markets and restore calm to the financial system.

So. The traders' confidence that we'll buy expensive oil makes them invest more, and the price goes up. The traders' belief that we won't buy expensive oil makes the price go down? Then, why not just stop buying oil until it's affordable? Use as little heating oil and gas as you can, I say.

Good, Wholesome Non-Political Humor

2008-09-24T01:34:00.001-04:00

I got these in my e-mail today. Nice, clean fun!

Pun Fun

1. The roundest knight at king Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much pi.

2. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian

3. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

4. A rubber band was confiscated from algebra class because it was a weapon of math disruption.

5. The butcher backed into the meat grinder and got a little behind in his work.

6. No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

7. A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

8. A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blown Apart.

9. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.

10. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

11. A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall. The police are looking into it.

12. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

13. Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway. one hat said to the other, 'You stay here, I'll go on a head.'

14. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

15. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said: 'Keep off the Grass.'

16. A small boy swallowed some coins and was taken to a hospital. When his grandmother telephoned to ask how he was, a nurse said, 'No change yet.'

17. A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.

18. The short fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.

19. The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

20. A backward poet writes inverse.

21. In democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count that votes.

22. When cannibals ate a missionary, they got a taste of religion.

23. Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects!

Joe Biden Ain't That Bright, Neither

2008-09-23T14:39:00.001-04:00

From NationalReview.com:

Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

As Reason's Jesse Walker footnotes it: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'"

Where Was Senator Dodd?

2008-09-23T11:40:00.003-04:00

Here, read this:

--------------------------

Where was Sen. Dodd?

BY AL HUBBARD AND NOAM NEUSNER

Taxpayers face a tab of $200 billion for a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly semi-autonomous mortgage finance clearinghouses. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: “I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”

We will save Sen. Dodd some trouble. Here is what we saw firsthand at the White House from late 2002 through 2007: Starting in 2002, White House and Treasury Department economic-policy staffers, with support from then-Chief of Staff Andy Card, began to press for meaningful reforms of Fannie, Freddie and other government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).

The crux of their concern: Investors believed the GSEs were government-backed, so shouldn’t the GSEs also be subject to meaningful government supervision?

This was not the first time a White House had tried to confront this issue. During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury official Gary Gensler spoke out on the issue of Fannie and Freddie’s investment portfolios, which had begun to resemble hedge funds with risky holdings. Nor were others silent. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan regularly warned about the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie’s holdings.

President Bush was receptive to reform. He withheld nominees for Fannie’s and Freddie’s boards, a presidential privilege. It would have been valuable politically to use such positions to reward supporters, but the president put good policy above good politics.

In subsequent years, officials at Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers (especially chairmen Greg Mankiw and Harvey Rosen) pressed to require Fannie and Freddie to submit to regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission; to adopt financial accounting standards; to follow bank standards for capital requirements; to shrink their portfolios of assets from risky levels; and to empower regulators such as the Office of Federal Housing Oversight to monitor the firms.

The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole.

Meanwhile, Dodd, who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008, actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

The president’s budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge.

Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs “are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. ... A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy.”

That passage was published in February 2004. Sen. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget’s Analytical Perspectives.

The administration not only identified the problem, it recommended a solution. In June 2004, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel Bodman said: “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision.”

Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: “Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership,” he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year’s State of the Union address.

How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts.

Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. said this on Sept. 11, 2003: “We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. ... And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

As recently as last summer, when housing prices clearly had peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the president’s suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was “inane.”

Sen. Dodd wonders what the Bush administration did to address the risks of Fannie and Freddie.

Now, he knows. The real question is: Where was he?

Al Hubbard was director of the National Economic Council and assistant to the president from 2005-07.
Noam Neusner was a speechwriter and communications director in the Bush administration from 2002-05.
They wrote this for The Washington Post, where it first appeared.

'SNL' Skit Goes Too Far - Boycott NBC

2008-09-22T13:11:00.002-04:00

Here's a story about the recent "Saturday Night Live" skit in which it is suggested that Todd Palin, husband of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is having sex with his daughters.

I'm all for political humor, and I have no problem with either party's candidate getting mocked, but this was just wrong.

I would be just as outraged if the joke suggested Barack Obama has sex with his daughters.

But, you know, I don't think that ever would have been an option.

The story says that comedian-turned-politico Al Franken helped with the sketch. That's wonderful. Nice to see ahead of time that how he does politics.

As an aside, Al Franken had some funny stuff when he was a comedian, so I'm also a little disappointed that he's such a creep in real life.

So what do you think? You can contact NBC here to let them know what you think -- keep it respectful, don't be an embarrassment.

BIDEN: Rich Americans Should Pay

2008-09-18T13:08:00.007-04:00

Here, check out this story:

WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."
the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

What they're failing to mention is this: If you raise taxes on the wealthy, rather than everyone paying the same percentage of their income, then any of those people that own businesses are going to charge more for their product -- which means that, while you're taxes may not go up, the money you have will buy much less.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Either you have less money in your pocket or the money in your pocket is worth less.

But with Obama's plan, we get into a very bad situation where successful people have their money taken from them to support people who aren't successful. So, why bother trying to be successful if you can get the same luxuries at someone else's expense?

Typical liberal garbage. The problem with America is that too many people skate by at the expense of others. If we embraced more of a "sink or swim" mentality, then maybe people would be more likely to do for themselves, rather than leech off the rest of the country.

But, the Dems know that if they appeal to the leeches and make sure that the leeches get what they want without having to actually work for it, then the leeches will vote Democrat.

That's all they really care about, getting the votes. Obama knows he'd be continuing a class of leeches, but because he's rich he won't have to live amongst them, so it's OK.

I wouldn't mind the left's stand on this so much if they at least made the leeches behave well, but they also refuse to let the country put conditions on handouts -- like drug testing for welfare recipients -- so instead of helping people better themselves, the left just allows people to prosper when they should really be sinking.

Dems Admit to Socialism

2008-09-18T13:08:00.004-04:00

Obama, Where Art Thou (Coming From?)

2008-09-18T13:08:00.003-04:00

Check out this quote from Obama on the campaign trail:

"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president he'll take on — and I quote — 'the old boys network in Washington.' I'm not making this up," Obama said. "This is somebody who's been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he's the one who's going to take on the old boys network," Obama said. "The old boys network. In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting. Come on."

Um, If I'm not mistaken, Obama's VP Biden has been in Congress for more than 30 years, so does that mean he's part of the "network" as well?

Obama may not be "making this up," but he's surely not thinking it through.

I tell you this: Obama is a socialist, and if you want to see the crappiest elements of our society continue to get propped up and encouraged to continue their crappy ways, then go ahead and vote Obama in. Either way, we're screwed, but with Obama, taxpayers and society as a whole will suffer.

Obama's New Ad Full of Lies, But Not in English, So Maybe You Won't Notice

2008-09-17T22:26:00.007-04:00

A new ad by the Obama campaign is causing a stir, mostly because it's full of deception. Here's a take from the ABC site:

From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo
September 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:

“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
—Rush Limbaugh

"You shut your mouth or you get out!”
—Rush Limbaugh

The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”

There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.

I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.

The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law, and he wrote:

“Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:

“First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.

“If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.

“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.

“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!

“How do you say ‘double standard’ in Spanish? How about: ‘No mas!’”

But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.

Asked for backup as to how Obama could link McCain to Limbaugh, the campaign provided this interview with McCain refusing to condemn the Minutemen from from the Kansas City Star:

Q: ‘Are they a good thing? The Civil Defense Corps, do you think -- do they help in the immigration fight, or not?’

A: ‘I think they're citizens who are entitled to being engaged in the process. They're obviously very concerned about immigration.’

Q: ‘Are they helpful?’

A: ‘I think that's up to others to judge. I don't agree with them, but they certainly are exercising their legal rights as citizens.’

Asked about the “lies” they’re accusing McCain of telling, the Obama campaign provided evidence that McCain in July 2008 told La Raza that he would have voted for the DREAM act, a bill that provides scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, even thought he earlier in the campaign season said he would have voted against the bill.

Let’s delver further into this.

In the November 2007, Myrtle Beach Sun-News, McCain said of the DREAM Act, which he had cosponsored in the past, "I think it has certain virtues associated with it. And I think other things have virtues associated with it. But the message is they want the borders secured first."

The newspaper noted that McCain said he’d vote against a temporary worker program, even though he supports the idea. "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders," he said. "There is no way we're going to enact piecemeal immigration reform."

Before La Raza, McCain was asked by a young Latina if he’d support the DREAM Act, and he said, “Yes. Yes.”

The full exchange, however, goes like this:

QUESTIONER: Hi. I’m a part of One Dream 2009 and I am one of the 6 million who either have an undocumented parent or is undocumented and I wanted to know if you would support humanity all around the world and support our Dream Act that we are trying to pass.

MCCAIN: Yes. Yes. Thank you. But I will also enforce the existing laws of a country. And a nation’s first requirement is the nation’s security, and that’s why we have to have our borders secured. But, we can have a way and a process of people obtaining citizenship in this country. And, we cannot penalize people who come here legally and people who wait legally. And so, that’s a fundamental principle on which we have to operate. Thank you.

The Obama campaign also provided a number of seemingly conflicting comments McCain has made about offering greater funding for education programs in the No Child Left Behind act -- telling the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in June that he “would fully fund those programs that have never been fully funded,” while not suggesting any greater funding for the bill when he’s talked about education in front of whiter audiences.

That ignores the fact that McCain has suggested reallocating the way the $23 billion for NCLB is spent.

McCain has changed his rhetoric and his emphasis when discussing immigration after almost losing the GOP presidential nomination because of it.

He now says the borders must be secured before anything else happens. And in that, he’s opened himself up to charges of flip-flopping, though the Obama campaign is quoting him selectively and unfairly to make their points.

The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.

It's Not Just Me

2008-09-17T22:26:00.003-04:00

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that Obama, Pelosi and Dean are looking to swing the Democratic Party way too far to the left: Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a top Clinton fundraiser, is supporting McCain-Palin because she, too, thinks some of the Democrats' leaders are too extreme.

Here's the story.

Revolution!

2008-09-17T11:22:00.000-04:00

Watch this video!

What America Should Do

2008-09-17T02:08:00.003-04:00

I received this e-mail today:

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans:

As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days.

It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that, effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

Then, every year after that, it'll go to our Social Security system so it won't go broke in 20 years.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third-world hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.

On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the Earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.

I have instructed the mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets, to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple of extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'Darn tootin.'

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness in America .

To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you, and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America .. Thank you and good night."

p.s. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

----------------------------

The only part I really don't like would be alienating Russia and China. Other than that, yeah, that would be great. America could take care of itself, and then worry about the rest of the world later -- while, of course, keeping our eyes on them so they don't start anything behind our back.

So What?

2008-09-16T14:36:00.002-04:00

Here's a short story from CNN:

(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.

The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

So what?

It seems silly to break someone's stones for using a teleprompter. The only thing I can find a problem with is that I wish ALL politicians, unless it's some landmark speech, would just talk about what they believe is the correct goal for American and specifically how the country will achieve it. I don't need superior eloquence or beautifully crafted words -- I need information, and I would rather it be presented off the top of a candidate's head rather than being scripted, but that doesn't seem to be coming any time soon.

Also, I do think that the story would have been reported the same way if it was a McCain story -- it's not a matter of a biased press here, it's a matter of a media pressed for material to fill the 24-hour cycle.

A Race War, Indeed

2008-09-16T14:23:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting column.

Yes, I think we are in a race war with this presidential race, and I think it was created by the Democrats.

They and Obama have set the stage for a win-win situation: If Obama wins, he wins; if he loses, then the left will simply say it was because of racism, not because more Americans agreed with the policies of his opponent.

And that, my friends, will be the beginning of a whole lot of hostility.

If the left tells blacks that their big chance was quashed by racism, no one is going to look at Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice or Colin Powell as examples of how blacks can achieve, it's going to be "whitey got us down" all over again, and the streets will be chaotic.

Don't believe me? Just wait. Hell, even I hope I'm wrong, because I live in an area where too many politicians and officials rely on the "racism" card to explain the lack of motivation and effort on the part of many minorities. Which is odd, considering that in many of Connecticut's worst cities -- New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford -- the "minorities" are actually in the majority, so logic would have it that those groups should be in control. Check out city-data.com for some interesting racial breakdowns of area municipalities, you might be surprised.

Libs Hate Free Speech

2008-09-16T14:07:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting read:

by John McCormick and Steven Schmadeke, updated

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat.

Monday night's target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time.

"The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don't gain credibility," an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads.

"David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering," the message said. "And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama -- on the public airwaves."

The Tribune-owned station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama's ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers.

A WGN producer said Monday night's response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

Very interesting indeed. I know that there are going to be some lefties who automatically look for ties between the radio station and the GOP (I believe the station is owned by Tribune) -- but that doesn't matter.

This is very simple: The Obama campaign is trying to control what the American public is allowed to listen to because they do not agree with it.

I've said it before -- the left loves free speech, as long as it's speech that supports the left. Dissent should be quashed, lest the public be allowed to listen to all sides and form their own opinion.

If there are inaccuracies in the author's work, then those inaccuracies should be confronted one by one to inform the people. But labeling his work "dishonest, extreme hate mongering" without saying what it is that's dishonest, or how it would incite "hate" is just silly.

And, while I'm at it, why is it that when a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they're offering "truth," but when a conservative disagrees with a liberal, it's "hate"? I'm pretty sick of the left using the word "hate" like they use the word "racism" -- to automatically get the ignorant public to shudder and ignore the dissenting opinion. Think homosexuality is weird? You're full of hate. Think illegal aliens should be deported? You must hate immigrants. Think sticking a fork in the brain of a baby 2 months before it's born is wrong? You must hate women.

When it comes down to it, the liberals are the ones who are intolerant haters.

Paper: McCain More Bipartisan

2008-09-15T16:37:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting story

ANALYSIS:

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

Read the rest HERE.

Maybe the 'Warmongers' Aren't Crazy After All, Huh?

2008-09-14T23:51:00.001-04:00

Check this out, from Reuters:

Saudi cleric wants death for TV "sorcerers"

14 Sep 2008 09:52:38 GMT

Source: Reuters

RIYADH, Sept 14 (Reuters) - A senior Saudi cleric has said purveyors of horoscopes on Arab television should face the death penalty, a paper said on Sunday, days after another cleric argued death for TV owners. "Sorcerers who appear on satellite channels who are proven to be sorcerers have committed a great crime ... and the Muslim consensus is that the apostate's punishment is death by the sword," Sheikh Saleh al-Fozan told al-Madina daily. In their capacity as judges, clerics of Saudi Arabia's austere form of Islam often sentence "sorcerers" to death. Fozan, a member of the Higher Council of Clerics, was responding to a controversy ignited by a Council colleague, Sheikh Saleh al-Lohaidan, who said last week that owners of Arab TV shows should be tried and face death over some shows. Lohaidan, who is the head of Saudi Arabia's Islamic sharia courts, told Saudi radio: "I want to advise the owners of these channels that broadcast programmes with indecency and vulgarity and warn them of the consequences ... They can be put to death through the judicial process." He was referring to comedy shows and soap operas airing in Ramadan, a month of fasting when Muslims are supposed to focus on God. Critics say Ramadan has become an orgy of food and television consumption once the fast ends at sunset. Fozan said entertainment channel owners should be "banished" but stopped short of advocating the death penalty for them. "The position of Muslims and their rulers about these channels is that they should be talked to and if they continue airing depravity and shamelessness they should be banished from this place and others brought in their place." Turkish soap operas that became hugely popular in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries this year provoked a storm of anger among Saudi conservatives who fear the spread of secular culture in the key U.S. ally. The owners of Arab entertainment channels, including MBC, ART, Orbit, Rotana and LBC, are mostly Saudi royals and businessmen closely allied to them. Concerned about the country's international image, some key members of the Saudi royal family have promoted liberal reforms. The clerics fear plans to limit their extensive influence in what is the world's largest oil exporter. (Reporting by Andrew Hammond; Editing by Richard Balmforth) "Those who call in to these shows should not be accorded Muslim rites when they die," the prominent cleric added. Many of the hundreds of Arab satellite channels have sprung up in recent years specialise in horoscopes and other advice to callers on solving problems that is seen as "sorcery". The government's official advisor on religious affairs, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al al-Sheikh, said in July it was not Islamically permissible to watch the Turkish serials.

With a Headline Like That ...

2008-09-14T23:45:00.001-04:00

... do you even have to read the story? Lindsay Lohan Lashes Out at Sarah Palin... Serious, though, read it, it's hilarious.

Sept. 11 Anniversary

2008-09-12T14:38:00.001-04:00

It's been 7 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ... so here's a thought from Ann Coulter:

BUSH 7, TERRORISTS 0
September 10, 2008

Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage -- but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.

On Keith Olbermann's Aug. 29 show on MSNBC, Michael Moore said the possibility of a Category 3 hurricane hitting the United States "is proof that there is a God in heaven." Olbermann responded: "A supremely good point."

Actually, Olbermann said that a few minutes later to some other idiotic point Moore had made, but that's how Moore would have edited the interview for one of his "documentaries," so I will, too. I would only add that Michael Moore's morbid obesity is proof that there is a Buddha.

Hurricane Gustav came and went without a hitch. What a difference a Republican governor makes!

As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure projects, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements.

Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.

If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings, like a certain impeached president I could name, he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.

A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.

Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)

There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.

As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.

For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies -- the sort of invective liberals usually reserve for seniors who don't separate their recyclables properly. Compared to liberals' anger at Bush, there has always been something vaguely impersonal about their "anger" toward the terrorists.

By my count, roughly one in four books in print in the world at this very moment have the words "Bush" and "Lie" in their title. Barnes & Noble has been forced to add an "I Hate Bush" section. I don't believe there are as many anti-Hitler books.

Despite the fact that Hitler brought "change," promoted clean, energy-efficient mass transit by making the trains run on time, supported abortion for the non-master races, vastly expanded the power of the national government and was uniformly adored by college students and their professors, I gather that liberals don't like Hitler because they're constantly comparing him to Bush.

The ferocity of the left's attacks on Bush even scared many of his conservative allies into turning on him over the war in Iraq.

George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.

That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.

OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Lesbians With Bad Taste

2008-09-12T14:31:00.004-04:00

I had no idea that Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian. Turns out she's going to marry her girlfriend.

I don't have a problem with lesbians, truly, I'm just wondering what's up with the whole "one has to look like a man" thing I see so often.

It confuses me. I mean, I'm ignorant about the preference thing -- if a woman likes other women, wouldn't she want one that looks like a woman? This one looks like an angst-ridden adolescent boy.

But, hey, ultimately she'll have to deal with Lindsay, who's one messed-up individual, so good luck to her!

But What Does Britney Think?

2008-09-12T14:21:00.002-04:00

So, Matt Damon is afraid of Sarah Palin, and now we find out that Pam Anderson thinks Palin should "suck it."

Well! I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Now all we need is to find out what Britney Spears thinks of the election, and then we can make a truly informed decision.

Really, how ridiculous is this?

Matt Damon, George Clooney, Sean Penn ... it's bad enough when half-wit actors and singers think they're political scientists (which they could have accomplished if they made it through high school), but Pam Anderson's only claim to fame is that she had HUGE fake boobs installed on her body, then made some movies of her having sex.

Someone needs to tell Pam that being an expert on foreign objects isn't the same as foreign policy.

Holy Crap, Batman!

2008-09-12T14:20:00.001-04:00

This is just funny. From the New York Post:

DC Comics is asking stores around the country to destroy tens of thousands of copies of a new Batman comic book because of a printing error that revealed a slew of obscenities.

"Text every friend you've got, s- - -heads," Batgirl tells a group of incredibly foulmouthed, drug-dealing thugs in "All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder" No. 10.

"Sell your poison somewhere else. This here arcade belongs to the f- - -ing Batgirl."

The S- and F-words were supposed to be blacked out, but two shades of black were used, and the expletives are clearly legible, as are the thugs' A- and F-words - and even a number of C-bombs.

While "All-Star Batman & Robin" isn't aimed at kids, it also doesn't have a "mature readers" warning on the cover.

DC caught the error earlier this week as the comic was heading to stores. They were able to stop some shipments, and asked retailers who got copies to destroy them.

DC said "a printing gaffe" caused "a problem with All-Star Batman. As soon as the problem was discovered, we quickly asked retailers to pull the issue. We apologize to our retailers and fans for any offense or inconvenience."

Several city comic-book stores said they had complied, but the book was sitting on the rack at St. Mark's Comics in the East Village yesterday.

"We've sold a lot," said store owner Mitch Cutler.

"We didn't destroy it because we couldn't know everyone would destroy it," Cutler said.

The comic is currently doing "Dark Knight"-like business on eBay, with copies selling for between $20 and $250.

Cutler was selling copies at his store for cover price, $2.99. "There's no need to inflate the price," he said. "It's wrong and evil and slimy."

Cutler said he hadn't sold any copies of the issue - or the entire series - to kids.

The title "has been full of adult content since the minute it was published. We'd never sell it to minors. The curse words make no difference."

ELECTION 2008 - Monday Roundup

2008-09-08T12:13:00.002-04:00

Here are some stories for your Monday:

-- Brit "comedian" calls America's president "a retard" and supports Obama. This, coming from a country that still bows to a queen.

-- Columnist says Democrats need to learn how to respect average Americans if they want their votes. Hey, vote Democrat, because we're here to help you, you backward redneck idiot with your flag and your gun.

-- Tammy Bruce talks about the election from a feminist perspective. Don't vote for a party platform, look at the bigger picture.

-- New al-Qaida video slams Iran for not being mean enough. We know you already kill gays and people who dance, but you're not killing enough fellow Muslims.

-- MSNBC puts political analysts Olbermann and Matthews back on analysis so they won't keep slanting the news. People complain about FOX's O'Reilly and Hannity, but those shows are labeled as 'analysis' and are not part of the 'news' presentation.

Chris Dodd and His Racist Remarks

2008-09-07T17:34:00.006-04:00

The Democrats are still the only ones using race so far in the presidential race, which comes as no surprise seeing as much of their policy focuses on manipulation of racial groups.

Sen. Christopher Dodd spoke at a rally in Connecticut Saturday, and he told people this:

Looking out into the diverse crowd at Saturday’s rally, Dodd said the view reminded him of the crowd at the Democratic convention in Denver last month. Watching the Republican convention on TV, he said the crowd looked “monochromatic.”

“I kept looking and it looked like the same person. ... It didn’t look like America at all. This looks like America,” he said, drawing wild applause.

What a wonderfully divisive and hateful thing to say.

This comes on the heels of maniac Howard Dean "accidentally" calling the Republican Party the "white" party.

And, Obama keeps telling us over and over again how the Republicans are going to talk about that fact that he's black.

But, the thing is, they haven't. And the liberals can't stand it.

They're trying like hell to make people think that the GOP is some racist hate group, and in the process they're showing that they're the only ones who seem to care about the color of someone's skin.

As for Dodd's silly remarks, I need to address several things about this irresponsible and divisive "speech":

-- People of all colors make up the Republican Party, and people of any color can be conservative.

-- I watched the RNC, too, and yes, there were lots of white people there. They didn't all look like the same person, though, Senator. What a stupid thing to say. A lot of your constituents are white, do you treat them differently because of it? Why does a person's color matter? So, because there may have been more varied ethnicities represented at your event Saturday, or at the DNC, does that somehow automatically make it better?

-- Dodd's comment would not be tolerated if he said it about any other group. If Dodd walked into an NAACP meeting and said, "Gee, it's dark in here. What am I, in Africa? You all look like the same person," can you even imagine the fallout? But as usual, the left is allowed to pick on whites and white Christians as much as they want.

-- Enough with the white guilt, Senator. You and your party have been at it for too long, trying to attach some sense of shame to being white, as if I personally cracked the whip in the cotton fields. If the majority of the GOP is white, so what? Anyone is allowed in, whether or not they join is up to them. The GOP doesn't count how many people are what color, because conservatives are more concerned with how people behave and contribute to society than they are about what color the person is.

-- Maybe part of the reason that the left has more "diversity" in its ranks is because it tries to manipulate blacks and Latinos by promising them victim status and handouts in exchange for votes. Look at it this way -- how much do you see liberals court blacks and Latinos? Now, how much do you see liberals court Asians? Not a whole lot of love for the Asians, there, and it's because Asians, for the most part, don't need the government and therefore the liberals don't need them. Anything the libs could promise Asians, Asians are already getting for themselves.

In the end, it's just another example of the Democrats' useless arguments and flawed thinking. They call other people racists, but they're the only ones basing anything on race.

As for Dodd ... well, I'm white, and I'm a conservative, so as far as I can tell, Dodd isn't planning on doing much for me, so I certainly won't give him my vote when runs for re-election.

The Pregnant Palin & Barack's Mom

2008-09-07T02:45:00.002-04:00

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, getting set to marry the father, and the left is having a blast with it.

Palin supported abstinence-only education, makes her daughter's pregnancy ironic (and pretty funny, truthfully), but not an uncommon thing.

So common is it, in fact, that Barack Obama's mother had him when she was 18, and it's uncertain if she and the father were married.

Here's a link to some information about Barack's mother and his "upbringing" from Snopes. (NOTE: Snopes is still in the process of identifying the origin of the information in order to verify its accuracy; I'm fairly comfortable with the dates, and that's the only info I'm really concerned with, I don't care much about his mom's political activities after she left him.)

So, aside from the amusing contradiction of the pregnancy and Palin's educational philosophy, how can liberals bring this up?

But they do, and that's just plain funny.

If they're going to mock Palin's daughter, they should mock Barack's mom, too, because they pretty much did the same thing -- met a guy, had sex and got pregnant. The only real difference is that if the Snopes article turns out to be true all the way through, then it seems Bristol Palin's kid will have a much different upbringing.

Wigging Out Over Hair

2008-09-07T02:30:00.002-04:00

Someone read my post concerning the Boston Herald's article about Gov. Sarah Palin's hairstyle and appearance, and took issue with it.

My post mocking the Herald for running they article, they said, was hypocritical because I had previously made fun of John Edwards' hair -- he totally reminds me of John Ritter back in the "Three's Company" days -- and also had mocked Edwards for spending $300+ on a haircut.

They asked, so it was OK for me to mock Edwards for his hair, but not for the Herald to talk about Palin's hair?

There's some very important differences:

I said Edwards looked like John Ritter, but I didn't say he looked bad. Heck, I wanted hair like Jack Tripper, too, but it was the '70s and I was 12.

Yes, I criticized Edwards' spending that much on a haircut. If it turns out Palin spends that much on her hair, then I'll call her an idiot, too.

I ranked on Edwards to a couple of people I work with -- I didn't write an article in the paper about it. If the Herald's story was just water cooler talk, it'd be different. But it wasn't water cooler gossip, it was a story by a major news outlet with a global audience.

So, I'm going to stick by my original post -- the day after a vice presidential candidate accepts her party's historic nomination, the last thing a major news outlet should be doing is running stories about her appearance. A responsible news outlet would immediately dig into any information they could get to let the public know her record, her stance on the issues and anything that should be taken into consideration when voters hit the polls -- in an objective, nonpartisan fashion.

ELECTION 2008 - Flag Flap

2008-09-06T16:11:00.002-04:00

Here's a story about a flag flap.

The McCain campaign says someone came across dozens of bags of miniature American flags left in and near trash bins following the Democratic National Convention in Colorado.

The McCain campaign says it took the flags and redistributed them at to people at a McCain rally Saturday.

The Obama campaign says that the flags were actually not discarded, but rather were taken by the McCain people as a publicity stunt.

The whole thing is just ridiculous. Either way, I don't know that it would show anything, other than perhaps people not putting their trash in the proper place, or not paying enough attention to discard unneeded flags elsewhere.

But, what makes it funnier to me is this:

"Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, released a statement saying McCain should applaud the fact that thousands of American flags were 'proudly waved' at their convention. 'But instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play out a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism,' he said."

Huh?

I'd applaud them if they stopped trying to enlarge the nanny state we already have. I'd applaud them if they didn't constantly encourage poor behavior through their social policies.

But, to me, it's as if they're saying people should congratulate Democrats for being patriotic enough to have -- gasp -- American flags at their convention.

To be fair, seeing as that was paraphrased, I don't know what the full quote from the spokesman was, so what he said may have been twisted around to make it sound like it sounded. I'll try to find it online.

But, for now, it's funny.

Transcript of Palin's Speech

2008-09-04T19:48:00.002-04:00

I was trying to confirm a quote from Gov. Palin's speech at the RNC, so I thought I would post it here as well.

I got it from the New York Times' Election 2008 section.

Palin’s Speech at the Republican National ConventionSeptember 3, 2008

The following is a transcript of Gov. Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.

PALIN: Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens, I will be honored to accept your nomination for vice president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America. And I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions, and met far graver challenges, and knows how tough fights are won, the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
(APPLAUSE)
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost, there was no hope for this candidate, who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. But the pollsters...
(APPLAUSE)
The pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain.
(APPLAUSE)
The voters knew better, and maybe that's because they realized there's a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
(APPLAUSE)
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. He's a man who wore the uniform of his country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who now have brought victory within sight.
(APPLAUSE)
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander-in-chief.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: I'm just one of many moms who will say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way. Our son, Track, is 19. And one week from tomorrow, September 11th, he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew, Casey (ph), also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is so proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
PALIN: So Track is the eldest of our five children. In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between, my strong and kind- hearted daughters, Bristol, and Willow, and Piper.
(APPLAUSE)
And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig.
You know, from the inside, no family ever seems typical, and that's how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a very, very special love. To the families of special-needs...
(APPLAUSE)
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message for you: For years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
And Todd is a story all by himself. He's a lifelong commercial fisherman and a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope, and a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And Todd is a world champion snow machine racer.
(APPLAUSE)
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in high school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy.
(APPLAUSE)
My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town. And among the many things I owe them is a simple lesson that I've learned, that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
And my parents are here tonight.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
Long ago, a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri, he followed an unlikely path -- he followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency. And a writer observed, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity," and I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America.
(APPLAUSE)
I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA.
(APPLAUSE)
I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.
(APPLAUSE)
So I signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education even better. And when I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and I knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska...
(APPLAUSE)
... I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved.
(APPLAUSE)
I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.
(APPLAUSE)
I might add that, in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
(APPLAUSE)
No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
(APPLAUSE)
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes and whoever is listening John McCain is the same man.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And...
(APPLAUSE)
... I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
PALIN: But -- now, here's a little newsflash. Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reason and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests. The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
(APPLAUSE)
No one expects us all to agree on everything, but we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart.
And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE) This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau, when I stood up to the special interests, and the lobbyists, and the Big Oil companies, and the good-old boys.
Suddenly, I realized that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up. And in short order, we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
(APPLAUSE)
I came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is a law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top.
(APPLAUSE)
I put it on eBay.
(APPLAUSE)
I love to drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef, although I got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her.
(APPLAUSE)
I came to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, but by veto, if necessary.
(APPLAUSE)
Senator McCain also -- he promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest. And as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
(APPLAUSE)
Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending, nearly $500 million in vetoes.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.
(APPLAUSE)
If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska.
(APPLAUSE)
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way that they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
(APPLAUSE)
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
(APPLAUSE)
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are open, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we're forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
(APPLAUSE)
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And...
(APPLAUSE)
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.
(APPLAUSE)
Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems, as if we didn't know that already.
(LAUGHTER)
But the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
(APPLAUSE)
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need...
(APPLAUSE)
We need American sources of resources. We need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.
(APPLAUSE)
And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot...
(APPLAUSE)
... when that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?
(APPLAUSE)
The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
(APPLAUSE)
Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan.
And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
My sister, Heather, and her husband, they just built a service station that's now open for business, like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they...
(APPLAUSE)
How are they going to be better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you are trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or in Ohio...
(APPLAUSE)
... or you're trying -- you're trying to create jobs from clean coal, from Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
(APPLAUSE)
You're trying to keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
(APPLAUSE)
How are you -- how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.
(APPLAUSE)
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speech- making, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.
(APPLAUSE)
They're the ones who are good for more than talk, the ones that we've always been able to count on to serve and to defend America.
Senator McCain's record of actual achievements and reform helps explain why so many special interests, and lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's a man who's there to serve his country and not just his party, a leader who's not looking for a fight, but sure isn't afraid of one, either.
(APPLAUSE)
Harry Reid, the majority of the current do-nothing Senate...
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
... he not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain."
Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man.
(APPLAUSE)
Clearly, what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain and that is only...
(APPLAUSE)
... that's only one more reason to take the maverick out of the Senate, put him in the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.
(APPLAUSE)
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death. And that man is John McCain.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, in our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world, the nightmare world in which this man and others equally brave served and suffered for their country.
And it's a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
(APPLAUSE)
PALIN: But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made. It's the journey of an upright and honorable man, the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this great country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on Earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless, the wisdom that comes even to the captives by the grace of God, the special confidence of those who have seen evil and have seen how evil is overcome. A fellow...
(APPLAUSE)
A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio...
(APPLAUSE)
... Tom Moe recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway by the guards, day after day.
And the story is told, when McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn towards Moe's door, and he'd flash a grin and a thumbs up, as if to say, "We're going to pull through this."
My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through the next four years.
(APPLAUSE)
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
(APPLAUSE)
If character is the measure in this election, and hope the theme, and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you, and God bless America. Thank you.

Liberal Media Gets Desperate

2008-09-04T12:04:00.002-04:00

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave a wonderful speech last night at the RNC.

She touched on many issues, from energy to taxes to education, and enjoyed a great reception from the audience.

I hit the Internet news sites this morning expecting some intelligent analysis of her speech.

Instead, the first thing I saw was a Boston Herald article criticizing Palin's hair.

Yup. Her hair.

Here's a link to the article.

It's pretty much what I've come to expect from the mainstream media, and also from a huge segment of the American population (which is why I am both a conservative AND a misanthrope): If you can't argue against a conservative's point, just make fun of them. That way, the debate will be about something other than the left's lack of policy sense.

Here's the extra bonus: The Herald also ran an article discussing Palin's "charmed political career" as if to say she magically went from regular mom to PTA to council to governor by luck.

They disregard the idea that maybe she was the best candidate.

They disregard the fact that she's had more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.

It's funny, in a way, because she's the left wing's worst nightmare -- a real candidate with experience, character, charisma and determination, but without skeletons in the closet or questionable associations.

So they'll make fun of her hair (although it's not fake, like Biden's), and say she is where she is because of luck (unlike Obama, who spent years voting 'present' instead of making decisions). They'll say she's inexperienced (although more experienced than the combined Dem ticket) and focus on the number of children she has (while Obama has 2 little girls of his own).

The left is going to dig its own grave if they try going after Palin, because she's better than their choice, and the more they try to criticize her, the more that's going to be apparent.

To hell with Obama, to hell with Biden, to hell with McCain. I'm voting for Palin.

Plainly Speaking

Another Victim of Political Correctness; Soros Media Puppets On Rampage

Consumers Have Power

Howard Dean is a Liar

Who Decided Paul McCartney Knows Anything?

Obama Administration Needs Dictionary

Obama Analysis from Washington Examiner

The Intolerance of the Left, Part XXI

Obama Wants You -- Unless You're a White Male

He Who Shall Not Be Named (Quiet Terrorism)

A Must-Read for Blumenthal Fans -- and Foes

Buying Booze for the Bums

More to Come

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

My ADHD: Started on Rush, Ended on Something Else

Maybe You Don't Like Glenn Beck, But I Don't Like Dylan Voltaire

Who's the idiot?by DylanVoltaire

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

The Times Conveniently Leaves Out Details

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The Intolerance of the Left

Conservative kiosk not allowed at mall

Something to Think About

Campaign Donors Get All the Good Stuff

Savage to Continue Libel Suit

Another Sotomayor-Connecticut Link

Voter Intimidation Now Accepted Behavior

Friday, May 29, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case

Sean Penn: A Fool You Shouldn't Believe In

Lack of Postings, Explained in an E-Mail

Who's Responsible?

Ten Thousand Words

Fairness Doctrine - From Multichannel News

Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine

Reimposition Could Undermine Kids TV Regulations, Public Radio

John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 1/28/2009 3:27:00 PM MT

A Poem That Borders on Obscene

Bailouts - When Do We Get Our Share?

Who's Really Against the Environment?

No Dodd About It, He's Full Of It

From WSJ Editorial Page :

Waiting for Dodd

Where are those Countrywide papers?

Dodd Bedfellows

Merry Christmas!

Coulter on Palin

Congressmen Get Raises Amid Recession

When You Need a Gun, Nothing Else Will Do

Thin Skin, Thick Heads

Claremont parents clash over kindergarten Thanksgiving costumes

Uh-Oh

Palin: First They Trashed Her, Now They Want Her

The Funniest Thing I've Seen In A While

Election 2008

Puppies!

Woman Gets KKK-illed

Militant Gays Are Such a Turn-Off

Fire alarm pulled

No arrests made

Things to Come

Some Words

Election Day Reading

Get Your Tissues

On the Street in North Branford

Biden Interview, Angry Liberals

Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden

Spooky, Very Spooky

Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy

Some Election Reading

The Fairness Doctrine

The Most Convincing Argument For Obama So Far

From WSJ: The Liberal Supermajority

A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

The Truth About Gun Control

Cultural Differences Lead to Jail Time

Murtha: Only Racists Don't Vote Obama

Political Thoughts From E-Mail

Important 'Bailout' Reading