Folks, this one is unbelievable in its minimization of an anti-Semitic terror attack in the formerly free nation known as Venezuela.
Small grenade lobbed at Jewish centre in Venezuela
Yeah, it is one more example of the anti-Semitic violence encouraged by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. But hey, it was only a small grenade, so it really isn't that big a deal.
"Woman raped with small penis"?
Isn't the point here that there was yet another act of anti-Semitic violence in a country and a world where such violence is becoming more acceptable -- and is even encouraged by political and opinion elites over current economic woes and Israel's willingness to defend itself against terrorists seeking its extinction.
If you ever needed proof that there are too many government regulations and too many government officials enforcing them, this is it.
A Cedar Rapids group will do a symbolic tea dumping into the Cedar River on Saturday because state officials won’t let them use the real thing.
An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.
Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that can’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNR’s Manchester field office.
“Discoloration is considered a violation,” Wade said.
Where are Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty when we really need them?
And where are the tar and feathers?
Having already alienated large segments of the GOP base, I guess Gov. Rick Perry has decided that the surest path to reelection is to start digging for dirt on his primary opponent.
Gov. Rick Perry's re-election campaign has been asking Dallas City Hall for information concerning rival Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and her husband, a signal that the campaign could turn personal.
Ray Hutchison is a prominent bond attorney who has represented public agencies for decades.
Perry has promised a vigorous campaign if Hutchison challenges him in the March 2010 Republican primary, as she has said she will.
"We're interested, as most Texans would be, in how Senator Bailout's husband's bond business has benefited from her job in D.C.," said Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner, using a nickname the campaign has applied to the senator for her support of the federal government's initial financial-industry assistance plan.
Ray Hutchison told the Dallas Morning News the Perry campaign has filed such open-records requests all across the state and that their fishing expedition was "stupid." He said he has not benefited from his wife's position as senator.
"I don't know what she does. I don't communicate with her staff," he said.
Hutchison's campaign said the request shows Perry intends to run a negative campaign.
"On the heels of some bad poll numbers, Rick Perry is taking the low road for an election that's 13 months away," said Rick Wiley, Hutchison's campaign manager. "Republicans don't want that kind of campaign, but he's already showing his hand and decided to go down that road. It's vintage Rick Perry."
I’m struck by several things in the article.
First, the distinct lack of class shown by Perry spokesman Miner. I’ve yet to see the Hutchison campaign refer to the incumbent as “Governor Goodhair” or any other derogatory nickname.
Second, I’m struck by the sleazy innuendo. Miner states that they are checking to see “how” Hutchison’s husband benefited from her work as a Senator, not if it had benefited. This is an effort to imply that Ray Hutchison’s business has benefited, and that any benefits have been illicit. If Perry wants to make such a claim, let him produce some evidence to back it up.
Third, I’m rather amused by the sort of stuff that has been requested.
The request, dated Feb. 24, asked Mayor Tom Leppert's office for copies of all documents in which Kay Bailey Hutchison's name appears with the words bond, bonds, funds, funding or project.
It also asks for any letters or correspondence to Hutchison or her office seeking federal action or support and any "letters of acknowledgment and thanks."
Good grief, the Perry campaign is even after thank you notes! That’s a sure sign that we are seeing the campaign of a desperate and pathetic incumbent who wants to cling to power by any means necessary.
Excuse me, but upon what possible basis does a white liberal presume to define the appropriate political and social beliefs for an African-American, and to declare an African-American as “self-hating” if he or she fails to hold to the proper views as defined by that white liberal?
That is the question I’d like to ask racist white liberals Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann after their disgusting performance on Olbermann’s hate television show yesterday. After these two hacks engage in psychological profiling of women who like (or, even worse, date) Rush Limbaugh, they decide to trash GOP Chairman Michael Steele for the high crime of being a black Republican.
JANEANE GAROFALO: She dated him, so either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome – a lot like Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about self-loathing.
GAROFALO: Yeah, and there’s, any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.
Excuse me? Where did that homely little troll of a woman come up with Michael Steele in that context? It seems almost a little too convenient that she just happens to have a black man immediately in mind to insult for not hewing to her white liberal notion of what proper political beliefs and voting behavior is for a black man. And Olbermann is all too ready to pile on, because the fact that any black man would fail to hold political views congruent with his own is inconceivable unless they are suffering from some psychological disorder. Interestingly enough, neither of these individuals has anything approaching the sort of education or credentials necessary to make such a diagnosis – but hey, as white liberals they are better than the rest of us and are only making such statements about Chairman Steele for his own good and that of any confused black folks who might believe that they are permitted to think for themselves or hold deviant views.
Really, it seems to me that an independent thinking black man like Michael Steele is the polar opposite of the sort of person who has Stockholm Syndrome. After all, such individuals are prone to seeking approval from their more powerful captors. Steel does not do that – indeed, he rebels against ersatz superiors like Garofalo and Olbermann. On the other hand, I can think of a prominent African-American liberal politico who does appear to crave the approval of white liberal elitists like Janeane and Keith…
UPDATE: Over at Gay patriot, there is a great post on this same topic -- from the perspective of one who is often accused of hating himself because he dares to hew to the conservative values of the GOP.
After being released from his confinement at Club Gitmo, a British jihadi is now complaining that it is simply too cold in Great Britain.
Binyam Mohamed, the British resident released from US detention base Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, has told friends that Britain is too cold.
The 30-year-old was flown back to the UK on Monday after more than four years in the controversial US military detention centre.
But since arriving back in the country the former Al Qaeda suspect has told supporters he is finding it difficult to adjust to the British climate after four years in Cuba.
Temperatures at the detention centre at this time of year are about 26C, compared with 10C in London.
Moazzem Begg, a fellow former Guantanamo detainee, said Mr Mohamed was in "good spirits" but was struggling to cope with the weather, according to the Daily Express newspaper.
He added: "He's been wearing a jacket most of the time."
Seems to me that we could solve this problem by shipping him back to Guantanamo Bay – and then continuing with prosecuting him for his part in the dirty bomb plot. Following a conviction, we could then send him on his way to somewhere with an even warmer destination for all eternity.
You know, since President Obama has said he opposes reviving the policy, it should be a no-brainer for all the loyal Democrats in the House of Representatives to join with the Republicans to keep speech free on radio and television.
The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.
The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.
The problem, of course, is not one of denying equal time to liberals – if people wanted to listen to liberal talkers such shows would flourish. The problem is that programming in the broadcast industry is based upon what viewers and listeners want to see and hear. Liberal talk radio has failed time and again, even when it has had big bucks placed behind it. Even in liberal Washington, DC, a liberal talk station folded due to lack of listenership. Just as it would be nuts to require that hip-hop stations play a certain number of country and classic rock songs each day no matter what the listeners want, it is equally crazy to tell talk stations that they must program shows that their audience does not want to hear. And rest assured that if the Fairness Doctrine were to return, the next step would be to insist that there be balance in how the unpopular liberal shows were placed – no running Ed Schultz and his ilk at oh-dark-thirty while placing the top-rated national shows (all conservative) during prime listening hours. The end result would be stations abandoning the talk format – and the AM band left barren.
Better to slay this beast now to stop the ideological censorship of the broadcast media.
If I plead guilty to murder, I am no longer an alleged murderer.
If you plead guilty to stealing from your employer, you are no longer an alleged thief.
Why is it that a guy who has entered a plea of guilty on charges of terrorism is called an “alleged terrorist” in this article?
Where criminal activity – planning for terrorist attacks – is taking place.
Here’s the background.
As federal authorities press their case against a Tustin man accused of lying about ties to Al-Qaeda, they disclosed this week that some evidence came from an informant who infiltrated Orange County mosques and allegedly recorded the defendant discussing jihad, weapons and plans to blow up abandoned buildings.
On Wednesday, a man who claims to be that informant stepped forward, filing court documents saying that he had served as a confidential informant for the FBI from July 2006 to October 2007 to identify and thwart terrorist operations in the Orange County Islamic community.
* * *
Monteilh said in interviews that he had alerted the FBI to Niazi after meeting him at the Islamic Center of Irvine in November 2006 and spending eight months with him. Monteilh said he called himself Farouk Al-Aziz and posed as a Syrian-French American in search of his Islamic roots. Monteilh told the FBI that Niazi befriended him and began to lecture him about jihad, gave him lessons in bomb-making and discussed plots to blow up Orange County landmarks.
"He took me under his wing and began to radicalize me," Monteilh said.
The fine folks at CAIR, however, reacted to the arrest of Ahmadullah Sais Niazi with expressions of deep concern – that the FBI would dare look for jihadis at a mosque.
Ayloush said he was "100% sure" that Monteilh was the informant in question and expressed anger and disappointment that the FBI would infiltrate mosques. He accused officials of trying to entrap innocent Muslims, noting that Monteilh has been convicted of grand theft and forgery in the past. He said Muslims had worked hard to develop a partnership with the FBI -- and had been assured by J. Steven Tidwell, then assistant director in charge of the Los Angeles field office, at an Irvine forum in 2006 that their mosques were not being monitored. Now, Ayloush said, he has doubts about future relations with the FBI.
"This is religious profiling at its worst," Ayloush said about the FBI operation.
“Religious profiling at its worst”? Really? Given the nature of the enemy we fight, an enemy with an ideology explicitly grounded in Islam and which operates with the blessing of Muslim religious leaders around the world, why wouldn’t we look for wannabe jihadis in mosques? Indeed, how could it possibly be seen as responsible for law enforcement to not look for them there? And why is CAIR more concerned about the fact that the FBI looked for potential terrorists in mosques than it is that the Bureau actually FOUND one there?
Of course, given CAIR’s well-documented ties to terrorist organizations over the years….
I could have sworn that Barack Obama and his supporters told me that this constituted torture, and that such a policy was unworthy of the best traditions of the United States.
CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters. . . , also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.
I don’t remember which distinguished blogger pointed out that promises by Barack Obama all appear to carry an expiration date. Well, this would certainly appear to be one more example of that. And while I generally agree with the policy shift, I can’t help but be struck by the inconstancy that the new chief executive is showing. Just call it one more sign of the fact that Barack Obama really needed a few more years of seasoning to gain the experience and wisdom to be an effective, competent president – especially when it comes to dealing with issues of national security.
I’m curious, though – will Barack Obama ever come out and apologize for his criticism of George W. Bush over a “torture” policy that he has now adopted himself.
And I wonder – since Obama has adopted the Bush policy that detainees outside the US in places such as Afghanistan have no rights under the US Constitution, will he do the right thing and ship the Gitmo jihadis to Afghanistan?
You know, the sort that the media won't cover because it is articulated by "mainstream" liberal journalists like Chris Matthews and Helen Thomas. Both decided to make cheap shots at Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal over his Indian heritage.
First Matthews, whose comment may well be seen as the least egregious of the two. After years of seeing customer service jobs relocated to India by companies, is it really appropriate for a political commentator to state that having the nation's only Indian-American governor give the response to President Obama constitutes "outsourcing"?
They had to outsource the response tonight, the Republican party. They had to outsource to someone who had nothing to do with Congress because the Republicans in Congress had nothing to do with the programs he was talking about tonight or the record he referred to.
Aside from the racist slam, it is interesting to note that Matthews is ignoring the fact that Jindal was a member of Congress before winning election as governor.
And then there is Helen Thomas. The malignant old bat decided to yuck it up by making a "Slumdog Millionaire" joke.
“Bobby Jindal was ‘pitiful,’ Helen Thomas tells film crew, right before making a ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ crack.”
Yeah, I know -- the film is topical. But if the Left really wants to argue that the recent chimp cartoon in the NY Post is racist, let's use the same standard across the board. Where's the outrage?
UPDATE: Looks like liberal talk show host Mike Malloy decided to turn the American-born Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal into Apu the convenience store clerk.
Anyone familiar with life in Houston knows that one of the top charitable organizations in town is the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. They put on a great show every year, and raise lots of money for scholarships and educational programs. Most of the work is done by volunteers, and you reach the board through DECADES of volunteer activity.
That isn’t good enough for some members of the race ho and poverty pimp community, who want to make sure that their hand-picked “minority representatives” get on the board without those years of service and that their preferred minority contractors get a piece of the pie without giving the lowest bids.
State Sen. Mario Gallegos said he will be filing a bill Friday that would require the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo to contract with more minority-owned businesses, include minorities on its board and comply with open records requests. Gallegos said he and other minority leaders urged action on the same issues during a meeting last week with rodeo officials but were told that the rodeo could not address their demands — it has a show to put on starting next week. “It’s time they break the good ole boy system and start doing what’s right, period,” said Johnny Mata, the former head of the local chapter of League of United Latin American Citizens, who attended the meeting. “I am a firm believer that we can meet halfway.” Gallegos, a Houston Democrat, said he is filing the bill because rodeo officials refused to go forward with non-binding mediation overseen by a U.S. Department of Justice division that works to settle minority-related disputes. “They just told the DOJ they thought it was pointless,” Gallegos said. “I want to know what they do with their money. They are the largest cash cow in Houston.” The rodeo generates more than $80 million in revenues annually.
And that’s what it really comes down to – the money, the disposition of which is already easily tracked through publicly available reports filed pursuant to their non-profit status. Let’s call this what it really is – a race-based shakedown. It is one that is tried virtually every year.
Hey, Johnny Mata -- let's make the board of LULAC reflect the ethnic composition of Harris County, open all of its records in the same fashion as the rodeo, and guarantee that its contracts are properly distributed based upon the ethnic spoils system you want to impose upon the rodeo.
And regardless – leave the rodeo alone.
Throughout the Prop 8 fight last year, the California NAACP was a strong ally for marriage equality. Yesterday, the national NAACP came out strongly against Prop 8, as well.
Remember -- a majority of African-American voters supported Prop 8 last fall. Indeed, the sane thing has been true in every state where the people have been permitted to take a stand on gay marriage -- African-Americans have supported traditional marriage of one man and one woman. So who does the NAACP really represent?
I don't regret anything I did it to oppose the war. It was -- I did it to oppose the war. I don't regret it.
Remember -- this is the man who helped launch the career of the current President of the United States. Do you really feel comfortable with Barack Obama making policy for the War on Terrorism?
Too bad Alan Colmes wasn't so keen to get this sort of admission before the election.
It must suck to see your approval rate sink so dramatically in only a month.
For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.
At this rate, we're going to be seeing Obama reach lows that it took 7 years for George W, Bush to reach.
H/T Don Surber
A federal appellate panel has overruled the long-standing principal that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.
In the second rerun incident, a three-judge panel in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upended a long-held rule of law that “truth is an absolute defense” when someone is sued for libel. The opinion has surprised some experts on libel — and, if ultimately upheld, would uproot basic legal tenets of free speech and the law.
The judges reviewed Noonan v. Staples, a case involving an employee of a business-supply firm who sued the company after an executive sent an e-mail to about 1,500 employees detailing why the employee had been fired for what the company said was falsifying expense reports.
The court’s opinion said that even if the factual account sent to other workers were true, and apparently it was, the employee involved might be able to recover damages if the e-mail was sent maliciously — in this case, to humiliate the former employee. The judges sent the case back to a lower court in Massachusetts for reconsideration.
In other words, the mere fact that you have spoken truthfully will no longer be let your words be protected by the First Amendment -- a judge will be permitted to decide if you had sufficiently good cause to speak the truth, or whether your motives for doing so were base enough to strip you of your rights under the Constitution.
Just imagine what mischief could be made if this ruling is allowed to stand. Truthful statements would become actionable – presumably even those directed against public figures and public officials. Could you imagine, just as an example, what Bill Clinton could have done with such a precedent during the Lewinsky scandal? He’d have managed to close down most of the conservative media – after all, there was certainly a lot of malice involved in the way in which the story was handled, even though the details of the case were certainly true. Do we really want the free flow of truthful information to stifled by the threat of a libel suit?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been ill in recent weeks with pancreatic cancer. That is not an illness which gives one a great prognosis. Acknowledging that is one thing – but explicitly coming out and stating that the woman is going to die soon is rude, crude, and both socially and morally unacceptable.
And one more reason the GOP needs to find someone to run against Senator Jim Bunning in the 2010 GOP primary.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) warned a Kentucky GOP group Saturday that the fight over a new Supreme Court justice could come soon as Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is likely to die shortly.
In a speech to the Hardin County Republican Party at the group's annual Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said Ginsburg has "bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," according to a report in the Louisville Courier-Journal.
Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer earlier this year and had surgery at a New York hospital Feb. 5. The surgery to remove Ginsburg's spleen and part of her pancreas was a success, according to a Supreme Court press release, and she is expected to be back in court to hear oral arguments on Monday.
"Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live" after being diagnosed with the dangerous form of cancer, Bunning said.
Interestingly enough, today was Justice Ginsburg’s first day back at work at the Supreme Court – the first of what I hope are many more.
In direct contravention of the US Constitution (Article III, Section 3), Obama supporters want to bring back the Great Treason statute of King Edward III.
When a man doth compass or imagine the death of the King, . . . [he] ought to be judged treason which extendeth to the King and his royal Majesty. . . .
After all, how else can you explain the outraged call for investigations, governmental action, etc on the basis of a chimp cartoon that may or may not have been directed at Barack Obama (I’d argue not)? Especially when some overwrought partisans go so far as to claim that the cartoon was “inviting the assassination of President Obama"?
Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.
The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.
Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.
The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.
Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department’s decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and “enormously disappointing”.
Now where are the protests in the streets? Where are the outraged celebrities?
And where are the apologies to George W. Bush, whose policy is being maintained by the Obama regime after Obama condemned it during the campaign.
I don't often link to CBSNews -- but this piece on the ceremony awarding the Navy Cross to two Marines who chose to sacrifice their lives that others might live reduced me to tears when I came across it last night.
I have a number of former student in the Marines (as well as other branches of the military) right now, and I hope that they are capable of living up to the standard of courage and selflessness set by Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter and Cpl. Jonathan Yale.
In a stunning reversal of all of the rhetoric of the Democrats and other leftists over the last several years, the Obama Administration has issued a report that indicates that the Guantanamo By facility used to detain jihadi scum meets the requirements of the Geneva Convention.
A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions. But it makes recommendations for improvements including increasing human contact for the prisoners, according to two government officials who have read parts of it.
I wonder when the apologies to George W. Bush will start.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
In what may be among the more shameful moments in American diplomatic history, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the repudiation of a central premise of our nation’s founding document on behalf of the Obama Administration during a visit to one of the most repressive states on Earth.
Human rights violations by China cannot block the possibility of significant cooperation between Washington and Beijing on the global economic crisis, climate change and security threats such as North Korea's nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday.
"We pretty much know what they are going to say" on human rights issues such as greater freedoms for Tibet, Clinton told reporters traveling with her on a tour of Asia. "We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere" with dialogue on other crucial topics.
Because after all, we can’t let little things like the Red Chinese regime’s wholesale violation of the fundamental rights due its citizens to interfere with other, more pressing matters.
No doubt the Secretary of State and the President she represents are hoping that this courageous reordering of American priorities will win them this years’ Neville Chamberlain Prize for Achievement in Diplomacy and the Stalin Prize for the Advancement of Freedom.
Ted Rall, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, doesn't think Wednesday's New York Post editorial cartoon was penned by a racist. But he does think it was a "misfire," a "cheap form of editorial cartooning" that fails to carry any real commentary or message and is common in major publications today.
The cartoon wasn’t very good – but it wasn’t at all racist.
Indeed, I’d argue that the uproar tells us more about those outraged than it does about those responsible for the cartoon and its publication.
And interestingly enough, a lot of cartoonists are feeling the heat over how to draw Obama.
How far our nation has descended from following the paths of righteousness into worshiping at the feet of a mere man!
Americans named President Obama as their No. 1 hero, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, in a new Harris poll. Others in the top 10, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa.
Once can, of course, argue that including Jesus is not entirely appropriate, given his divinity.
Now were I to list my personal top 10 – excluding Jesus – it would look like this.
1) Ronald Reagan
2) Martin Luther King
3) John Paul II
4) Robert E. Lee
5) Abraham Lincoln
6) Margaret Thatcher
7) Winston Churchill
8) Charles Martel
9) Thomas Jefferson
10) Douglas MacArthur
H/T Hot Air
Israeli President Shimon Peres chose hard-line Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new Israeli government on Friday, ending days of speculation and giving Netanyahu six weeks to put together a ruling coalition.
The question now is whether Netanyahu will form a narrow government with his hard-line allies or a broad government along with his centrist rival, Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni. His choice will have serious ramifications for the Mideast peace process.
Peres made his announcement early Friday afternoon after holding meetings with Netanyahu and Livni. An official ceremony appointing Netanyahu was to be held shortly afterward.
My hope is that Netanyahu forms a government without Kadima, given that Israelis rejected the left-wing and voted strongly for conservative parties. A centrist regime would not really meet the needs of Israel, either -- especially since Livni demands that Netanyahu agree to a rotating premiership.
Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.
"The Democratic National Committee has not yet paid us,'' Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city's Office of Budget and Management, said Thursday after questions from the Chicago Sun-Times. "We're reaching out to them this week."
Funny, mayor Daley was shocked and offended by suggestions that Obama and the Dems might stiff the city for the bill back in November. Guess we know who looks the fool now.
When you don’t have an actual scandal to complain about, why not create one out of nothing – or less than nothing. We’ve seen that tried this week over the Chimp Cartoon – and now a writer at HuffPo has used a faked recording of Fox News host John Gibson to gin up a scandal.
At the end of a long and pointless conversation between two Fox News reporters covering a zoo escape, John Gibson compared Attorney General Eric Holder to a monkey.
A monkey escaped from the Woodland park Zoo in Seattle and despite the fact that authorities are "taking this very seriously," Julie Banderas and Harris Faulkner were not, cracking jokes about the monkeys' bright blue scrotum.
At 2:48, they toss to John Gibson who complains that he can't get away with saying "bright blue scrotum" on the radio then follows that up by saying, "We were talking about Eric Holder today on the radio and his bright blue scrotum."
Given the journalistic standards Arianna “PuffHo” Huffington, it isn’t surprising that the writer, Alex Leo, didn’t bother to check out the recording closely enough to determine that it was a fake. After all, Gibson is the enemy to these folks, so just run with it and destroy the man’s reputation.
Only after it was irrefutably proved by conservative bloggers that the recording was a hoax did Leo and HuffPo issue a retraction/apology.
As John Gibson notes, this is part of a pattern intended to delegitimize him --conservative voices in the media.
Imagine that you are a member of law enforcement. You are at your church. In a pew some rows ahead of you, you recognize someone who you know has a warrant out for his arrest and a history of previous violent crimes. What do you do?
On a Sunday morning, in a church sanctuary near Conroe, an off-duty immigration agent tapped Jose Juan Hernandez on the shoulder and asked him to step outside.
A 31-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico with three prior deportations, Hernandez quietly followed the agent and promptly was detained on suspicion of illegal re-entry after deportation, said Gregory Palmore, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman in Houston.
The case would be unremarkable, except for the setting. The fact that Hernandez was detained in church has sparked controversy locally. Hernandez was arrested Oct. 26, pleaded guilty to the re-entry charge this month and is scheduled for sentencing in April. He remains in federal detention in Conroe. Hernandez’s attorney, Rick Soliz, said he plans to file a complaint against the ICE agent in connection with the arrest.
“I wonder what the agent was thinking, if he was thinking at all,” Soliz said. “How do you decide to do that in the middle of a religious service?”
I guess I don’t see the problem. We don’t recognize the concept of sanctuary under our laws. Indeed, it would be quite an offense against the First Amendment if our laws did so. And given that the entire incident came off in an unobtrusive manner that didn’t create a disturbance, I’d argue that the agent ought to be praised, not condemned.
While I personally don’t find “Abort Obama” to be a particularly helpful bit of political rhetoric, I also recognize that it is not a death threat. So would most folks. Too bad some cops in Oklahoma are incapable of doing the same.
The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.
The sign was quickly returned by the department, where higher-ups recognized the First Amendment violation that had occurred. But by that time the Secret Service was on his doorstep.
'The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.
After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.
''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."
Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial."
''We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said.
He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.
I’m curious – what would they have done if they had found that Harrison was a member of a “hate group”? Membership in “hate groups” is not illegal – and expression of extreme political sentiments (and Harrison’s position is hardly extreme) is fully protected by the Constitution.
Here’s hoping that this law-abiding patriot, who dares to dissent from the pro-abortion orthodoxy of the Obama regime, files a lawsuit of sufficient size to quell the tendency of some law enforcement officers to violate the right of Americans to freely engage in political expression.
I won’t defend it – I think it is in poor taste.
Because there is a seriously injured woman fighting to recover after the real chimp attack – not because of any slight, real or imagined, to Barack Obama.
Let me explain.
1) Barack Obama and his administration didn’t write the stimulus bill – it was a product of an all-Democrat team assembled by Pelosi and Reid to write the bill. Thus the comment from the cop cannot legitimately be taken as referring to President Obama.
2) Even if Barack Obama had personally written every word of the stimulus bill, I would not find the uses of the chimp imagery to be inappropriate. Such imagery was directed against George W. Bush for eight years without a word of complaint from any liberal that I ever encountered. If it was acceptable for President 43, then President 44 is an equally legitimate target of such barbs.
3) Barack Obama is President of the United States. He happens to be black. He is not the African-American President. We degrade the office, the man, and his accomplishments if we give Obama a special pass or special protection from certain criticism or certain imagery that would be otherwise acceptable if directed against a President of another race.
Now let me take matters a step further. The cartoon itself is not an act of racism – and more to the point is certainly not an act of intentional racism. The reality is that the chimp imagery is, lamentably, topical due to the Connecticut chimp attack of earlier this week. It is not as if someone up and decided to put a chimp in a cartoon for no apparent reason. Similarly, this isn’t a call for an assassination because the chimp in the cartoon was shot and killed – it was a direct play on the tragic events just a few days before in which the crazed primate was shot and killed.
Should the cartoon have run? I’d argue that the best answer is a negative one. It isn’t funny. It is subject to misinterpretation because it is not clear. It is insensitive to the seriously injured victim. But in the end it just isn’t racist.
Or if it is, it is certainly less racist than these two noted cartoons about a prominent African-American in public life who was the subject of indisputably racist treatment in editorial cartoons which was met with silence by the same folks who are righteously outraged when they perceive a slight directed at Barack Obama.
Now am I ignoring that there has been a lamentable history of depicting blacks as apes and chimps? Not at all – but I’m also not ignoring the fact that when we place this cartoon in context there is little reason to argue that Obama’s race was the (or even a) motivating factor in the cartoon (especially since I don’t believe is even intended to reference Obama). And rest assured that when and if I see actual racism directed at Barack Obama, I’ll condemn it. But in the (probably apocryphal) words of one Sigmund Freud, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” – and I think this one is merely a cigar.
By the way, I would like to note two recent ways in which I have used a chimp reference in relation to Barack Obama – both times to draw parallels to the sort of disdainful treatment received by George W. Bush during his time in office. In a couple of instances, to parody the deranged ravings of too many Leftists who for eight years have referred to the former president as “Chimpy McHitlerBurtion” or some variation thereof, I have referred to Obama as “Chimpy al-Hussein bin-Osama” in a satirical fashion. Similarly, I asked a couple of pointed questions – one of which related to the classification of George W. Bush as a chimp by liberals – in this post about the desire of Obama’s handlers have the capacity to electronically feed the President answers during press conferences:
>Even George W. Bush could competently deal with the media. Apparently Barack Obama cannot do so. In light of that, I’d like to know who the real dummy is, which one really operates at the level of a trained chimp? After all, Bush may not have been as pretty as Barack or have been a polished orator behind a teleprompter, but at least he could answer questions from reporters without being programmed by someone else.
Again, the chimp reference is not racial slur – it is set forth to offer a comparison to eight years of derogatory references to the intelligence and abilities of George W. Bush, who could answer press questions unaided despite lacking Obama’s oratorical gifts and alleged soaring intellect. In no way did race even enter my thought process.
And ancient myths and historical stories.
No one with any sense takes offense at the teaching of Greek and Roman mythology. After all, the stories are fundamental to so much of Western culture over the last three millennia. But out of concern for secular values and sensitivity to members of other faiths, the literature of the Bible is often overlooked in our educational system today, despite its centrality to so many of the literary, artistic, and musical works of Western civilization.
Fortunately, one Brit gets it – and is getting a lot of attention for saying so in public.
Children are being robbed of their heritage because schools are failing to cover classic Bible and history stories, the Poet Laureate warned yesterday.
Andrew Motion called for all children to study the Bible at school for its 'great' educational stories such as the temptation of Adam and Eve, the siege of Jericho and battle between David and Goliath.
He warned that traditional stories were in danger of disappearing from public knowledge because they are no longer being properly imparted to children at school.
Too many students arriving at university to study literature or history have merely a 'sketchy' knowledge of Bible stories, history stories and Greek and Roman myths, and would struggle on their courses as a result, he said.
And please remember – Motion is not a believer. He considers the bible to be nothing more than a book of myths and legends, but he recognizes the fundamental power of what it contains. So, too, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans, which too many of our children know only from video games and animated films. And as for the history – I often despair when I find that stories I took for granted as a kid are unknown to too many of my students. In our push for modernity, we are losing so much of our cultural heritage.
But then again, we have too many young people who have been saturated with a modern media culture that does not really value knowledge or deep thought – or even basic skills. In recent years I’ve been told that “books today are called movies” and “since history is in the past it doesn’t matter because I’m going to live in the future.” And just yesterday, I had a 9th grader tell me that she wasn’t sure what time it was because “I don’t understand what the pointy things on that kind of clock mean.” Will they know where we are headed in the future if they do not understand the past?
A gathering of Muslim leaders in Turkey is calling for a “third front” in the worldwide jihad.
The conference, dubbed the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign, also gave impetus to Sunni clerics concerned about the growing power of Hezbollah, the Shia movement backed by Iran, which rose to international prominence in its own war with Israel in 2006.
"Gaza is a gift," the Saudi religious scholar Mohsen al-Awajy told me. He and other delegates repeatedly referred to the Gaza war as "a victory".
"Gaza," he continued, "gives us power, it solves our differences. We are all now in a unified front against Zionism."
In closed meetings after sessions delegates focussed on the creation of a "third Jihadist front" - the first two being Afghanistan and Iraq. The intensity of the Israeli attack had "awakened all Muslims," Mr Awajy claimed.
"Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad (holy war)," he added.
Let us clarify – based upon the Quran, history, and the words of those in attendance at this conference, this is nothing less than a call for the extermination of the Israeli people.
The time has come for every person in every free society to pick a side.
The choice is clear,
Side with the one liberal democratic state in the Middle East. Or side with the forces of seventh-century barbarism combined with modern weaponry and terrorist methods.
Because once they are done with the Jews, the next target will be the liberal democratic nations of the West – or at least those which have not submitted to dhimmitude.
So do we in the West stand with Israel – or with the terrorists?
I know which side I’m on.
Shall we guess whether this latest revelation will lead to the Democrats to get this alligator out of Nancy Pelosi’s Corruptocrat swamp? Or will we instead see them pull John Murtha still closer?
A $100,000 fundraiser for Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) held last year at a big-game ranch in Western Pennsylvania may have violated campaign-finance rules, according to campaign-finance experts.
Campaign-finance records do not reflect any payments from Murtha to LBK Game Ranch or the company’s president, Bill Kuchera, for the use of the site for the Aug. 21 fundraiser. The records also contain no mention of in-kind donations from Kuchera to Murtha’s campaign for the event.
Federal election law allows private citizens to host fundraisers at their residences, and campaigns are not required to reimburse the hosts for costs associated with these types of events or to list the donation of space as an in-kind contribution in campaign-finance records.
Under that rule, a married couple can host a fundraiser in their home and spend up to $2,000 without triggering any campaign-finance disclosure laws. Single people may spend up to $1,000 of their own money on these events.
But campaign-finance experts say the Murtha fundraiser poses serious questions and may have broken the law because the event was held at a for-profit corporation. LBK Game Ranch owns the 161-acre ranch where the fundraiser took place, county property records indicate, so Murtha would not be able to benefit from the residential exemption even if Bill Kuchera occupies a house on the property.
In other words, this is an illegal corporate contribution to the Murtha campaign. And given that Kuchera and his companies (which have been the recipients of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars through the connection to Murtha) are now under federal investigation related to the misdirection of federal funds for the purchase of the property where the illegal event occurred, it seems clear that Murtha needs to divest himself of all contributions raised at the LBK Game Ranch and all funds raised from officers and executives of Kuchera’s companies. Oh, yeah – and go to jail or pay a hefty fine for his end run around the law.
Well, according to this geography professor, he has the terrorist-in-chief’s location narrowed down to three possible compounds in Pakistan.
Using patterns of how animal species spread, the world's most wanted terrorist can be tracked down to a town in the tribal region of North West Pakistan it is claimed.
By factoring in his need for security, electricity, high ceilings to accommodate his 6ft 4in frame and spare rooms for his bodyguards, the search can be further narrowed to three walled compounds.
According to a team led by Thomas Gillespie, at the University of California in Los Angeles, bin Laden's location is "one of the most important political questions of our time".
Now there are two points I’d like to make about this interesting bit of speculation:
1) Why wasn’t this material handed off to the government rather than the press?
2) Does anyone disagree with the notion that all three should be bombed to rubble?
Given the inclinations of the current administration, though, I can’t help but wonder if we’d send Predator drones or a special envoy to deal with bin Laden. After all, the current administration is giving its support to the imposition of sharia law in parts of Pakistan to pacify Islamists. Why not negotiate with the world’s most wanted terrorist while they are at it? On the other hand, Obama has adopted a lot of Bush Administration strategy for dealing with the Crusade Against Islamofascist Jihad, so maybe this information will be used to cut the head off the venomous serpent that is al-Qaeda.
I noted recently that liberals often feel that we are undertaxed and ought to pay more of our hard-earned income to the government. I pointed out that any liberal who feels that way has the option of writing a check to the US Treasury for the amount they feel they are immorally holding back under the current tax code.
But some states offer another solution. Consider Massachusetts, which includes the option for taxpayers who view the state’s tax cut earlier in the decade to be bad policy which immorally withholds needed resources from the state. All taxpayers need to do is check one little box on their return to use the older 5.85% tax rate instead of the current 5.3% rate.
Here are the latest DOR numbers. As of yesterday, 640,783 individual taxpayers had filed their 2008 returns. Of those 640,783, exactly 293 opted to pay at the higher 5.85 percent rate.
Back me up on the math here. If 640,000 is the number, then 6,400 would be 1 percent, and 640 would be one-tenth of 1 percent. And 293 is less than one half of one tenth of 1 percent. So the percentage so far this year is one-twentieth of 1 percent.
Moonbats, I beseech you! Send in some more of the dough from Pater’s trust fund. Otherwise, how can we offer alms to the neediest among us, like Deval Patrick’s unemployed neighbor with the new made-up $120,000-a-year state job, and the Bulger hack who’s been collecting for 15 years and now was just handed a brand new $150,000 made-up state job?
Actually, the state claims the Beautiful People are twice as likely to check the higher-rate box this year, but two times zero is still zero. Even sadder is how much the commonwealth has collected from these 293 individuals - exactly $24,098.
Again, these are rough calculations, but I think that works out to just under $90 per filer. If $90 is .55 percent of your taxable income, you made about $18,000 in 2008.
What does this show? It demonstrates that liberals are not REALLY against tax cuts. They need that extra cash – after all, the Kennedy clan needs every penny it can find to keep up the family compound at Hyannis and a sailboat fleet that dwarfs the navies of some third world countries – while Joe & Jane Workingstiff can be counted upon to cough up a couple hundred extra bucks a year to pay for the needs of the non-working class and illegal aliens among us. It is YOU, average American, who these rich liberals want to see pay more so they don’t have to – as demonstrated by their unwillingness to cough up a miniscule 0.55% when they have both the means and the option to do so.
We’ve gotten quite a demonstration of how rich liberals really view taxes over the last several weeks. Geithner. Daschle. Rangel. I could go on, but you get the picture. They simply cheat and don’t pay. And when offered the chance to show the courage of their convictions by voluntarily paying taxes at a higher rate that they claim is appropriate and fair (and 40% of Massachusetts voters opposed the tax cuts in a 2000 referendum on the matter), they don’t put their money where their mouths and their votes have been. Let’s call it what it is – rank hypocrisy of the grossest sort. But then again, that’s what liberalism usually is.
If this report is anywhere near true, it doesn’t appear so.
[T]he White House is looking to install a small video or computer screen into the podium used by the president for press conferences and events in the White House. "It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it," says the adviser.
The screen would indicate whom to call on, seat placement for journalists, pass along notes or points to hit, and so forth, says the adviser.
Even George W. Bush could competently deal with the media. Apparently Barack Obama cannot do so. In light of that, I’d like to know who the real dummy is, which one really operates at the level of a trained chimp? After all, Bush may not have been as pretty as Barack or have been a polished orator behind a teleprompter, but at least he could answer questions from reporters without being programmed by someone else.
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.
Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.
In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.
It is now apparent that Burris was involved in a quid pro quo for the Illinois Senate seat that belonged to Barack Obama before his election as president. Rod Blagojevich seems to have managed to sell the seat right in front of us, to a guy with a reasonably clean reputation for an Illinois Democrat. Now it is pretty obvious that he was as dirty as the rest of them.
Of course, this could have been avoided if the Illinois legislature had taken action to require a special election for the seat – but the desire to avoid allowing the people of Illinois the option of electing a Republican prevented that from happening. Will the Democrat-controlled legislature do the right thing now?
I suppose this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Dick Cheney urged a pardon for Scooter Libby, one that George W. Bush chose not to give.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney launched a last-ditch campaign to persuade his boss to pardon Lewis (Scooter) Libby - and was furious when President George W. Bush wouldn't budge. Sources close to Cheney told the Daily News the former vice president repeatedly pressed Bush to pardon Libby, arguing his ex-chief of staff and longtime alter ego deserved a full exoneration - even though Bush had already kept Libby out of jail by commuting his 30-month prison sentence. "He tried to make it happen right up until the very end," one Cheney associate said. In multiple conversations, both in person and over the telephone, Cheney tried to get Bush to change his mind. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the federal probe of who leaked covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press. Several sources confirmed Cheney refused to take no for an answer. "He went to the mat and came back and back and back at Bush," a Cheney defender said. "He was still trying the day before Obama was sworn in."
Now looking at this situation, I see three reasons for this decision by Bush. I’d like to comment on each of them.
Personally, I view the last of these as the most important one – and it is why I consider Bush’s decision not to issue pardons to either Libby or Ramos and Campeon to be the proper one, despite my belief that in both cases there was a grave miscarriage of justice in both the decision to prosecute and the decision to convict.
H/T Hot Air
The folks at Voice of Warriors out the peacock-sucker network in its attempt to undermine our military and its mission in Afghanistan.
Everyone who has been in the military, especially to Iraq or Afghanistan, within the last few years needs to watch the first part of this video. Look at the "military equipment" CBS is pushing as recently stolen or "looted" from US Forces. You will notice that it's equipment we aren't even issued. Also, they blatantly lie when attempting to show night vision equipment, which isn't night vision equipment at all.
Here’s the See-BS piece.
Voice of Warriors then goes to work taking the entire piece apart, pointing out that the equipment in question is not what is issued to US forces – and in a number of cases never has been. Click the link to see just how dishonest the See-BS news really is – and what happens when our nation’s warriors have a chance to respond to this sort of crap.
Bill has pressed (sorry – couldn’t resist) for a return of the Fairness Doctrine to censor points of view that he sees as being expressed too often, or too effectively.
Then he denied wanting to censor anything, instead arguing that he was a defender of free speech and that the only way to get free speech was for the government to require that certain perspectives be aired.
Now, at last, he comes out and admits the truth – his position is all about his personal self-interest, in particular his financial self-interest.
I know why I'm interested in it because I get up every morning at 3:45, I do three hours of talk radio every day from six to nine, that's my life, it's my business, I want to make money at it, and I want to be heard.
So let’s not call it the Fairness Doctrine – call it the Bill Press Bailout and Stimulus Package instead. It is about liberal greed as well as ideological censorship.
Listen to the audio.
I’m married to a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama – and even she is outraged by this move by Senator Diane Feinstein.
Contrast Roosevelt's slyness with Sen. Diane Feinstein's recent comment regarding the secret location of the launch sites for Predator hunter/killer drones — “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.”
Sen. Feinstein's defense for discussing this highly sensitive information, that she was only repeating what she read in the papers, is greatly unconvincing.
It is true that the Washington Post first reported Predators operating out of bases in Pakistan, and the senator's flak catcher Philip J. LaVelle says that this report was what she was referring to. But there is a difference between making an allegation in a local paper and having the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirm it. After all, her remark was “as I understand it,” not “according to the papers.”
The response of my wife, a loyal part of the Democrat base, to Feinstein’s revelation?
“My God, why did she say that? What is she trying to do? Get American soldiers killed?”
No wonder the Washington Times note in the editorial about the senator’s irresponsible comments that “[t]his incident reinforces the growing impression that when it comes to national security policy the Democrats are not ready for prime time.” My only question is what they mean by “growing impression”. After all, throughout the Bush Administration we saw example after example of Democrats showing a distinct lack of seriousness in regards to national security – and I’d argue that this has been true for at least the last four decades. Here’s hoping that they grow up soon, given that they now control the two branches that control our national security policy.
After all, it would be an even bigger financial crisis to expect his close aides and appointees to take the same pay cut as all the little guys and gals who actually make the state of New York run.
Gov. Paterson has secretly granted raises of as much as 46 percent to more than a dozen staffers at a time when he has asked 130,000 state workers to give up 3 percent pay hikes because of the state's fiscal crisis, The Post has learned.
The startling pay hikes, costing about $250,000 annually, were granted after the governor's "emergency" declaration in August of a looming fiscal crisis that required the state to cut spending and impose a "hard" hiring freeze.
One raise was approved as recently as last month - when Paterson claimed the budget deficit had reached an unprecedented $15.5 billion.
Is it time to remove yet another corrupt Democrat from the Governor’s mansion in New York – this time for feathering the nest of his closest staff after taking back the raises of every other state worker?
And these are all promises that, in and of themselves, would cost the government nothing and would likely lead to the savings of millions of dollars. But they would have meant changing the “business as usual” culture that exists inside the Beltway, so they have been thrown under the bus by Barry Hussein and his administration
7 Broken Promises in Record Time
1. Make government open and transparent.
2. Make it “impossible” for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)
4. No more secrecy.
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.
6. You’ll know what’s in it.
7. We will put every pork barrel project online.
And to think that these were all supposed to be things that would result in more open, honest government that would “restore” the confidence of the American people in their institutions. But now that he has the power, such things matter less than the wielding of that power.
Just a reminder that the government has no money of its own – only the money it takes from the people.
The Seattle City Council is expected Tuesday to approve a surcharge on city water customers to help cover the cost of a $22 million court-ordered rebate to water customers.
In other words, the city of Seattle ripped-off the customers of its city-owned water system and was ordered to repay them for things which should have been covered by the city’s general fund. So rather than rebate the cash from the general fund (from which the initial expenditures should have been funded rather than by increasing water bills), the city will raise the cash by increasing the water bills!
I don’t know about you, but this sure seems to me to be a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the court that ordered the rebates.
No, kitty, you can't.
After all -- beef and dairy farming are inefficient and produce a great deal of greenhouse gas.
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.
Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That's because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.
By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.
The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.
Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it's responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The next “logical” steps for the acolytes of the religion of global warming? A beef ban (or at least a tax) and some sort of sanction upon dairy products as well. And when they tell you that you cannot have that cheeseburger, you will be reassured that “it is for your own good – and that of the whole world.” After all, the planet has a fever.
Hey, left-wing busybodies – keep your hands out of my fridge and off my plate!
There have been honor killings by Muslims in this country in the past. They have been few and far between -- and generally involved unassimilated Muslim immigrant parents who have murdered their Americanized daughters for thinking that they had the freedom to live like Americans here in America -- especially daughters born here in the US with US citizenship.
This case is different -- and all the more disturbing because of the differences.
Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.
Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.
"He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.
Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.
Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.
Well, I don't know that I would say that Muzzammil Hassan has managed to portray Muslims in a more positive light -- but I do believe he has managed to portray Islamic culture in a more accurate light. Mrs. Hassan was seeking a divorce, and had already received an order of protection to protect her from further violence by her husband. And so, as happens so often in Muslim communities worldwide, Hassan murdered his wife in an attempt to restore his honor -- something which is sanctioned by sharia law and Muslim religious leaders around the world.
Newsbusters notes this article about the sort of programming common on "moderate" BridgesTV.
BridgesTV might have had the aim of trying to improve the image of Muslims, but over two years ago, Steve Stalinsky of MEMRI outlined in the now-defunct New York Sun that the network featured Wahhabi anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sermons from Saudi TV broadcasts, including English subtitles. Stalinsky also noted that Donald Conover, one of the main hosts on the network, discussed “the power of the ‘Jewish lobby’” and urged Muslims to vote for Democrats during an interview with a Saudi newspaper in 2006.
Sounds like the same old Islamic hatemongering offered up in prettier packaging. Interestingly enough, though, such programming did win BridgesTV and Hassan an award from one "civil rights" organization -- the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR).
Muzzammil Hassan receives award from CAIR-PA Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National Chairman Parvez Ahmed (H/T LGF)
Daniel Pipes offers more information about BridgesTV.
I wonder -- will the MSM cover this story as it deserves? Or will we of the blogosphere have to do it for them?
Before Pearl Harbor, my mom's father worked in a shipyard as a skilled worker building ships. After Pearl Harbor, my grandfather was one of those recruited to help repair and/or salvage the vessels damaged and destroyed by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. One alcohol-fueled evening in Hawaii, he got a tattoo -- and he always urged us grandkids not to get one.
I'm not sure how many of the rest have adhered to his words, but I know I have. Indeed, my high school students (many of them already tatted up at 14 and 15) are rather surprised when I tell them I don't have a tattoo -- though they are quite respectful when I tell them why.
That may change, though, if these the inks in this article are ever approved for use, and if I can get the tattoo place in a sufficiently unobtrusive spot.
A tattoo for diabetics that changes colour depending on their glucose levels has been unveiled by scientists.
It is hoped the breakthrough could mean the end of painful daily blood tests for millions with the condition.
The tattoo contains tiny particles of "nano ink" that change colour depending on whether they come into contact with glucose molecules.
If levels are high, the ink appears yellow. If levels of the sugar are low, it turns purple. A healthy level shows up as orange.
There are currently more than 2.5million people with diabetes in Britain and more than half a million people who don't know they have it.
Diabetics need to test their glucose levels regularly and for most this means pricking their finger to draw blood.
The tattoo only has to be a few millimetres across.
The Massachusetts-based Draper Laboratories team accidentally discovered the ink while researching hydration in athletes.
While I can't see these tattoos completely eliminating the need for glucometers, I know that they would possibly cut down on the frequency of the finger sticks that go along with the use of a glucose meter. And I can't help but think that my grandfather would approve of such a tattoo, given the small size and the importance for maintaining good health.
It may, however, be two or more years before human testing trials would lead to approval by the government -- and who knows how long before insurance starts covering them.
As most folks know, Boston College is a Catholic college founded by and run by Jesuits. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the school might have something of a Catholic ethos, right? Well, a decision by college officials to publicly express the school's Catholic nature has aroused howls of outrage by those who consider such expressions of the Catholic faith by a Catholic institution to be insensitive to non-Catholics.
Some Boston College professors and students are raising a holy ruckus over the Catholic school’s return to its religious roots by hanging crucifixes in all its classrooms, calling the move “offensive” and a break from the Jesuit tradition of tolerance.
“There is no choice if you don’t think it’s appropriate. You can’t turn it around,” said biology professor Dan Kirschner, faculty adviser for BC’s chapter of Hillel, a Jewish student group. “I think it is being insensitive to the people of other faith traditions here.”
Amir Hoveyda, head of BC’s chemistry department, blasted the school in an e-mail to the Herald for “not being interested in an exchange with its faculty members.”
In an interview with the college newspaper, The Observer, which broke the story, Hoveyda described the crucifixes as “offensive” and the university’s actions as “anti-intellectual.”
“I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution,” he is quoted as saying. “The insult is particularly scathing, since such symbols were installed without discussion . . . in a disturbingly surreptitious manner.”
Now wait just one minute. This is, at the end of the day, a Catholic institution run by a Catholic religious order. It is not unreasonable for the school to therefore make some expression of its Catholic identity -- and a crucifix in the classroom is really a pretty minimal intrusion of Catholicism into daily life on campus.
To those who have an objection to crucifixes in classrooms at a Catholic college, I have a suggestion -- try a non-Catholic school instead.
Texas Rainmaker offers us a look at how a debate between the great Communicator and the second-rate neophyte currently in the Oval Office might sound.
I began blogging a bit over four years ago to find an outlet for my grief at the death of the greatest president of my lifetime. This just reminds me how far the country has descended away from its founding principles in the two decades since Ronald Reagan left office.
As a percentage of GDP, this pork-laden exercise in mono-partisanship will bring the US Deficit to at least 13.5% of the nation's GDP -- more than doubling the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP at any point in living memory!
Congratulations, Democrats, for bringing the Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility to an entirely new level heretofore unseen in our nation's history -- and after less than one month of controlling the legislative and executive branches!
One out because he's corrupt (Richardson).
One out because he's a tax cheat (Daschle).
One disgraced and discredited because he's a tax cheat (Geithner).
One disgraced and discredited because he supported the Marc Rich pardon and pardons for terrorists (Holder).
Yeah, Obama and his crew sure can vet those Cabinet picks.
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination to be President Obama's commerce secretary on Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" over issues like the economic stimulus package and the census.
"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg of New Hampshire said in a written statement.
Republicans have been largely unified in their opposition to an economic stimulus bill that now totals $789 billion. They say it is full of government waste and won't create enough jobs to turn the economy around.
And in the past week, the GOP has stoked controversy over Obama's plan to share oversight of next year's census, which is carried out by the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department -- though Gregg said that was only a "slight" factor in his decision to withdraw.
I applaud Judd Gregg, who I don't always agree with when he goes maverick but who I certainly respect. He recognizes that his independence would be gone the minute he was confirmed.
Barry Hussein claims he is surprised by Gregg's move. Could it be due to the fact that the Senator has shown that there is, indeed, honest politicians out there -- something that an Illinois Democrat like will have never encountered in the course of his meteoric rise from obscurity to mediocrity in the highest office in the land.
And so the light of freedom continues to dim around the world lest the followers of the decidedly no-peaceful “Religion of Peace” become outraged.
The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims. The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.
Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.
The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.
In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him."
Now those are historical facts, attested to by Muslim sources. Why is it that stating that one is unwilling to follow the teachings of such a depraved individual constitutes a criminal offense? I personally think it constitutes common sense, as well as evidence that one adheres to superior system of moral values.
Interestingly enough, there have been no attempts to prosecute those who claim that Jesus was not the Son of God but merely a prophet, that he is inferior to Muhammad, and that he was a follower of the teachings of Muhammad even before the coming of that false prophet. As a Christian I am outraged by such statements, which are part and parcel of Islam and which hurt my religious feelings those of many other followers of Christ around the world. Could it be because we don’t find it necessary to riot and murder when we hear such offensive views expressed, but that we instead respect the basic human right to speak and believe free of government oppression or coercion – or the threat of violence by the followers of a barbaric faith that demands respect that it neither earns nor deserves.
After all, Barry Hussein is in the (White) House, so anyone in opposition to his plans and programs is engaged in acts of treason and domestic terrorism, according to “liberal” radio host Mike Malloy.
"They're worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for God’s sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn't that clear? Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He's a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He's a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn't he arrested and sentenced for treason?"
Get that, folks – dissent is now domestic terrorism and treason. Seeking to undermine the unwise and irresponsible policies of a president with a D after his name makes one worse than Osama bin Laden. And to think that for the last eight years I heard that speaking ill of our nation’s leaders and trying to thwart their policies – up to and including publishing classified information that materially aided the enemy in the field – was more patriotic than giving support to the nation in time of war.
So get ready, folks. The day is coming when the First Amendment will be excised from the Bill of Rights as incompatible with Obamism – and speaking words which oppose the plans of the libtelligentsia for the United States will constitute “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Odd, isn’t it, that this is directly contrary to the views of the men who wrote Article III, Section 3 in such a manner as to preclude making the holding and expression of dissenting opinions on policy matters the cause of a prosecution for treason.
Over the years there have been questions about the connection between US internet providers and terrorist organizations.
Sketching the international profile of the attackers’ communications, he said cellphone SIM cards were bought in Austria while voice calls over the Internet, using a server in Houston, Texas, were paid for in Barcelona, Spain.
Over at Jawa Report, Rusty and company have been documenting some of the uses of US ISPs by terrorists and terrorist fronts. Is there anything we can do about it – especially if the Obama Maladministration is determined to stop monitoring the communications of non-Americans from outside the US? Or will we miss out on the next terrorist attack on US soil because folks on the Left are bound and determined to apply the search-and-seizure restrictions the Bill of Rights places upon US government operations within the US to the monitoring of such communications by non-citizens outside the US?
Looks like Obama was not really serious about ending American dependence on foreign sources of oil.
A day after his Interior secretary signaled plans for a cautious approach to oil and natural gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he's "holding out for a more comprehensive strategy" for U.S. energy development before approving offshore drilling along the East Coast.
In a meeting with reporters for The Virginian-Pilot and 15 other newspapers, Obama touched on a wide range of topics, from drilling to military strategy and efforts to revive the economy.
On drilling, he said it would be short-sighted to rely on offshore oil and gas development to solve the nation's energy problems or stimulate the flagging U.S. economy. Offshore resources are "not going to come online quickly enough," he asserted.
I know no one who argues that the only thing to do is drill offshore – or that we should rely on drilling for oil alone. But there is no legitimate reason for not tapping those reserves if we are to end the dependence on foreign oil that has caused such problems. Unless, of course, one is sold out to the far left of the Democrat Party.
Miley Cyrus has said she meant no offense by a gesture that some have construed as insensitive to Asians — but one woman isn't buying the pop star's story, and she thinks Cyrus should pay.
TMZ reports that the Los Angeles woman, Lucie J. Kim, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Asian Pacific Islanders living in Los Angeles County. And she's seeking quite a payout: $4 billion.
In the controversial photo, Cyrus, 16, is shown sitting on her boyfriend Justin Gaston’s lap surrounded by a group of friends all making a stereotypical gesture by pulling their eyes into a slanted position. The gesture is commonly thought to be offensive to Asian Pacific Americans.
Now here’s the problem with this lawsuit – there is absolutely no actionable harm alleged in this suit. Being offended is not an actionable in civil court. Neither is the expression of an (arguably) racist sentiment. This suit ought to be thrown out with extreme prejudice – and Ms. Kim and her legal team ought to be subjected to serious legal sanctions for filing this frivolous suit.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Left applied this logic to Islamo-fascist terrorism?
Nicely done, Messrs. Hannity, Goldberg, Limbaugh, Savage and O'Reilly -- and all your lesser brethren who keep the hate speech spewing 24/7/365 across every field and into every shop in the country. There is no more debate to be had, no more doubt about it: What you did in the name of "entertainment," and for the sake of the almighty ratings, raised and animated a monster like Jim Adkisson, gave him a list of targets ("the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book"), and was directly responsible for the deaths of two brave and decent people. Adkisson was clearly angry and crazy -- but his "manifesto" draws the clearest, brightest line possible between the media he consumed and his actions that terrible Sunday morning.
Progressives should take three lessons away from Knoxville:
One: we are no longer safe, not even in our own houses of worship. It's ironic that progressives -- the subgroup of Americans who were most determined not to abandon reason and succumb to overblown fears of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11 -- now have good, serious reasons to fear real domestic terrorism against themselves.
Two: A significant part of this country's media infrastructure is thoroughly devoted to inciting people to commit horrific acts of violence against us -- and now, we know for a fact that people are acting on those incitements. It's time to start taking this far more seriously. What goes out across our airwaves these days isn't all that different from what went out over Radio Rwanda a decade ago, spurring that country to genocide. At this point, it's only a difference of degree.
Three: The right wing has, as usual, grossly underestimated our courage and our commitment. The members of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist quickly and effectively disarmed and captured this man within seconds after he opened fire. Adkisson expected fear; what we got was determined resistance. It's why he's still alive today, and why more UUs aren't dead by his hand. The TVUUA congregation should be our enduring example of liberal grace under fire.
One whacko shoots up a church and claims inspiration by conservative talkers and writers (who universally condemned his evil deeds) and the Left insists that it is proof of the corruption of the ideology and the medium and proof of the need for media censorship. On the other hand, massive acts of organized terrorism over a period of decades explicitly linked to Islam by its perpetrators (and cheered by much of the rest of the Muslim world) are insufficient to provoke such condemnations of Islam by these same Leftists – who often make common cause with the terrorists and argue that America and Israel truly deserve to be the victims of the terrorists.
I’m not sure which amuses me more – that a regressive like Sara Robinson (and given her implicit call for censorship, she clearly seeks to regress to a time when Americans had less liberty than they do today) is provoked to such hysteria by a lone mentally ill slimeball like James Adkisson, or that she at the same time she so completely abandons all sense of reason and proportion Robinson insists that she and her fellow regressives were “the subgroup of Americans who were most determined not to abandon reason and succumb to overblown fears of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11” and “now have good, serious reasons to fear real domestic terrorism against themselves.”
I wonder if Robinson thinks that conservative Christians – whose sanctuaries have been the targets of violence in a number of incidents in recent years, including vandalism, arson, “white powder” attacks and shootings – have just as much right to fear real domestic terrorism? I wonder if she thinks that Mormons, who have been a specific target of threats and attacks by anti-Prop 8 activists, have the right to fear real domestic terrorism? Or does she, good regressive that she is, think that these groups need to instead meditate upon their own faults that provoke such attacks upon themselves and change, just as so many on the Left argued the US needed to do after 9/11?
By the way, Sara -- you claim that conservatives are going to celebrate Adkisson's statement. Would you care to actually provide evidence that this is the case, perhaps a link to some mainstream conservative site that actually does so (not some isolated whacko pounding keys in a corner)?
Because if a woman is brutally forced to have sex against her will, she is guilty of a crime under Islamic law. After all – she should never have gotten in a vehicle alone with a man who was not a relative, so the whole thing is really her fault.
A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.
The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.
He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.
Of course, this will not make the American media, which is much too cowardly to result on the sort of stuff that constitutes Islamic “civilization”. After all, learning about this atrocity might cause some folks to have lower respect for Islam, and that just won’t do.
Inconclusive election results sent Israel into political limbo Wednesday with both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and hard-line leader Benjamin Netanyahu claiming victory and leaving the kingmaker role to a rising political hawk with an anti-Arab platform.
Livni's Kadima Party won 28 seats, just one more than Netanyahu's Likud, in Tuesday's election for the 120-member parliament, according to nearly complete results. With neither party winning a clear majority, neither can govern alone. Gains by right-wing parties give Netanyahu a better chance of forming a coalition with his natural allies.
"Political Tangle," read the headline on the front page of the daily Yediot Ahronot, alongside photos of the two smiling candidates.
The results set the stage for what could be weeks of coalition negotiations, with Israeli media reporting the first meetings already scheduled for Wednesday.
Given that the third place Yisrael Beiteinu party, which took 15 seats, has indicated it will not form a coalition with Kadima but would with Likud, that effectively gives Netanyahu 42 seats to Livni’s 28 (41, if one presumes that Labor would only join with Kadima) That puts Netanyahu in the lead – and with a host of other right-wing and religious parties holding an additional 23 seats, it would appear that the next Prime Minister of Israel is more likely to be Netanyahu. That is especially true in light of the fact that any Kadima-led coalition would have to include Arab parties that would be rejected as partners by conservative and religious parties.
My speculation on the matter is that we are likely to see whatever government emerges here serve for only a short time, with elections coming whenever the first serious crisis confronts the government. It could be Passover before the government is formed – and I don’t know that it will live to see next Passover.
If this precedent in Iowa is allowed to stand and expand, it might be.
An Iowa State trooper who was investigated after it was shown that he forwarded an e-mail showing mug shots of people wearing Obama t-shirts has been suspended for 30 days.
Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the e-mails, said an official with the Iowa Department of Public Safety Bureau and Professional Standards.
The e-mail made disparaging remarks about 15 people in the photos and referred to Obama as having "quite a fan base."
Hicok was not making a racial statement, the official said, but, rather, a political statement.
Hicock was also forced to make an apology for what the state acknowledges was his private, off-duty political speech regarding the President of the United States and his supporters.
Now I initially was not disturbed by this decision. After all, I wondered if he might have obtained the mug shots using his official position. Had that been the case, some punishment might have been appropriate.
But I did a little further digging (actually, I clicked the link at the end of the story that took me to the original story about the investigation). Look where he obtained the mug shots in question, and then tell me that this email was in any way a legitimate basis for any sort of punishment.
The e-mail has a photo that was originally posted on TheSmokingGun.com, according to the ISP, and it was forwarded by Hicok to colleagues inside and outside the department.
No misconduct there – the images in question came from a website that posts documents in the public domain. On what basis, therefore, is punishment being meted out against this trooper? Political speech is, by any standard, fully protected by the First Amendment – even if you are a police officer and even if the target you lampoon is the President and his supporters.
Unless, of course, the “Era of Hope’N’Change” includes the contraction and retraction of our civil liberties...
At 10 years old, Stump the Sussex spaniel should be well into his dotage. Instead, the dog who technically retired four years ago took home Best in Show on Tuesday at the 133rd Annual Westminster Kennel Club show at Madison Square Garden, becoming the oldest to win the award.
Stump, a Houston dog, nearly died a couple of years back when he fell seriously ill. To see him recovered – and now the top dog in the US – is a wonderful thing.
Barack Obama has had his "killer rabbit" moment. He hit his head on the door of marine One because he forgot to duck.
Could you imagine the sort of response that this thing would have gotten if it had been George W. Bush? But as we know from another recent Obama gaffe, the press will ignore or minimize the event, as wil the Leftosphere. However, let me offer this in the same spirit of bipartisanship that was displayed by liberals during the eight years of the Bush Administration.
Apparently the criticism of Islam and the terrorism it inspires will be grounds for banning traveling to the UK under the regime of PM Gordon Brown.
Geert Wilders had been refused entry to the United Kingdom to broadcast his controversial anti-Muslim film Fitna in the House of Lords.
Mr Wilders said he had been told that in the interests of public order he will not be allowed to come to Britain.
He responded to the decision in fighting mood, telling reporters that he still intended to travel to London.
He said: "I shall probably go to Britain anyway on Thursday. Let us see if they put me in chains on arrival. It is an unbelievable decision made by a group of cowards."
Mr Wilders is under 24-hour police protection because of his anti-Muslim stance.
He has been receiving death threats from Muslim groups outside Holland since the anti-Koran film appeared on the internet earlier this year.
In other words, vocal opposition to the Koran-inspired terrorism engaged in by Islamists like those who bombed the London subways in 2005 will get you banned by the UK, while Muslim preachers of hate continue to espouse the same ideology in British mosques. I guess the next step will be to get Queen Elizabeth into a burqa for public occasions, lest the Mohammadan horde become outraged.
My colleagues and I have been planning a trip to the UK for our students for next spring. I will now be recommending another destination -- after all, I would no more take kids to the UK than I would to North Korea or Iran given the sad state of human rights that now exists in formerly-Great Britain.
UPDATE: Columnist and author Melanie Phillips offers this insight from the UK:
So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.
It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.
The author of Londonistan offers a great description of the decision in the closing paragraph -- "spinelessness".
Soldiers are not cops. Marines are not cops. Sailors are not cops. Airmen are not cops.
Hopefully no one is surprised by those statements. After all, we know that they are fighting men and women.
But the decision by our inept new president to treat terrorists as criminals rather than enemies may mean that all of those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay may need to be released – because if they are going to get civilian trials with all the protections accorded the Americans arrested for crimes in this country, then all evidence and confessions obtained heretofore will have to be thrown out. Why? Because the terrorists taken on the field of battle were not read their Miranda rights by the fighting men who captured them and were not accorded rights given criminal suspects under the Bill of Rights and relevant Supreme Court interpretations thereof.
Accused in a 2002 grenade blast that wounded two U.S. soldiers near an Afghan market, Mohammed Jawad was sent as a youth to Guantanamo Bay. Now, under orders by President Obama, he could one day be among detainees whose fate is finally decided by a U.S. court.
But in a potential problem, Pentagon officials note that most of the evidence against Jawad comes from his own admissions. And neither he nor any other detainee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was ever told about their rights against self-incrimination under U.S. law.
The Miranda warning, a fixture of American jurisprudence and staple of television cop shows, may also be one of a series of constructional hurdles standing between Obama's order to close the island prison and court trials on the mainland.
A procession of similar challenges -- secret evidence, information from foreign spy services and coerced statements -- also could spell trouble for prosecutors.
All of these problems illustrate the larger difficulty that lies ahead as the nation moves from the "law of war" orientation used by the Bush administration in dealing with detainees to the civilian legal approach preferred by Obama.
Yep, Barry Hussein has really screwed the pooch on this one. By muddying the distinction between war and criminal justice, he has virtually guaranteed that the enemy will be released to return to the field of battle where he can kill more American soldiers – and civilians.
Are there aspects of the Bush policies on the detainees that reasonable people can quibble over? Yeah, I suppose there are. But the one thing that sensible folks cannot dispute is that he – like FDR during WWII – recognized that fighting a war is very different from fighting crime, and that dealing with the enemy is very different from dealing with lawbreakers. Barack Obama does not understand that – and having campaigned on a promise to undo the Bush policies and treat terrorism as an exercise in criminal justice rather than national defense, he will be hard pressed to step back from his absurd plans. Even if that means that America will be objectively less safe from terrorism than it was during the Bush years.
Andrew McCarthy offers a fantastic analysis of the other flaws of Obama’s proposed solution to the problem of Gitmo in a fine article in National Review.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
Turns out she hit it right on the head. And it only took the LA Times five months to show that her concerns were dead on.
I don’t see any other way to interpret the fact that widespread physical abuse of students by faculty and staff went unreported to police and led to termination in only under 5% of documented cases while Arne Duncan ran the Chicago Public Schools.
Hundreds of students have allegedly been beaten by teachers, coaches and staff at Chicago Public Schools. 2 Investigator Dave Savini continues his ongoing investigation involving the illegal use corporal punishment.
* * *
The 2 Investigators found reports of students beaten with broomsticks, whipped with belts, yard sticks, struck with staplers, choked, stomped on and pushed down stairs. One substitute teacher even fractured a student's neck.
But even more alarming, in the vast majority of cases, teachers found guilty were only given a slap on the wrist.
CBS 2 informed former Chicago Public School CEO Arne Duncan of our investigative findings shortly before he was promoted to U.S. Secretary of Education.
"If someone hits a student, they are going to be fired. It's very, very simple," Duncan said.
Before heading to Washington, he vowed to take action.
"Any founded allegation where an adult is hitting a child, hitting a student - they're going to be gone," Duncan said.
But that's not what happened under Duncan's watch. Of the 568 verified cases, only 24 led to termination. Records show one teacher who quote "battered students for several years" was simply given a "warning" by the Board of Education.
And another student was given "100 licks with a belt." The abuse was substantiated, but the records show the teacher was not terminated.
Now I don’t have a problem with corporal punishment in schools – but it has to have proper limits and oversight. That clearly did not happen in Chicago under Arne Duncan – the man whose management and reform model is seen by Barack Obama as being just what is needed in nationwide. Most of the cases in which abuse was documented led to nothing more than a metaphorical slap on the wrist after teachers assaulted students. Not only that, but it appears that the district was remiss in failing to report these cases of child abuse (much less the mere accusations that the district decided were not credible) to the proper authorities for investigation and criminal prosecution
Now I cannot help but note that the Chicago media was all over reports that priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago sexually abused children and that they were allowed to continue serving in active ministry, usually after some sort of rehabilitation program rather than reporting them to Child Protective Services and the local police. There was lots of deeply concerned hand-wringing in the press over the “betrayal of the children by those who had a responsibility to protect them.” Will we get the same sort of rhetoric from the media over these incidents and the failure of the district to safeguard kids? Will there be the same outrage over the failure to call CPS and/or the police when a child has been abused – something that is mandated of school district employees under Illinois law? And what of Arne Duncan? Will he be the next Obama appointee – and first confirmee – to fall victim to their own scandalous illegal conduct that was not fully vetted by the Obama team?
Looks like there's been another large tomb discovered at the necropolis of Saqqara.
A storehouse of 30 Egyptians mummies has been unearthed inside a 2,600-year-old tomb, in a new round of excavations at the vast necropolis of Saqqara outside Cairo, archeologists said Monday.
The tomb was located at the bottom of a 36 foot (11-meter) deep shaft, announced Egypt's top archaeologist Zahi Hawass and eight of the mummies were in sarcophagi, while the rest had been placed in niches along the wall.
Hawass described the discovery as a "storeroom for mummies," dating to 640 B.C. and the 26th Dynasty, which was Egypt's last independent kingdom before it were overthrown by a succession of foreign conquerors beginning with the Persians.
The tomb was discovered at an even more ancient site dating back to 4,300-year-old 6th Dynasty.
Most of the mummies are poorly preserved and archeologists have yet to determine their identity or why so many are in a single room. One of the sarcophagi is made of wood and bears the name Badi N Huri, but no title.
"This one might have been an important figure, but I can't tell because there was no title," Hawass' assistant Abdel Hakim Karar told The Associated Press.
He added that the rest of the sarcophagi — including four which are tightly sealed — have yet to be opened yet.
This find is unusual, given that the use of such rocky niches were common in much earlier periods, rather than in late periods like the 26th Dynasty. It is unclear which sarcophagus is pictured above.
Once again, dissent is not patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.
After all, Alec Baldwin has done so much more on behalf of America than John McCain.
To John McCain. You need to keep quiet, John McCain. You lost. . . . You gotta shut up, John McCain.
Yep, that's right -- a bona fide war hero who has spent his entire adult life in service to the United States had better shut up because some punk actor tells him to -- simply because the war hero doesn't support the policies of the current administration.
Of course, maybe John McCain should be grateful that Baldwin didn't call for a lynch mob to drag him out of his home as Baldwin did in the case of Congressman Henry Hyde.
Because after all, dissent is no longer patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.
Now that America has a liberal President, it is apparently no longer acceptable for a private citizen to express disagreement with the White House in Keith Olbermann’s world. On Thursday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Olbermann delivered his latest "Special Comment" rant, this time calling for former Vice President Cheney to "leave this country," and made a suggestion that Cheney, who recently criticized President Obama’s plans for handling counterterrorism, should somehow be "made to desist" from such criticism. Olbermann: "You, Mr. Cheney, you terrified more Americans than did any terrorist in the last seven years, and now it is time for you to desist, or to be made to desist."
The Countdown host, who never showed any concern that his tirades against the Bush administration would "undermine" the war on terrorism, accused Cheney of "trying to sabotage" Obama’s "efforts against terrorism," and made a number of vulgar implications in attacking Cheney – including twice pronouncing the former Vice President’s first name with emphasis as if to call him by a vulgar word; saying that he would tell Cheney to "shove it"; and asking which "orifice" Cheney was pulling numbers from about the recidivism rate of former Guantanamo detainees.
After several plugs, during which he claimed that "his [Cheney’s] policies contributed to the worst attack ever on American soil," and said he would tell Cheney to "shove it," Olbermann began his "Special Comment":Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country. The partisanship, divisiveness, and naiviete to which he ascribed every single criticism of his and President Bush’s delusional policies of the last eight years have now roared forth in a destructive and uninformed diatribe from Mr. Cheney that can only serve to undermine the nation’s new President, undermine the nation’s effort to thwart terrorism and undermine the nation itself.
The MSNBC host soon read a quote from Cheney’s interview remarking that "When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry." Olbermann shot back: "More concern, Mr. Cheney? What delusion of grandeur makes you think you have the right to say anything like that?"
Where shall we begin dealing with the words of this loud-mouth buffoon who claimed to be a patriot while actively seeking to tear down the previous occupant of the Oval Office in language significantly less respectful that those used by the former vice president?
1) What "delusion of grandeur" makes Cheney think he has the right to say what he said? Well, aside from having some three decades more experience in the field of national security than Mr. Obama does (which certainly qualifies Dick Cheney as more of an expert on such matters than either Obama or Olbermann), I suppose it might be this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That settles the question of what Dick Cheney thinks gives him the right to speak his mind freely in this country, wouldn't you agree? And furthermore, the notion that Dick Cheney should be "made to desist" from making such comments is advocacy of the wholesale violation of his civil liberties, you friggin' brownshirt. Clearly YOU are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than you are about the rights of Americans -- making you objectively pro-terrorist, Keith.
2) "Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country." What's that, Keith? Good God! That isn't even "America: Love it or leave it." It is "America: Support Obama or get out." What next, Ubermoron? Forced deportation? Or internment in reeducation camps like those found in Red China during the Cultural Revolution for those of us who fail to support Dear Leader Hope'N'Change?
3) Weren't you one of the folks who argued throughout the last administration that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Why, then, do you seek to suppress speech that said standard shows to be objectively more patriotic than your felating of the current regime? Could it be that you rally believe that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism only when the president has an R after his name"?
You know, we hear a lot about the "Fairness Doctrine" and "hate speech in media". Seems to me that any hearings on talk radio should be expanded to include the cable propaganda outlets like MSNBC -- with Keith Olbermann as the prime example of what hte speech in media really looks like.
One of the chief exporters of radical fundamentalist Islam has made it quite clear that religious freedom is not an option in within its borders.
A Saudi Arabian official says mosques can be the only places of worship in his country, rejecting pressure to change heavy restrictions on religious besides Islam.
Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, implements a strict version of Islamic law.
It told a United Nations meeting that the kingdom allows other religions in private.
But the vice president of the Saudi human rights commission said Friday that establishing houses of worship for non-Islamic religions was too sensitive an issue.
Zaid Al-Hussain tells the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva that there could be no debate. Other countries have urged Saudi Arabia to abolish laws that breach basic human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.
I guess we should not be too surprised. After all, Saudi Arabia has a piss-poor record on human rights in general – why should anyone expect it to suddenly go against one of the fundamental tenets of the faith that is at the root of that hostility to human rights? After all, Saudi Arabia is also one of those nations seeking to use the UN to curtail freedom of speech internationally when it is used to speak negatively about Islam, seeking to move the world forward into the seventh-century Hijaz.
If advocates of “reproductive choice” would argue against “a woman’s right to choose” when that choice involved having kids like the mother of the recently born octuplets.
Does anyone have a right to tell anyone else how many kids to have? Can only people who can afford them bear children? Do you need a husband to have a baby? These are questions that make us feel queasy when we are talking about old-fashioned families. But they take on a new flavor in the unregulated wild west of fertility technology.
* * *
This is more than an individual decision. Suleman's babies weighed between 1 pound 8 ounces and 3 pounds 4 ounces. They will cost at least $1 million in neonatal care and more if they have the typical range of disabilities for premature babies. The meter is running at the neonatal unit.
“More than an individual decision”? What about the “my body, my choice” rhetoric of the feminist movement over the last four decade? Is Goodman really advocating that childbearing is not a decision best left between a woman and her doctor? Does she now advocate that some government bureaucrat be able to step in and determine who can have children through in vitro methods, and how many? And when she defines the decision by Nadya Suleman to have eight embryos implanted as “mal-mothering” because of her unwillingness to abort, does she not recognize the implicit slippery slope that leads to China’s one child policy with its regime of forced abortions (or its functional equivalent)? For that matter, does this advocate of nationalizing medicine not see that her complaints about the cost of saving these babies presages eventual government decisions to limit and deny care that is “too expensive”, even if it leads to the deaths of some to whom government has magnanimously given “free healthcare”?
Odd, isn’t it, how a liberal like Goodman becomes shockingly illiberal when she does not approve of how some exercise the freedom which she advocates. And amazing, too, that she does not appear to see (or care about) the Big Brother-esque implications of her own arguments. More proof that within every well-intentioned liberal there is a moralistic dictator trying to claw his/her way out.
H/T Don Surber
I’m the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, I’m very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and I’d like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.
Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.
Of course, there is a flaw in Reed Hastings’ logic. As we well know, increased taxes lower the amount of revenue received. Also, experience shows us that changing the way in which such compensation packages are taxed simply results in changes in how that compensation is received to legally avoid the taxes.
But if Hastings really feels that he isn’t paying enough, there is an option available to him. Since 1843 there has been a fund established under the US Treasury department for individuals to patriotically give more to the US government. All Hastings really needs to do is write a check for the money he believes he is undertaxed, payable to the United States Treasury, and mail it to the following address:
In effect, Hastings will be raising his own taxes. That way he can celebrate his success by paying what he believes he owes this country – without, of course, imposing his own sense of guilt and/or moral superiority on the rest of America.
Anyone want to speculate upon the odds of his actually writing that check?
President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now."
Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.
He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."
Republicans and some Democrats have expressed reservations about the growing price tag of the package—more than $900 billion. Senate Democratic leaders hope to have a bill completed by Friday.
Earlier today, Obama warned that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill.
Of course, it could be that the real reason is that Congress and the American people might become more aware of this information from the no-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
In other words, the “stimulus” plan is a long-term drag on the economy. But that doesn’t matter to Obama, Pelosi and Reid – they have left-wing constituencies that need rewarding right now!
Folks in Kentucky have been freezing and dying for a week since ice storms devastated the state, but Barack Obama only got around to making a disaster declaration on February 5.
President Barack Obama on Thursday issued a major disaster declaration for Kentucky in the wake of a deadly ice storm, ordering federal aid to supplement local recovery efforts.
Gov. Steve Beshear sought the major disaster status earlier this week. The storm has been blamed for 27 Kentucky deaths.
My guess is that Barry Hussein was too busy scarfing down the leftover waygu beef from his Super Bowl shindig do be bothered to act on behalf of those impacted by the storm. After all – Kentucky voted Republican, and the media hasn’t bothered giving the human suffering there much coverage, so there was no political up side to immediate action.
More at Gay Patriot.
I remember how hard it was sometimes to meet others with common interests back in my single days. The internet, though, makes it easier, given the ability to find chat sites. For example, those interested in interracial relationships can find those with similar interests in the Interracial Chat Rooms at InterracialChatCity.com. Is the person you want to meet there, waiting for you?
After all, it is only the public’s money, so why should government officials actually disclose how they are planning on spending it?
"Yes, we do, we have our list, we've been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart," Daley said.
"It's very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago. Oh yes. Us and New York decided not to do that. We thought we could go directly into the federal bureaucracies and the different departments," the mayor added.
Besides, with all Daley’s dirtbag cronies in the current administration (up to and including the one in the Oval Office), he probably figure he can go back to operating like his father did – with no accountability whatsoever. Transparency in government be damned.
Let's be honest -- recessionary times suck. We've all seen the problems being faced by the world around us -- lost jobs, weakening currencies, low consumer spending. And it is quite true that in such times what is bad for business is bad for the country.
But if you have a business you want to keep afloat in these lean economic times, you have to persevere even though the times are especially tough. In this weakening economy, it apepars that everyone is struggling financially. Many folks, for better or for worse, are therefore making use of credit cards to tide themselves over through the bad times -- but that means that business owners must therefore be able to accept those credit cards in order to keep their businesses going. That means, of course, that you have to put out a little money in order to make more, since there are certainly costs involved in setting yourself up to take those payments.
In such situation, you might even find yourself taking out a Business Loan in order to continue to be able to invest in your business through the hard times. But where do you get yourself a business lifeline? Consider, if you will, OnlineCheck.com and their fast business loans. It could be the difference between sinking and swimming for your business.
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
* * *
One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
Remember, Barack Obama voted against making this illegal back when he was in the Illinois Legislature. He firmly believed then, and believes now, that a woman who pays for a dead baby is entitled to a dead baby, even if the “product of conception” is so inconsiderate as to survive the attempt to exterminate it in the womb.
Now there are several issues here that need consideration.
1) If this incident took place in 2006, why have no charges been brought for 2 ½ years?
2) Why haven’t Florida authorities shut this abortuary down, instead of just yanking the abortionist's medical license?
3) Isn’t this just one more indication that only the lowest quality “medical professionals” are involved in the abortion industry?
4) Is anyone troubled by the fact that Ms. Williams has filed suit against the clinic that killed her baby after she had already paid them to kill the child?
Barry Hussein holds a primetime press conference on Monday night. Will any of
his fan club the reporters have the courage to ask him about this incident and his prior actions in opposing the punishment of those who leave babies to die so as to prevent women from being “punished with a baby”?
Well, we've not had much to celebrate around here since Hurricane Ike, but i suspect that will be changing in the next month or so. We are going to be getting back into the house sometime relatively soon, and you can bet there will be a celebration to go with that big event. But my wife and I have already been looking forward to having more folks in once we have settled in. I'm already pretty sure that we will be holding a big Pre-Season Pigskin Party in August. After all, we are Texans fans -- so we will round up all sorts of football-themed decor from Celebrations.com. They are a great source for theme party ideas and all the related party goods. We'll make it an indoor/outdoor tailgate party for ourselves and a few friends during the first away game of the pre-season.
Then there will be the holiday parties -- and there are also great planning tips at Celebrations.com. Check them out!
I don’t know about you, but I find it intriguing that an Islamic group would host an event on “peace” featuring a pair of unrepentant terrorists.
Bill Ayers spent his brief 20 minutes in front of attendees at Cahn Auditorium charging the audience of students to "do something."
"If you ask, you might learn, and if you learn, you might have to," Ayers said during Muslim-cultural Students Association's highly anticipated event nearly three months in the making.
Although the former Weather Underground leader was not encouraging the 350 in attendance to take to the sort of violence he engaged in during the 1960s, he repeatedly challenged them to question the conventional wisdom.
The event, entitled "Peaceful Progress: A Discourse on Effecting Change,"
What qualifications does Ayers have to speak on “Peaceful Progress”? He and his fellow Weatehrmen were terrorists. That includes his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. They are therefore uniquely UNQUALIFIED to on the subject.
And why would members of the “religion of peace” choose terrorists to speak on that topic? What does it tell us about their faith?
Failure to disclose income as required by House rules and federal law FOR THREE DECADES.
A new report says that Rep. Charles B. Rangel failed to disclose what became of thousands of dollars in assets over the past three decades.
The report identifies 28 separate instances within the past 30 years where he failed to report in congressionally-mandated filings on personal assets. The report from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation was based on a review of Rangel's filings from 1978 to the present.
The researchers write, "Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold."
I wonder when Queen Nancy will act to remove this unethical alligator from the congressional swamp?
Well, down here in Houston we are in the run-up to that grand celebration of cowboys, cowgirls, and livestock known as the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. This year I'm looking forward to wearing one of the things I survived from Hurricane Ike last fall -- a brand new pair of Justin boots that I had just gotten a few days before the arrival of the storm. Of course, there was only one place in Houston to gt them -- Cavender's Boot City, which I've always found to be the top outfitter of western clothes and accessories from companies like Ariat, Lucchese, Justin, and Wrangler. In fact, I expect to be making a trip their direction in the next couple of weeks, shopping for the final item of rodeo wear -- a cowboy hat. What do you folks think -- black, white, gray or silver? And who knows, we might just get my darling wife a pair of ladies' cowboy boots to match mine as well. Best of all, they have a great web presence as well, for all you folks not blessed to be here in Texas.
Dahlia Lithwick offers an interesting observation about the current liberal justices of the Supreme Court and the sort of justice various liberals have said that Obama needs to appoint when a vacancy occurs. But in the midst of it all, she offers this observation that makes a lot of sense – but which is also a telling point about the “great” liberal justices of generations past.
It's sometimes said that in addition to being voiceless, or at least librarian-voiced, the court's liberals cannot see big. Thus we often hear that the court's liberals lack a revelatory constitutional vision. Sunstein, for instance, once lamented the "absence of anything like a heroic vision on the court's left." He writes longingly of Marshall and Brennan as "the Court's visionaries, offering a large-scale sense of where constitutional law should move." What Scalia has always done so much more effectively than anyone else at the court is sell his view of originalism and textualism. He has a coherent interpretive rulebook to which he almost always adheres. Oh, and he can explain it in 60 seconds on 60 Minutes.
Yes, it is “the vision thing” – but in the course of explaining another point about the vision of the three justices she shows the fundamental difference between a Scalia and a Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall.
Whether they persuade by the force of their personality, a la Brennan; or their life story, a la Marshall; or their browbeating analysis, a la Scalia, the big justices tend to be the ones with the big ideas.
But consider the basis upon which the three justices mentioned persuade others. In the case of Brennan, it was his personality. In the case of Marshall, it was his biography. In the case of Scalia, though, it is the expounding of rigorous legal reasoning grounded in the text of the Constitution. In effect, Lithwick is calling for a move away from the founding document, with decisions instead being based upon the whims and preferences of the men (or women) on the bench. So much for being a nation of laws.
He performed horrendous medical experiments upon Jews and other prisoners as a concentration camp doctor, so why is it no surprise that he found some sort of comfort in a faith that despises Jews in his later years.
One of the most wanted Nazi war criminals, Aribert Heim or "Doctor Death," lived for years as a quiet, pious Muslim in a small hotel on the edge of Islamic Cairo, where he was known as Doctor Tarek.
Concealed in the labyrinthine streets of the largest city in Africa and the Middle East, the man wanted for killing hundreds of concentration camp victims with horrific medical experiments found refuge until his death in 1992.
"He was like a giant, not very chatty but he never missed a prayer at the mosque," remembers Gamal Abu Ahmed, who today lives in Dr Death's former room on the sixth floor of the Qasr el-Medina hotel.
May he and his ilk burn in Hell for all eternity.
Since when does death constitute the breaking of a lease?
The ex-husband of one of the nine people killed at a Christmas Eve party in Covina has received demands from a landlord to pay the dead woman's rent.
Broadcrest Foothill Apartment Homes claims Alicia Ortiz broke her lease on an Upland apartment when she and her 17-year-old son were killed by her sister's disgruntled ex-husband. The landlord informed her former husband, Carlos Ortiz, that she gave "insufficient notice to vacate." The company says it is owed $2,821 in rent and penalties.
The itemized invoice claimed Ortiz's estate owes $1,655, plus payment for 12 days rent and other fees for the weeks after she died.
Imagine that – Ortiz and her son were so inconsiderate of their contractual obligations that they went out and got themselves murdered. Apparently she should have notified the company in advance of their impending murder.
Here’s hoping that every resident of this complex chooses not to renew their leases, and that no others move in. After all, this demand is simply beyond the pale.
Invading a speech and shutting down the speaker is not democracy, no matter how loudly the hooligans in question make the claim that it is.
houting "This is what democracy looks like!" about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was addressing an economic forum and accused him of ignoring the concerns of working-class New Yorkers.
A few minutes into the mayor's speech at a Manhattan hotel, the demonstrators charged in, chanting and waving signs that said, "Mayor Bloomberg, talk to us about the future of NYC!"
Protesters said the demonstration was organized by a coalition that advocates for communities. They said Mr. Bloomberg has ignored the concerns of working-class New Yorkers, favoring the rights of rich developers instead.
Organized by :a coalition that advocates for communities”? I wonder – could that be ACORN? It seems possible – but why aren’t we told for sure?
I'm curious -- is this the kind of Hope'N'Change the Community-organizer-in-Chief told us we should believe in?
1) Arrange for women to be raped.
2) Raise the issue family shame and honor killings.
3) Convince them to strap on bombs to commit murder as a form of redemption.
A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.
Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.
In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.
What an evil woman. Such a person can only be produced by an evil ideology that warps the human psyche – and we all know what that is.
Here’s hoping for her quick conviction and rapid execution.
Sadly, it appears that this is not the only use of sexual assault to recruit unwilling participants for bombings -- and that these Islamofascists don't limit its use to women.
I don’t often urge that convicts be pardoned. And these days, when Wall Street crimes are in the news again, this one is probably goes against the grain of popular sentiment. But sometimes a person who has served his sentence and then engaged in exemplary civic-minded behavior ought to receive a pardon out of gratitude for his good works. And one such person is Michael Milken, the one-time junk bond king.
In the 16 years since his release from prison, disgraced junk-bond king Michael Milken has beaten prostate cancer, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for medical research and reshaped an image tarnished by a 1990 conviction for securities fraud.
* * *
Milken. . . recovered from the disease and started a foundation that has raised more than $350 million for cancer research. He has also donated millions more for scholarship and education programs, and launched the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute, an economic think tank.
I don’t minimize Milken’s earlier misdeeds. But like Chuck Colson, we see in Milken a man who really has been changed by his experience and demonstrated that he is truly rehabilitated. He has no right to a pardon – which is, after all, a privilege extended by the president – but Milken has become the model of what we ought to want to see more of our citizen become.
Allowing a historical building to retain its historical character is simply common sense. But to then attempt to suppress the free speech rights of the building owner is even worse. And to waste so many tax dollars on a pair of battles that the government could not win is not only foolish, but is also irresponsible.
A man who has fought for a decade to restore a nearly century-old painted sign advertising beer has emerged victorious.
In 1998, Bruce Edwards' request to restore the painted sign on his C.C. Keller building on the city's 25th Street was denied by the Ogden Landmarks Commission. Edwards said one member of the commission said no because the sign advertised beer and didn't fit a family-friendly image for the thoroughfare.
But recently, the commission approved a renewed request.
"I outlasted 'em," Edwards said. "And the bottom line is, I was right."
The original wording on the sign dates back to about 1910 and is painted on the north side of the two-story brick structure. It reads, "Every hour upon the hour for about an hour Drink Becker's Beer — Ogden's Famous Beer."
After his request was denied, Edwards and the city got into a war of sorts. In 2000, Edwards put up a sign in the window of his then-vacant building hammering the city with insults. The City Council then passed an ordinance forbidding signs like Edwards'.
The battle moved to court, where in 2005 a judge sided with Edwards, saying the city had violated his First Amendment rights. So the critical sign stayed and the landmarks commission denied his request to restore the beer sign again.
After more time in court, Edwards applied again last year and finally got the long sought-after approval.
No word on how much money the battle cost the city.
But a hearty hoist of the beer stein to Bruce Edwards for fighting the good fight on behalf of free speech and property rights.
What the Grey Lady said in the headline.
Australian Court Jails Muslim Cleric
Sounds shocking. What possible reason could the court have had for jailing the “Muslim Cleric”?
A Muslim cleric convicted of forming a terrorist cell in Australia was sentenced Tuesday to 15 years in prison, bringing the country’s largest terrorism trial to a close. Six of his followers were ordered to serve between six and 10 years in prison.
I’m curious – why wasn’t the headline “Australian Court Jails Muslim Terrorists”? Why didn’t they disclose the most important information in the headline?
If Tom Daschle’s “limousine liberal” venality and Nancy Killefer’s penny-ante tax offenses disqualify them from posts that include spending tax dollars, how can Tim Geithner stay on in a position that includes collecting those tax dollars?
Not only did Geithner neglect to pay his taxes, he turned a buck by doing so—accepting payments from his employer for the very purpose of offsetting those taxes. When he took the money, he signed a statement promising to pay the taxes and then ignored his obligations—for years. Protected by a statute of limitations, he did not pay his 2001–02 taxes until his nomination made them a public issue. If Daschle’s tax problems should bar him from managing the federal health-services bureaucracy and Killefer’s preclude her from scrutinizing the budget, how is it that Geithner’s transgressions—the worst of the lot—are insufficient to disqualify him from managing the same Internal Revenue Service whose attentions he evaded?
I argued against Geithner’s confirmation when his misdeeds first came to light. Now that two other appointees have been forced out over tax issues, the argument against his serving as Secretary of the Treasury is even more compelling. Perhaps he and President Obama need to learn the lesson of the little parable that my father kept taped to his bedroom mirror when I was a kid.
Sometime when you're feeling important; Sometime when your ego's in bloom Sometime when you take it for granted You're the best qualified in the room, Sometime when you feel that your going Would leave an unfillable hole, Just follow these simple instructions And see how they humble your soul; Take a bucket and fill it with water, Put your hand in it up to the wrist, Pull it out and the hole that's remaining Is a measure of how you will be missed. You can splash all you wish when you enter, You may stir up the water galore, But stop and you'll find that in no time It looks quite the same as before. The moral of this quaint example Is do just the best that you can, Be proud of yourself but remember, There's no indispensable man.
Secretary Geithner may be a great guy, and may have many skills and qualifications for his office – but his transgressions are such that he is and should be disqualified from holding a position that oversees the collection of taxes. After all, even if he is “uniquely qualified” for the post, his failure to pay taxes ought to be uniquely disqualifying for the job.
H/T Hot Air
It might, because nationalizing the health care system will kill off private sector medical care, including abortuaries.
Follow the logic for a moment. Let’s say Progressive (socialist) Democrats are successful at unleashing their command and control utopia on the civilian population. The long term result will be the death of private medicine (among many other private markets). No problemo, some say, because healthcare is a right and only the government can properly secure that right at any cost.
The unintended consequence would be that over the long run, the only place where an abortion would be available is inside the national health system, leaving only the black market for women who wish to remain anonymous and undocumented by the state, (think very young scared girls and cheating spouses).
Then take it one step further, and consider for a moment how long state run abortion services would remain in business after the political pendulum swings back in the conservative direction (or do you think that Republicans will never be in power ever again?) At that point, the pro-lifers will only have to turn off the spigot at one source to eliminate most safe abortion options.
What’s more, the cutoff of funds will be quite popular with Americans, a clear majority of whom believe that the government ought not be paying for abortions regardless of whether or not they support abortion being legal. And unless we are going to have the courts reverse decades of jurisprudence and begin ruling that government is obligated to fund the exercise of fundamental rights (in which case I want my domain name and computer paid for under the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press), there will be no recourse.
A year ago, Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral was closed so that major structural renovations could be completed. In August it reopened. It will be closed again for some time after today’s major fire.
An extra-alarm blaze that broke out this morning at Holy Name Cathedral downtown caused extensive fire damage to the roof and attic, but spared the cathedral's sanctuary.
Cardinal Francis George said the cathedral's roof would have to be rebuilt and there was considerable water damage inside. "Chicago has always bounced back from fires and I think we'll bounce back from this," the cardinal said as he left the church.
The fire may have been related to some renovation. Work was being done on pillars in the cathedral and on some deteriorating wood high in the rafters, according Jimmy Lago, chancellor of the Chicago Archdiocese. He said a worker was present at the time the fire broke out, but didn't know if he was working in the area where the fire started.
May God bless the parishioners of Holy Name Cathedral and the people of the Archdiocese of Chicago. And may God also bless the firefighters who put themselves on the line to preserve as much of this historic building as they did.
I ordinarily don’t find it appropriate for reporters to inject their personal feelings into a news story, but in this case I don’t see how it is possible to not do so in the case of a building that has been the spiritual hub of a city for such a long period of time. That is part of why I was touched by this passage in one report.
CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine was emotional on the scene.
"What you can see, basically, is the smoke billowing the roof, but what you see in your mind's eyes are all the events and all the emotional moments," Levine said. "My mind goes back to Luciano Pavarotti singing 'Ave Maria' when Pope John Paul II was here. My mind goes back to the funeral of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin inside; the people that were standing around outside and watching. My mind goes back to so many emotional events in the building, which is really a part of the fabric in the community."
Indeed, my mind goes back to the five priesthood ordinations I attended and/or participated in at Holy Name Cathedral during and after my time as a seminarian at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in the early 1990s. Indeed, it was at the last of these (as members of my seminary class was ordained) ordinations that I was blessed with a sense of peace with my departure from the seminary and a recognition that my vocation in life lay in marriage and teaching. It is therefore a special place for me, and so I count myself among those who share in the sense of loss brought by this morning’s events. But I know that after the loss associated this event will come a resurrection that mirrors that of Christ himself, and it is my hope that from this experience will flow much grace upon those whose lives have been impacted today.
Because Racism, Sexism, Classism and Low Rent Vulgarity as usual are just a part of the Democrat family values espoused over at Bay Area Houston. After all, what else are we to make of this post.
OK. This is getting strange. Palin was pallin' around with Perry purposely at the Governors Political Convention. Here we have two sort of attractive peppy politicians (I threw up a little in my mouth), with Palin pouting the trailer trash grandma look, and Perry with the perfectly quaffed hair, lookin to score politically. And score he does.
Palin has come out swinging with a one night endorsement of Rick Perry for another 4 years of screwing us Texans.While a bunch of politicians have gone to Washington, hat in hand, seeking a bailout, Governor Perry has left his hat in my hotel room while he sticks his hand out for whatever giveaways the Federal governement will give. Rick Perry is true to conservative principles even when others think the party suck. I like that about him: he doesn’t care who blows, he acts on who does.
And clearly, she does. If she was looking to score a date with Rick Perry, that endorsement just might do it for her. I can see her being dragged around from hotel to hotel on Perry's campaign across Texas speaking to a group of hard dicks, with her yee-ha, howdy-doody, folksy, hot grandmother with an 18 year old unwed mother look. And the retards of the republican party eating it up like a buck toothed hillbilly getting a $2 lap dance at the C-Sec Nudie Bar.
Perry wouldn't have it any other way.
So let’s look at what we have here. Blog author John Cobarruvias engages in racist and classist insults towards white people from working class backgrounds – clearly such folks don’t have any place in politics (or at least not GOP politics – he still worships at the altar of the Clintons). As for his “buck toothed hillbilly” comment, I’d like to remind him that the buck-toothed hillbilly vote is what originally brought his fellow Democrats like Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) into office.
And let’s not pass on his tendency to objectify women in politics, in this case comparing a successful governor to a stripper. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. A couple of weeks ago he decided that a lobbyist event for female legislators that included pedicures was indicative of members of the organization having foot fetishes.
Then there is the vulgarity that he believes passes as witty political commentary providing meaningful insight on the issues of the day. What it really shows is his own warped sexuality, which is apparently stuck somewhere around the level of the typical thirteen-year-old.
Oddly enough, John sees himself as an opponent of racism, a supporter of women, and an advocate for the lower and middle class, while claiming that Republicans are on the wrong side of all of those issues. Seems to me that he actually is suffering from what psychologists call projection, seeing non-existent faults in others while being blind to their presence in himself. But on the bright side, at least he didn't call for the lynching of these Republicans.
That’s what they call their new satellite.
Iran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers. The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.
Of course, the current regime in Teheran is noted for its exaggerations regarding its military and space technology. It will be interesting to see if this can be independently verified.
But if it is, it means that Iran has rockets that can hit Israel and Europe -- and may not be far from having the capacity to hit the USA. Will this development result in a CHANGE in the policies of the Obama Administration.
I like Sarah Palin. I voted for her. I might (but only might) vote for her again in the future. But I do not feel guided by this endorsement.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has endorsed Rick Perry for re-election, calling him the "true conservative" in a primary election showdown with fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Palin, who electrified the GOP base as the party's vice presidential nominee last year, has strong support among the party's social conservatives. Her endorsement appeared aimed at undercutting Hutchison's appeal with GOP women. Both groups will be important in picking the party's nominee in next year's Republican primary.
Sorry, Sarah, but Rick Perry lost my vote when he decided to play doctor with every little girl in Texas. He lost my vote with his wishy-washiness on border issues. He lost my vote when he lied about property tax reform and implemented a ruinous business tax. None of that is particularly conservative in my book. I’ll stand with Kay Bailey Hutchison instead.
I have long been a Michael Steele fan. He is, dare I say it, my kind of Republican – a guy who is interested in reaching out to everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion, without compromising on the essentials of conservatism. To the degree that his race matters to me, it is a plus – if it helps him to reach out to African-Americans who are skeptical of the GOP, that makes it a positive factor – but it certainly is not a negative to me and most Republicans with whom I have worked over the year. I supported him for GOP chairman, and am pleased by his victory.
And I must say that I like what I hear from him in this new position. We Republicans have needed a chairman who has grassroots support and the courage to say what it really means to be a Republican – that we are a party that supports human life, civil rights and civil liberties, and a strong national defense.
Let’s see – a college kid does something sort of dumb, like so many other college kids. Why is it news? Because he is among the most elite athletes in the world today, Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps.
Now let’s be honest – taking a hit off of the bong was a dumb thing to do. But his response and that of the IOC are absolutely correct.
The International Olympic Committee expressed confidence Monday that Michael Phelps will learn from his "inappropriate behavior" and continue to serve as a role model after a British newspaper published a photo of him inhaling from a marijuana pipe.
Phelps, who won a record eight gold medals at last year's Beijing Olympics, apologized and acknowledged "regrettable behavior" after the picture was published Sunday by the tabloid News of the World.
"Michael Phelps is a great Olympic champion," the IOC said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Monday. "He apologized for his inappropriate behavior. We have no reason to doubt his sincerity and his commitment to continue to act as a role model."
Of course, the media has had a field day with the story, and really has not separated the issue of performance enhancing drugs from recreational drugs. Just call it one more sign of media cluelessness.
And for those of you who are surprised by my position – yes, I do support legalization (or at least decriminalization) of marijuana, even though it is a substance that I’ve never had any particular interest in using. I’d classify it along with tobacco and alcohol – substances that I either don’t use or don’t use often, but which I personally find inoffensive if they are used responsibly and in moderation.
It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.
And Barry Hussein has only been president for 14 days – meaning that he has given more than 1.2 waivers a day. At this rate he will be employing every lobbyist in Washington by the time the 2012 election rolls around.
And then there is the pair of tax cheats and the guy who urged Clinton to give dicey pardons.
In other words, this is shaping up to be one of the dirtiest administrations ever.
Is it time to appoint the special prosecutor yet?
H/T Hot Air
UPDATE: Here's a partial list -- though it doesn't include some of the appointees or Tom Daschle, who was a lobbyist in all but name.
Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:
- Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
- Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
- William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
- William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
- David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
- Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
- Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
- Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
- Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
- Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
- Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
- Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Ain’t it great what computer technology can do?
Using age progression software to regress a portrait of our nation’s first First Lady, historians have come up with a very different image of the dowdy old matron we see depicted in the history books.
Examination of records from her lifetime reveal an intelligent, competent, and passionate woman who would certainly have been a proper match for the studly young man we know George Washington to have been. It certainly makes one wonder if there was the sort of lively intellectual repartee between these two that we know existed between John and Abigail Adams – a couple who we also know had a smoldering passion for each other as well.
A cricket team has been forced to change its name after angry complaints from Muslims and Jews.
The Middlesex Crusaders, who have played under the name for almost 10 years, will play next season as The Panthers.
Bosses at the county club acted after protests about the name from Jewish and Muslim communities, who said they felt it was a reference to the religious wars waged by Christians in Europe against other faiths.
Let’s be honest here – the Crusades were not against “other faiths”. It was waged – rightly – against one other faith which had engaged in centuries of armed aggression against other faiths and was intent upon denying Christians access to their holy sites.
And we all know what that aggressive religion of non-peace was – and, sadly, remains until this day.
Here’s one that is sure to get the old arteries hardening.
Think we could introduce this as a part of the menu at Gitmo and its successors? Or perhaps make consumption of a complete one a condition of release?
H/T Hot Air
“Obama 1260” is no more – the victim of ratings so low that they were virtually unmeasureable.
Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election. But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at...conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett. Tantum said he will move Schultz to WTNT to give him another shot.
In other words, it isn’t that commercial stations are not trying to program liberal talk – it is just that no one wants to listen. Good grief – if it cannot succeed in reliably blue Washington, DC and the liberal suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, is there really a market for such programming?
And notice – the station manager is trying to keep one of the liberal hosts going by moving him to an existing conservative talk station. My guess? Ed Schultz will not go over well there. You know, sort of like a decision to program a bit of baroque chamber music on a hip-hop station. After all, that isn’t what the listeners are tuning in for.
It’s awful, isn’t it, that President George W. Bush and his invited guests spent Super Bowl Sunday chowing down on $100 steaks in a White House heated to sauna temperatures while people were freezing to death in Kentucky due to a natural disaster to which FEMA has not been dispatched.
Tell me – will any white entertainer have the “courage” of Kanye West and make the claim that this FEMA non-response is because Barack Obama hates white people who vote Republican? Of course not – that would be RRRRAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTTT!!!!
The Anchoress points out the non-response of the Obama administration to this humanitarian catastrophe – and the media’s willing complicity in it.
On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer took a pair of soundbites, uttered nearly a week apart, to make it appear that Rush Limbaugh’s animosity towards Barack Obama is based upon race. In doing so, she took them out of context – and ignored words that made it clear that ideology, not ethnicity, were at the heart of his opposition to Obama.
On Monday morning, ABC’s “Good Morning America” gave Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment a racial slant by editing it in a deliberately misleading way. In an interview with Sen. John McCain on Monday, anchor Diane Sawyer described Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment as “another big issue in the news.”
She then tossed to a sound bite comprised of two separate comments made five days apart, which ABC joined together. The edited comment made it sound like Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he’s black.
Here’s the ABC version of Limbaugh’s comment:
Limbaugh: “I don’t need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.”
“We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, because his father was black, because this is the first black president, we’ve got to accept this.”
Looks damning – until one notes that the entire monologue from which the first snippet was pulled dealt with the policy implications of the Obamist platform, and why he views it as bad for America. Indeed, the words which followed indicated that “ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me.” That certainly undercuts the racial argument raised by the creative editing job – which is why those words were left on the cutting room floor.
Now I join with many other folks in questioning how a woman with no job and six kids was able to get IVF treatment so as to give birth to octuplets. After all, where did she get the money and how is she going to support the kids? I think we all know the answer to the second question.
But what is most shocking to me is the response of so many folks in the media over this. After all, we regularly hear about “reproductive freedom” and “a woman’s right to choose” – and even about the necessity of government providing funding “reproductive health services” for poor women. But suddenly, the MSM and its talking heads are up in arms, expressing outrage over these births and the medical professionals who assisted this woman in conceiving and bringing the kids to term. I’ve heard some guests on cable news shows this weekend suggesting that the doctor had an obligation to refuse her services, based upon his/her subjective view of whether someone in her situation ought to be permitted to bring more (and certainly that many more) into the world.
Hold on! What about “reproductive choice”? What about “a woman’s right to choose”? Doesn’t “her body, her choice” enter into the discussion? And haven’t we had court cases regarding doctors choosing to deny services to a woman based upon the fact that his or her belief system led to the conclusion that the home to be provided by the prospective mother was an acceptable one? After all, these are the same folks who objected to “conscience clause” protections for those medical professionals who object to participating in abortion procedures.
Now mind you, I think that perhaps there are some interesting legal and ethical questions raised by this situation. But why is it that, once again, it is when the choice is “live birth” we have the “pro-choice” opinion elite coming out in favor of limiting those choices.