Ever since I was a kid, I've fascinated with the "delta wing" aircraft of the US military. It is one reason I like to drive up Route 3 here in southeast Houston -- outside the main gate to Ellington Field is an F102A "Delta Dagger", done up in all its glory as an aircraft of the Texas Air National Guard's 147th Fighter Wing.
Oh, yeah -- underneath the cockpit was stenciled the name and rank of the 147th's most famous pilot. If you walked up to the plane you would see a stencil that read "LT G W Bush".
Notice, please, that I'm using past tense. It seems that this little tribute to the former president is now a former tribute. It only took five months for that stencil to be obliterated.
When George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, he was stationed at Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. At Ellington Field there are several retired aircraft on display. It has been reported that the F-102 on display at Ellington Field was the one then Lt Bush trained on when he was with the 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington Field.
For many years, the name "LT G W BUSH" was stenciled on the aircraft just below the cockpit, and I've seen it. However, after January 20, 2009, I noticed that "LT G W BUSH" had been painted over. I asked one of the senior officers of the 147th if Bush's name had been deliberately removed. I was told that it was removed temporarily while the aircraft was being repainted. I accepted that explanation. Today I was back on Ellington Field, and I noticed that "LT G W BUSH" had not been restenciled onto the aircraft. I asked a member of the 147th why and their response was a laugh and a "What do you think?" So, it seems that now that Obama is President, the 147th has become politically correct and removed indicators that President Bush had served with them. This could be because now there is talk that the 147th at Ellington Field should be shut down. So much for loyality among airmen.
George W. Bush served this nation honorably as fighter pilot, and was honorably discharged after that service. Isn't it disgraceful that the Era of Hope'N'Change includes sending inconvenient reminders about the previous presidents and their military service have to go down the memory hole?
For the record -- I'm not accusing President Obama of ordering this change. It would be interesting to know who did give the order to paint over the tribute to the 43rd President of the United States.
If a new General Motors emerges from bankruptcy as planned, U.S. financial aid for the company will expand to nearly $50 billion, but neither the government nor the company is forecasting how much of the public money will be repaid.
It's sure to be a stretch. For the United States to fully recover its investment, the value of General Motors stock will have to reach levels it has never before attained.
The problem? For the government stake in the company to reach a value of $50 billion, stock prices will have to go higher than they reached in the best of times for the ailing auto maker. So not only has the government overpaid for the assets they acquired, but it paid a price that would have been excessive at the company's height.
In the business world, there is a requirement that a company uphold its fiduciary duty to the stockholders and not squander their money on bad investments. Failure to meet that duty cn result in firing, personal financial liability, and even jail time. What consequences will Obama and his team face for their failure to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the American taxpayer?
Whether you agree with Richard Cohen on the topic of today's column (I do, but not necessarily for the reasons he gives), you have to agree with this observation on the nature of Obama.
Barack Obama is pretty much a perfect package -- smart, articulate, handsome, charming. The only thing he lacks is a bottom line: What, precisely, does he find unacceptable? It's hard to know. His political career has been so brief we don't yet know where he makes his stand -- this far and no further.
A pity that Cohen and the rest of the media didn't offer this observation during the 2008 campaign. It might just have alerted the American public to the fact that they were being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Instead, it was left to those of us on the GOP side of the aisle to offer such observations -- which were then immediately dismissed as partisan at best and racist at worst.
Unfortunately for America, we still are not quite sure what Obama's principles rally are and where he will make a stand for them -- an intolerable place for a nation like the United States to find itself.
Apparently the US is supposed to sit back and let the little tyrant in Pyongyang do whatever he wants -- including launch missiles at the US on the Fourth of July.
North Korea criticized the U.S. on Monday for positioning missile defense systems around Hawaii, calling the deployment part of a plot to attack the regime and saying it would bolster its nuclear arsenal in retaliation.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he ordered the deployment of a ground-based, mobile missile intercept system and radar system to Hawaii amid concerns the North may fire a long-range missile toward the islands, about 4,500 miles away.
"Through the U.S. forces' clamorous movements, it has been brought to light that the U.S. attempt to launch a pre-emptive strike on our republic has become a brutal fact," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.
The paper also accused the U.S. of deploying nuclear-powered aircraft and atomic-armed submarines in waters near the Korean peninsula, saying the moves prove "the U.S. pre-emptive nuclear war" on the North is imminent.
The commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, said the North will bolster its nuclear arsenal in self-defense.
Yeah, that's right -- it is all the fault of the US that the NorKs are violating international law by building an illegal nuclear arsenal. And the fact that the US is responding to that illegal activity is grounds for more illegal activity! Kim Jong-il had better hope that the US doesn't decide to act against him -- his forces are likely to be wiped off the map in under 24 hours if we do.
He was one of our nation's first WWII heroes -- and he is still going strong today.
'I'm going to say it again . . . I cannot believe this is happening,” John Finn said as he surveyed a crowd of more than 2,000 who traveled to Pine Valley to celebrate his 100th birthday.
The Medal of Honor recipient has spoken all over the country about his heroic counterassault on enemy planes at Pearl Harbor nearly 68 years ago, and he was feted in March by President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, on 7 December 1941, Lt. Finn promptly secured and manned a .50-caliber machinegun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machinegun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemy's fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
In the years since he left the military, Finn has been active in his community, including charitable and patriotic work.
May I join with so many other grateful Americans in wishing him a happy birthday as he reaches the century mark.
H/T Don Surber
One of the dumber arguments used by those who attack Christians over gay issues is refuted quite nicely by Dr. Mike Adams.
Readers of my column, even those from the San Francisco area, will be quick to point out that pedophilia, incest, and rape are more repugnant morally than homosexuality. But where does one draw the line?
In 2003, many defenders drew a line (read: manufactured a standard) by saying that Jesus never specifically condemned homosexuality in the New Testament. But there is a huge problem: Jesus never specifically condemned pedophilia, incest, or rape in the New Testament either.
And, as I like to point out, such condemnations of homosexuality do appear elsewhere in the New Testament, all of which is held to be the inspired Word of God by any Christian worthy of the name.
But for those who want to use the "Jesus didn't condemn..." argument, are you prepared to advocate for those other sexual evils on the basis that there is no specific condemnation of them from the lips of Jesus?
After all, we wouldn't want the state legislature to be able to determine if state money is being used to fund party travel expenses.
Virginia's governor, who doubles as the national Democratic party chief, is refusing to turn over his travel records to Republicans in his state.
Kaine's reply comes as a scandal unfolds over S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's trip to see a mistress.
Virginia Republican Party chairman Pat Mullins used the state's Freedom of Information Act to ask for the documents.
Mullins contends Kaine has spent too much time on Democratic National Committee business and used taxpayer dollars for it.
Could you imagine if this were a Republican doing this? But in the Age of Obama, corruption by Democrats is no big deal.
Is it any wonder that I find Democrats to be fundamentally dangerous to the liberties of Americans.
These are the words of the Speaker of the House in California, Karen Bass (emphasis added).
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
Got that -- speaking out against tax increases is the moral equivalent of crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. Voting based upon such an anti-tax philosophy is terrorism.
Know what, folks? I guess that makes me a proud terrorist. Or maybe just an American patriot.
But then again, I've noticed that Democrats don't consider dissent to be the highest form of patriotism when it is directed against them.
“They promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if their trillion-dollar stimulus was passed. But our nation has lost nearly 3 million jobs this year. Unemployment has soared above 9 percent. And now the president admits that unemployment will soon reach double digits.”
Bravo, Senator Boehner. Gotta love it when you can use Barry Hussein's own words to undermine his programs. I wonder, though, how long it will be until Obama uses the failure of his stimulus plan to prescribe doing more of the same thing to solve that failure.
H/T Don Surber
A major national organization has invited the president to speak. This organization was a major supporter during the presidential campaign. Look how they got jerked around.
The NAACP invites the president to speak to the group July 16, the last day of its six-day convention at the Hilton in New York.
The White House's response: Absolutely, he's coming.
Then the Secret Service comes and says, "No," the Hilton is not suitable.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg says, "Why don't I give you Yankee Stadium?" It would be the president's biggest event since his inauguration.
A couple of days later comes the answer from someone in Obama's operation: We don't want to project that kind of image. We want something bigger than the Hilton, but not as big as Yankee Stadium.
The NAACP people have to bust their ass to come up with another place - and they do, finally, finding an armory in Harlem. There's no air conditioning, however, and we are talking New York in July here. The governor steps in and says he'll provide temporary air conditioning.
The White House then says, "OK, but we want to change the time - 2 p.m. for the president's speech is not acceptable anymore. We want 5 o'clock."
Unfortunately, the new White House demand conflicts with the black-tie dinner that the NAACP holds on the last day of the convention and would create a logistical nightmare.. Their message to the White House -- the speech is at 2:00, we hope he shows.
And to imagine that this is how the Obama Regime treats the president's supporters -- what do the rest of us have to expect?
Gotta love this lede to a story from Georgia.
A former mayor found sitting naked and holding a beer at a Rabun County campsite told police he wasn’t the same naked man seen walking around earlier.
Mark Musselwhite, 43, said he was hot and had been in the creek, according to a Georgia Department of Natural Resources incident report. He apparently didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.
You know, claiming that it was some other naked guy doesn't seem to be a terribly effective strategy for avoiding arrest.
And what about mosquitoes?
Once again, Barack Obama acts just like George W. Bush -- and adopts a policy he and his surrogates criticized during the 2008 campaign.
President Obama signed the $106 billion war-spending bill into law Friday, but not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in legislation.
Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.
The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"Provisions of this bill…would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in a statement.
"I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations," he added.
Come on Democrats -- show America what you are made of. Either concede that your objection to signing statements was based entirely upon hypocritical partisanship -- or demand that institute impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, just like so many of you said should be done with Bush over his signing statements.
And just a reminder -- here's Barack Obama on signing statements during the campaign. He claimed that the very course of action he has now engaged in violates the Constitution.
Based upon this, it is clear that Barack Obama is knowingly violating the Constitution -- clearly falling within the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that constitute the basis for impeachment and removal from office.
There once was a talented performer named Michael Jackson. But that individual died long ago, and was replaced by a strange caricature of a human being whose sexual proclivities would have put a less famous person behind bars.
Debbie Schlussel offers an observation that I join in.
. . . I miss the original Michael Jackson--the one with talent, a voice that could range several octaves, feet that made us all dancing "the moonwalk" in the '80s, composing music and writing and singing that had him melding rock guitar with pop in songs like "Beat It" in a way that even demanded the respect of the heavy metal world. He was an original, all right. And he was a phenom.
That he was, and his music will, undoubtedly, stand the test of time.
Unfortunately, there is unseemly celebration of this warped individual as some sort of icon -- which writer Jonah Goldberg notes is a perversion of the term given its roots in religion as an item that represents holiness and is intended to bring people into closer contact with God. I also share in his observation about the accusations made against Jackson regarding the sexual abuse of young boys.
I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).
And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate nor society celebrate.
And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.
Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.
If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.
Personally, I'm rather disgusted at the adulation being poured out over Jackson, and the wall-to-wall news coverage his demise is generating. It obscures what is really important today -- not just the situation in Iran, but also great debates on health care, energy policy, and the political leadership. Whatever cultural importance Michael Jackson may or may not have, it does not merit this sort of hagiography.
That said, I do feel for his family members who mourn the loss of a loved one this day. But I cannot say that I feel any sense of loss that Micheal Jackson is no longer among the living -- and do believe that the children of the world are a little bit safer today for his no longer being in it.
UPDATE: May I note my disgust over the House of Representatives having a moment of silence to honor this man who paid $20 million to make accusations of child abuse go away?
I'm (D)isguste(D) by this farce -- an(D) can't help but note the party affiliation of all of the buffoons who gathere(D) to see the (D)ecease(D) pe(D)ophile honore(D).
I'm opening comments -- and reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.
But then again, I've seen some stupid administrators in my time as a teacher, so maybe I shouldn't have been shocked.
Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old girl when they strip-searched her on the suspicion she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The decision put school districts on notice that such searches are "categorically distinct" from other efforts to combat illegal drugs.
This isn't even a case of searching for illegal drugs. It was a freakin' ibuprofen -- available over the counter to any thirteen-year-old in all 50 states. This was a case of zero-tolerance run amok -- and a child traumatized because of the false accusation of another child.
I have only two objections to the outcome here. First, the administrators in this case should have been held personally liable for their actions, because they do shock the conscience. Second, I am really shocked by Justice Thomas' dissent. I see where he was headed, in terms of past precedent, but I just think he was wrong.
I'm sorry -- this just shouldn't be done.
President Obama's name would grace a new Prince George's County elementary school a few miles from the White House under a proposal scheduled for a vote tonight, barely five months after he took office.
If the Prince George's Board of Education approves the plan, Barack Obama Elementary School would be the first in the Washington region named after the president. The school is under construction outside the Capital Beltway in Upper Marlboro and is slated for completion by year's end.
No, my objection is not to the honoree. I simply don't feel comfortable with naming schools after living individuals -- and certainly not after people still in public office. We don't know what the future holds for Barack Obama -- will he prove wildly successful as a president, or will he be impeached and removed in disgrace? And especially given that Barack Obama will be running for reelection in 2012, this creates a potential for a real problem -- just imagine the issues that would arise if a polling place were located in Barack Obama Elementary school while Barack Obama was on the ballot.
And yes, I think there should not have been any schools named after George W. Bush while he was in office -- and I object to the schools named after living individuals in my district.
As I recall, only cash money is legal tender for all debts, public and private. I hope some folks remind the state controller of California of that before he tries this crap.
California's controller said on Wednesday that he would have to issue IOUs in a week if lawmakers can't quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit, and the state's treasurer plans to tap a reserve fund to meet debt service costs.
The measures came as a budget crisis deepened in the most populous U.S. state and the gridlocked legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts.
"Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression," Controller John Chiang said in a statement announcing that he would be forced to use IOUs to pay the state's bills beginning on July 2.
"The state's $2.8 billion cash shortage in July grows to $6.5 billion in September and after that we see a double digit freefall," Chiang said. "Unfortunately, the state's inability to balance its checkbook will now mean short-changing taxpayers, local governments and small businesses."
Here's hoping that someone who gets one of these IOUs heads to the local federal court and attempts to force involuntary bankruptcy on the state. After all, the state has no legal or moral right to force any creditor to take anything other than the cash it is owed.
Congratulations, Mayor White -- you've got another dead cop on your hands due to your city's policy of letting border jumping immigration criminals to roam free even after they are apprehended for breaking other laws.
The gunman who shot and killed an undercover police officer during a Tuesday night sting operation was an illegal immigrant who had been picked up by the U.S. Border Patrol in El Paso and allowed to return home to Mexico 10 years ago.
Municipal records also show that Roberto Pedroza Carrillo, 37, had been stopped and ticketed by the Houston Police Department at least four times since 2002, most recently last November. In 2002, a warrant was issued for Carrillo after he failed to appear in court on a speeding ticket, but the case was resolved when he paid the fine.
But because he never was arrested and fingerprinted in Houston, there was no way for ticketing officers to know he was here illegally.
Carrillo was killed in a gunfight Tuesday night seconds after he paid thousands of dollars to undercover officer Henry Canales, who was posing as a thief selling stolen televisions.
Now I realize, Mayor White, that you and your open-borders cronies argue that checking citizenship/immigration status is anti-Hispanic. I'm sure that such words are comforting to the family of the Hispanic officer who was murdered by a man who had no business being in this country -- and who could have been arrested and deported if only you let your police officers check for immigration violations. The whole lot of you may not bear any legal responsibility, but morally you and the Houston City Council are every bit as responsible for the death of Henry Canales as Roberto Pedroza Carrillo is.
She was, for an entire generation of teenagers, THE sex symbol.
Later, she became a respected actress.
And in her last weeks, she became a symbol of courage in the face of terminal illness who opened up her suffering to the world in order to raise awareness of the disease that would soon take her life.
And now she is gone -- from one of Charlie's Angels to one of God's.
May she rest in peace, and may those who loved her be comforted in this time of loss.
You know, sometimes headlines are just too funny. Take this one.
Opium-eating wallabies get high, make crop circles in poppy fields: Lawyer
Sometimes life is weirder than fiction. But how does this explain teh crop circles in other parts of the world?
As a rule, I don't believe that a politician necessarily needs to leave office because of an affair. I might choose not to vote for someone who has had an affair -- especially while in office -- but the affair in and of itself does not necessarily require resignation.
On the other hand, the situation involving Mark Sanford is such that it clearly does require resignation.
Now I had bee sketching out a schema for the sort of things that I think ought to necessitate a resignation while surfing the net, when I came across this posted at a liberal website from Delaware. It set forth some criteria that seem to fit my thinking on the matter.
Here are my guidelines for when a politician should resign:
- Abuse of public money and other crimes of public trust (bribery, for example). Some examples I would cite would be Rod Blagojevich, Jim McGreevey, Rudy Giuliani and Duke Cunningham.
- Private behavior which is illegal, while in office. Behavior before seeking office would probably depend on the type of crime. I wouldn’t care if someone had done drugs in the past, for examples. Politicians I would place in this category would be Mark Foley and Eliot Spitzer. I don’t care if Mark Foley was gay or if Spitzer cheated on his wife.
- Failure to do your job or inability to continue your job. I would place Sanford in this category.
In my opinion, Sanford falls into the third category. Running off without protecting the chain of command in your state is a much bigger offense politically than the personal failing of an affair. Sanford was derelict in his duty to the people of South Carolina, and needs to go.
Now some might look at me and ask about my opposition to Bill Clinton. Simple -- I didn't care that he was getting his knob polished by Monica, or that the was using her as a human humidor. However, he attempted to use his office to obstruct the gathering of evidence in a lawsuit and inhibit the investigation of an independent prosecutor into possible crimes that he uncovered. Indeed, those were the sorts of charges he faced during the impeachment -- not charges of having an extramarital affair.
Mark Sanford had the potential to be the next president of the United States. He threw that away. Now he simply needs to link away from public office like Eliot Spitzer -- and stay gone, unlike that shameless self-promoter.
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face. Obama on how to drive down health care costs while providing adequate coverage.
The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
On the other hand, YOU spouse, your kids, and your grandparents may not get that care under ObamaCare. So we'll still have the inequities in the health care system -- and a multi-trillion dollar bill to go with them.
Let's just call him what he is -- an elitist bastard who is more than willing to be generous with other people's money, while refusing to make the same sacrifices he demands of the rest of us. Seems to me this is a much more serious hypocrisy than any committed by Mark Sanford.
While one might question the taste of Ann Coulter's comments on Bill O'Reilly's show, they are clearly satirical. Unfortunately, Charles Johnson doesn't seem to recognize that -- or perhaps his fanatical hatred of anyone who dares to express political or religious opinions he disagrees with or uses rhetoric he dislikes has finally metastasized into full-fledged liberalism.
Even Bill O’Reilly (who has been pretty cold-blooded about the murder of Dr. George Tiller) seems a little taken aback when Ann Coulter says, “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”
And: “If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.” And: “That’s why liberals are so hysterical about this, because generally they’re on the pro-death side ... in this one case, they’re finally against someone dying, a man responsible for killing 60,000 babies.”
The entire "personally opposed" mantra has been the dodge used by abortion supporters who want to claim to be pro-life. Well, tell me what the difference is between Coulter's statement and theirs? After all, Coulter's statement has all the moral consistency of those made by Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and other "personally opposed" supporters of abortion.
But in the end, it seems that LGF's petty tyrant is satire impaired -- or maybe he just wants to be the speech police.
Rarely have I come across so devastating a comment about a obsessive Trig Trutherism.
Rarely in human history has a gay man been that obsessed with a married woman’s vagina.
Just a part of a great analysis of the fickle pundit by The New Ledger's Christopher Badeaux. It is certainly a must read.
Yesterday I said I would applaud and support a stronger statement on Iran. Well, Obama made one, so let me comment on it.
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.
The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.
Thank you, Mr. President -- better late than never. Now, if you will just disinvite the Iranian government from the weenie roasts, your words will be perceived as having actual meaning. But this is a damn good start.
As folks who read my blog know, my only child has four paws, a wagging tail, and a wet nose. I was therefore amused by Michael Gerson's column in today's Washington Post, in which he talks about his own adorable Havense pup, Latte. It is a heart-warming column.
And yet, I could not help but be shocked by the fact that it contained but one more example of the cruel excesses committed in the name of Communism.
But Latte is a dog of many virtues. To begin with, she is anti-communist -- or at least an exile from communism. Once popular in Cuba, the Havanese was associated with the ruling class overthrown by Fidel Castro. According to one source, these fluffy counterrevolutionaries may have been "actively or passively eliminated" in pursuit of socialist utopia. The Havanese would be extinct were it not for an American named Dorothy Goodale, who located 11 of the little dissidents in Florida and Costa Rica and began the breed anew.
I've always recognized Castro and communism as evil, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, an ideology that would countenance the murder of millions because of their social class and political ideology would certainly not be above seeking to wipe out a breed of dogs because of its association with such "enemies of the people."
After all, this is clearly the face of the oppressor of the masses.
If you want to know more about this adorable breed -- and how to help Havanese in trouble -- click here.
Traffic snarls are nothing unusual in a big city like Houston -- but this one certainly does present an interesting twist.
A disabled prison bus on the Pierce Elevated is snarling traffic on Interstate 45 just south of downtown this morning, snarling inbound traffic well beyond the North Loop.
A Texas Department of Criminal Justice bus headed southbound on the the freeway approaching U.S. 59 stalled on the shoulder around 5:45 a.m. after it hit a mattress, which somehow caught fire, officials said.
The bus remains on the right shoulder while officials wait for a replacement. Shotgun-armed guards are standing by.
The mishap is blocking all southbound lanes but one. No injuries were reported.
gee -- armed guards standing watch over a stalled bus and a burning mattress. it must be quite a site for morning commuters.
Over on a liberal political website where I've criticized Barack Obama's weak response to the crisis following the Iranian election, I've been roundly condemned as a warmonger who wants to prove that the US "has a bigger dick" than anyone else. Oddly enough, all I said was that the president should speak clearly, emphatically, and personally on the evil deeds being perpetrated by Mahmoud the Mad and the Mullahcracy rather than issuing press releases and non-committal comments from his surrogates.
All right, liberals, do you want to know what I mean? Here's the sort of response that Barack Obama needs to make -- the sort of response I would applaud and support.
So be a leader, Mr. President.
No more frozen custard while the Iranian people seek democratic change.
No more golf outings while Iranians are being killed in the streets by government forces.
Oh, yeah -- and also no welcome for Iranian government officials and diplomats at US Embassy Fourth of July parties around the world even as the Iranian government exemplifies the sort of tyranny that the Founders and the Continental Army rose up against -- and which the Iranian people are rising up against today.
Lead -- and if you don't know what such leadership looks like, consider the words of a better man who understands what America is about much better than you do.
Stand up for freedom, Mr. President. Stand up for freedom by speaking out for freedom.
Democracy riots in Iran. Nuke-laden cargo ships in North Korea. War on Terror.
So what does Barry Hussein do? He stages a photo-op with the girls!
All of which leads me to offer a little hint of things to come.
Great Obama Quotes From History:
"It’s 3 a.m. The phone just rang. Michelle — do you know where the nearest 24-hour Dairy Queen is?'
"Hillary — could you pick up a couple of Peanut Buster Parfaits on your way over from Foggy Bottom? Kim Jong-il just launched a couple of nukes at Hawaii."
"Comrade Fidel, I can’t accept those Cuban cigars — Michelle doesn’t let me smoke anymore. Could you bring some Cuban frozen custard instead?"
"General, I'll let you know my decision on an appropriate military response once I finish my Blizzard."
Comments Open -- Add your own quotes -- Play nice
Gotta love it when even the Obamabots at JibJab start making fun of the Obamessiah.
H/T Hot Air
In this case, USS John S. McCain.
Oh, the irony of Barack Obama finding it necessary to send a ship that bears the name of his opponent in the 2008 presidential election (named for his father and grandfather) to deal with the North Korean nuclear missile program. I am confident that the ship and its crew will be up to carrying out the mission before them in an exemplary fashion.
The ship's motto is "Fortune Favors The Brave". Will President Obama show himself worthy of fortune's favor?
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor resigned Friday from an elite all-women's club after Republicans questioned her participation in it. Sotomayor said she resigned from the Belizean Grove to prevent the issue from becoming a distraction in her confirmation hearings.
In a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the federal appeals court judge said she is convinced that the club does not practice "invidious discrimination" and that her membership in it did not violate judicial ethics.
But she said she didn't want questions about it to "distract anyone from my qualifications and record."
Federal judges are bound by a code that says they shouldn't join any organization that discriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out the other day, it is impossible to conclude that the Belizean Grove -- like its all-male counterpart, the Bohemian Grove -- is anything other than an organization that engages in invidious discrimination. If Sotomayor truly believed otherwise, she would not feel the need to quit -- indeed, she would maintain her membership and offer a defense of her membership.
So let's go down the list -- racism, sexism, unethical conduct, and free speech douchbaggery. It is clear that Sonia Sotomayor not only should not be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court, but she is also unfit to sit as a judge on any court in the United States.
Besides trillions on an insurance plan that still won't cover 2/3 of uninsured Americans, there is another detail in the ObamaCare plan sponsored by Senator Teddy the Hutt (D-Dead mistress in his sunken Oldsmobile) that should lead every American to oppose it.
This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).
I call BULLSHIT! If this mandatory system isn't good enough for our elected representatives and the federal employees who subsist on our tax dollars, then it isn't good enough for the rest of the American people. Either require that all federal elected officials, their appointees, and other federal employees be subject to ObamaCare BEFORE the rest of the American public to show the effectiveness and efficiency of the new plan -- thereby boosting public confidence in it -- or don't pass it at all. After all, WE, THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns in this country, and those who are our servants should not get better than we do using our tax dollars while we are denied the same choices they have.
H/T Bookworm Room
Outrageous -- but par for the course among the Democrats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi extended her "full support" Thursday to Rep. John Conyers, whose wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, is the subject of a City Hall corruption case.
"There is no indication that this matter involves Chairman Conyers," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told The Detroit News. "Chairman Conyers has the full support of the speaker."
Excuse me, but the Justice Department is investigating -- and near to indicting -- the man's wife. Are we really to believe that Conyers -- who has a history of abusing federally paid staff and federal funds for the personal use of himself and his wife -- would not attempt to influence the investigation? Moreover, doesn't this appearance of impropriety constitute an impropriety in and of itself?
Hey, Nancy -- you promised to clean out the Ethical Swamp that is the House of Representatives. Quit giving free passes to the unethical alligators of your own party.
At first it seems like a common sense proposal -- those on the federal government's terrorist watch list should not be allowed to buy or possess firearms.
People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.
In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.
The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.
Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.
Of course, this little detail gets buried much deeper in the article.
From February 2004 through February 2009, the report found, there were 963 requests for gun purchases through the federal system by people on the list. Of that group, 865 purchases — or 90 percent — were approved after a three-day review by the F.B.I. failed to turn up any other disqualifying factors.
A narrower study by the G.A.O. in 2005 first drew public attention to the issue. The Justice Department took some limited steps to address the issue, centralizing the review of gun purchases by those on watch lists to ensure that all possible disqualifiers were being considered.
Nonetheless, the rate of approval for requests to buy a gun went up from 80 percent in 2005 to the new study’s 90 percent. Officials were searching for explanations for the increase, which might reflect the overall growth in both the number of people on the watch list and of gun purchases.
All possible disqualifiers are being considered -- and these folks are not disqualified. And yet the New York Times and some members of the legislative branch want to prohibit the exercise of a right guaranteed under the US Constitution based upon inclusion on a secret list. And remember -- no foreigner has a right to a visa to get into this country, and no individual has a right to board an airplane -- but the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution, and has since the earliest days of our Republic.
Now one may ask why I am sticking up for suspected terrorists. I'm not. But what we have here is a list that is made by bureaucrats, with no review by the courts. Is one included on the list based upon a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? Preponderance of evidence? It is really unclear -- and since individuals on the list may not even be aware of their inclusion, it is eminently possible that the legitimate exercise of a civil right by an innocent American citizen could occur based upon bureaucratic bungling or outright error,
Remember -- only a few weeks ago the Department of Homeland Security issued a report that classified veterans and holders of conservative political opinions as potential terrorists. Only a few days ago it was disclosed that the pentagon has classified political protests as a form of terrorism. In the hands of a regime hostile to gun rights (such as, for example, the current one), it would not be at all difficult to vastly expand the terrorist watch list to include all sorts of innocent American patriots who have done nothing more than exercise their First Amendment rights to express mainstream political opinions.
But even more than that, I have an aversion to any limitation on Second Amendment rights -- one every bit as strong as my aversion to laws limiting the exercise of First Amendment rights. Just as we would never accept limitations on the rights of Americans to speak or publish controversial ideas, to petition the government regarding controversial positions, to peaceably assemble with like-minded individuals to advocate for those positions, or to exercise a religious faith that holds extreme views based solely upon their inclusion on a list by government bureaucrats, we should similarly reject the idea that the government can limit the right to keep and bear arms (or any of the other rights included in the Bill of Rights) based upon such a bureaucratic diktat. After all, SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED is a pretty clear directive to the government -- for all that the gun-grabbers try to obscure its meaning.
Another government study that is utterly absurd to the point of being a waste of money.
The federal government is spending $423,500 to find out why men don't like to wear condoms, a project government watchdogs say is a nearly-half-a-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money.
Researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, are investigating why "young, heterosexual adult men" have problems using condoms. The study will include "skill-based intervention" to teach grown men how to use protection.
The first phase of the two-year study called "Barriers to Correct Condom Use" will be a simple Q&A, but doctors say the second phase will plumb uncharted territory.
"The second phase involves a laboratory study, and focuses on penile erection and sensitivity during condom application," reads the abstract from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.
"The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems."
Indeed, I'll spare the researchers he trouble of ding this report at all by providing the answers now.
Now someone cut me that check for $200K.
I'm all for dress codes in the workplace -- after all, you represent your employer when you deal with the public. But I do have to say that this one goes a bit too far.
The Brooksville city council recently approved a revised dress code as part of its effort to update existing policies.
The revision instructs employees to observe "strict personal hygiene," including the use of deodorant. It lists "the observable lack of undergarments and exposed undergarments" as "unacceptable attire."
The observable lack of undergarments? Is this a requirement that women wear bras? That men wear undershirts? Or is there a rash of female employees in skirts (or male employees in kilts) flashing their goodies at coworkers and local citizens?
How does this one get enforced is my question -- daily underwear inspections?
So true that it really isn't funny.
And certainly the reason that only 6% of Israelis see Barack Hussein Obama as a friend of Israel -- down a full 25% from one month ago.
Prince William has spoken openly of his desire to fight for his country and dropped the strongest hint yet that he might still be given a frontline role.
The future king, who until now was believed to have been barred from going to war because of his position, revealed yesterday that he 'remains hopeful' he will see active duty before he leaves the military to take up his royal mantle.
William, 26, who is currently training with the RAF to become a search and rescue pilot and hopes to become operational in 2010, said: 'To me, I didn't join the forces to be mollycoddled or treated any differently. As far as I am concerned, in my eyes, if Harry can do it, then I can do it.
'I don't really separate it into that much difference. As a future head of the armed forces it's really important you at least get the opportunity to be credible and to do the job I signed up for the best I can. That's all I have ever wanted to do.'
And not only that -- Prince Harry wants to get back into the thick of things.
I'm glad to see that these young men are behaving more like their uncle, Prince Andrew, than like their father. Would that the foppish Prince Charles could be bypassed in the line of succession in favor of either of these two young men.
All I can say is WTF?
A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.
The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— Hate crimes against racial groups
The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."
Well, then, I am a proud terrorist -- and plan on engaging in acts of terrorism until the day I die, as is my right under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I want to know when this test was created, and who is responsible for this question. It seems to me that there should be some jobs lost over this one.
Simply put, it would appear that the Iranian government used tactics common in Chicago elections.
Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.
Ayandeh's source said at least 200 polling stations across Iran recorded participation rates of 95% or above. "This is generally considered scientifically impossible because out of every given cohort of 20 voters, there will be at least one who is either ill, out of the country, has recently died or is unable to participate for some other reasons," the source said. "It is also unprecedented in the history of Iran and all other democratic countries."
Looks like the work of al-ACORN! No wonder Bary Hussein doesn't want to be seen as meddling in the Iranian election -- it might cost him the dead and fraud vote in 2012.
Could be -- given that Canon 2C of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges reads as follows.
“A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.”
Sotomayor does, however, hold membership in just such an organization, the Belizean Grove -- "a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors."
What does the organization say about itself on its own website?
According to the Belizean Grove's Web site, the group is a “constellation of influential women” who are building “long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.” It was founded as a counterpart to the all-male Bohemian Grove, a legendary club of elite politicians, businessmen and other leaders.
The group’s roughly 115 “grovers,” as members call themselves, include ambassadors and top executives of Goldman Sachs, Victoria’s Secret and Harley-Davidson. They meet each year for an annual retreat in Belize or another Central American destination, as well as occasionally in New York and other cities for outings described as “a balance of fun, substantive programs and bonding.” The group’s Web site does not appear to mention any roles for men.
While Sotomayor tries to play off the organization's discriminatory policies and practices by arguing that men are sometimes invited to speak to the group and may participate in social activities, this is no different than membership in all-male groups that from time-to-time have female speakers and let the wives and girlfriends of members come to social activities -- or racially-exclusive organizations that will allow minority guests but not members. Indeed, male judicial nominees have been vigorously opposed in the past for membership in such things as an all-male fishing club.
In light of this membership, one again has to question whether or not Judge Sotomayor has the sensitivity to racial and gender discrimination to sit on our nation's highest court -- and in this case to also raise the issue of whether or not Sotomayor's conduct ought to disqualify her from continued service as a judge on any court in the United States.
H/T Bench Memos
Frankly, I'm surprised that we don't see such events happen a bit more often.
The captain of a Continental Airlines trans-Atlantic flight has died en route.
The Houston-based carrier said the captain of Flight 61 apparently died of natural causes, but that the crew included a relief pilot who joined the co-pilot at the controls.
Continental has notified the family of the 61-year-old captain, who was based in Newark, N.J. The Boeing 777, which was carrying 247 passengers, landed safely late this morning.
Roland Herwig of the Federal Aviation Administration said a doctor on board pronounced the pilot dead. He didn't have a time of death but said he was told the pilot died "several hours" into the flight.
The National Transportation Safety Board has been notified, Herwig said.
"It's up to them as to how they will be involved in this," he said. "I don't think this will be classified as an accident. It will likely be classified as an 'incident,' but that is preliminary."
The reality is that heart attacks, strokes and other fatal incidents happen suddenly, even to men and women in the best of health. My guess is that this pilot will even have had a recent physical -- probably one where he was told "You are in great shape, but you need to work on your blood pressure and cholesterol levels." I saw that happen not too long ago with a former colleague of mine who dropped dead in the middle of a teacher in-service training. It is a reality that we all face as we hit middle age and move beyond it -- life is a terminal condition.
Of course, this is a sad story, and a personal tragedy for the family and friends of the deceased pilot. May God grant them comfort in their time of grief.
You know, now that it is the state of his birth rather than the state that Sarah Palin governs that is in the line of fire.
North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July, a Japanese news report said Thursday, as Russia and China urged the regime to return to international disarmament talks on its rogue nuclear program.
The missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers), would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, said the Yomiuri daily, Japan's top-selling newspaper. It cited an analysis by the Japanese Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.
The missile launch could come between July 4 and 8, the paper said.
While the newspaper speculated the Taepodong-2 could fly over Japan and toward Hawaii, it said the missile would not be able to hit Hawaii's main islands, which are about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) from the Korean peninsula.
Now the missile's range is 500 miles short of reaching Hawaii -- but it isn't a stretch to see that this is part of a strategy of extending the NorK's ballistic missile range so that it could take out a large chunk of the US Pacific fleet. Will we maybe see some missile defense money allocated that way -- and perhaps a restoration of those funds for missile defense in Alaska that would protect much of the rest of the US mainland?
Just a bit more unethical, and quite possibly criminal, activity from the Obama Regime. It isn't just Walpin -- it is also the IG of the International Trade Commission and the limits being placed on the IG at the Treasury Department, who has oversight authority over the spending of TARP funds.
Chuck Grassley is on the case.
The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.
Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.
Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.
In a matter of a couple weeks, the Obama Regime has resorted to meddling in the operations of three supposedly independent officials whose job is to look for corruption and mismanagement -- all as they are engaged in investigations of matters that had/have the potential to embarrass Obama and his allies. And yet somehow there appears to be little interest on the part of Democrats in looking into these unprecedented actions that seemingly violate federal law -- despite last year's circus over the firing of US Attorneys by George W. Bush, which were expressly permitted under federal law.
Seems to me that we have more of the Chicago Way at work now that the inexperienced hack and his Chicago crew have taken over the Executive Branch. And the Democrats don't seem to care about these seeming violations of laws designed to prevent, catch, and punish corruption free from political interference.
In a disturbing article in The Times on Wednesday, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau said that Congressional investigations suggest that the National Security Agency continues to routinely collect Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail messages — perhaps by the millions.
These sweeps seem unconnected to specific terrorism investigations, and the communications are entirely domestic. The law does not allow fishing trips through Americans’ communications and only permits the government to read e-mails or listen to phone calls in which one party is “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States.
During the Bush years, we heard the Left claim that this violated the Constitution.
We heard repeated calls for impeachment from the Left.
And a Democrat back-bencher named Barack Obama said that such things must end.
Well, he's had the power to end such spying for months -- and hasn't.
So where are the calls for impeachment from those who demanded that sanction against George W. Bush?
Good grief -- how much change do you have to feed into this thing before you can press the button to make your selection?
Shoppers in Germany will soon be able to buy gold as easily as bars of chocolate after a firm announced plans to install vending machines selling the precious metal across the country.
TG-Gold-Super-Markt aims to introduce the machines at 500 locations including train stations and airports in Germany.
The company, based near Stuttgart, hopes to tap into the increasing interest in buying gold following disillusionment in other investments due to the economic downturn.
Gold prices from the machines – about 30 per cent higher than market prices for the cheapest product – will be updated every few minutes.
Customers using a prototype "Gold to go" machine at Frankfurt Airport on Tuesday had the choice of purchasing a 1g wafer of gold for €30, a 10g bar for €245, or gold coins.
I don't know about you, but that 30% premium seems mighty steep to me. After all, the current spot price for gold in New York is $934.80, meaning that you would pay nearly an extra $300 per ounce of gold. Not a good deal by my calculation.
After all, the standard to which one is held is so much lower for nations that are our enemies, as noted by Commentary's J.G Thayer. He describes the "Obama Doctrine" as follows.
“Treat your enemies like friends, and your friends like enemies.”
Thus staunch American ally Israel will consistently be thrown to the wolves like a kosher frank, while Iranian Islamists will be coddled without a single harsh word spoken by Barry Hussein even as they steal an election and murder their people.
And if it were just the relative treatment of the Jewish state and various Muslim nations, I'd write it off to Barry Hussein having absorbed the ethic of the dhimmi while growing up in predominantly Muslim Indonesia -- but it is more than that. After all, he's coddled the Commies in Cuba, Caracas, and North Korea, too -- while angering the British, the Canadians, and other traditional allies of the US.
Thayer notes the following about this strategy.
There is a plausible — if simplistic — explanation for this. Our relations with hostile nations need a great deal of attention and effort in order to improve. On the other hand, our friends already like us; they don’t need much hand-holding and reassuring.
This gives the impression that we take our friends for granted and don’t care about slighting them in favor of those who have been — to put it mildly — far less obliging and amicable.
Do we really want to lose some of the affection and respect we enjoy from some nations in exchange for the dim prospect of others not hating us quite so much? That’s a very, very poor trade-off
Gee, the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter didn't become this dysfunctional until after he was thrown out of office? What further deterioration will we see between now and the end of the "Carter II" Administration?
With an executive order giving benefits to the unmarried same-sex partners of Federal employees -- but not to similarly situated opposite-sex partners.
President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, a White House official said.
Obama planned to announce his decision Wednesday in the Oval Office, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because Obama had not signed a presidential memorandum putting his plan into place.
The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that has become impatient with the White House in recent weeks.
Fairness? Equality? No, just a payoff to another Democrat voting bloc -- and one that he has broken every single promise to in his time in office -- even though it means violating the clear intent of the federal DOMA to accomplish it.
This could be huge, given that it lends credibility to the people in the streets opposing the election fraud that gave a victory to Mahmoud the Mad in Iran.
Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the disputed presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, massed in competing rallies Tuesday as the country's most senior Islamic cleric threw his weight behind opposition charges that Ahmadinejad's re-election was rigged.
"No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible."
"A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God."
Of course, Ahmadinejad is likely to continue killing protesters in his bid to hold on to the power that the people have tried to give elsewhere at the ballot box.
And Barry Hussein, America's eunuch-in-chief, is likely to continue to avoid taking any substantive position on this issue for fear of loosing dhimmi status. I certainly don't expect his disgraceful refusal to speak out forcefully to end any time soon.
After being briefed today on President Obama’s firing last week of Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president did not abide by the same law that he co-sponsored – and she wrote – about firing Inspectors General.
“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.”
McCaskill, a key Obama ally, said that the president’s stated reason for the termination, “Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason.”
She added that she was “hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.”
So it looks like not only is Michelle Obama playing the role of Hillary Clinton in this administration, now it appears that Barack Obama is playing the role of either Richard Nixon or Andrew Johnson -- most likely the latter, given that he is one of the single worst presidents in American history.
This certainly wasn't the sort of change that most decent Americans were hoping for. Barack Obama cannot even find enough manhood to speak out against the election fraud and violence in Iran -- but French President Sarkozy can.
Here is the manly response to the sort of shenanigans that we have seen in Iran.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday branded Iran's election result a fraud as the international outcry over the security forces' crackdown on the opposition in Tehran intensified.
* * *
But while some governments tried to avoid taking sides, Sarkozy said the unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad's failings in his first term.
"The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction," said the French leader.But while some governments tried to avoid taking sides, Sarkozy said the unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad's failings in his first term.
"The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction," said the French leader.
On the other hand, the American eunuch-in-chief took a less manly tack.
Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his "deep concerns" about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah's decision to order an investigation "indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns."
But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as "meddling" in the issue.
Wouldn't do for Barry Hussein to piss off the Islamists, would it. The only country whose politics (and survival) he is willing to meddle with are those of Israel. But when a real humanitarian crisis and suppression of the democratic aspirations of a people occurs, you can count on the President No-nads to do nothing.
Good God -- I never realized just how true it would be when I voiced the sentiment that Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. I weep for my country -- and the Iranians who Barack Obama is prepared to abandon to continued oppression and murder at the hands of of a backwards theocracy.
This is unprecedented.
No debate. No objectivity. A sales pitch from the Obama regime for its agenda, free of dissenting voices of critique of the proposal.
Drudge breaks the story.
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
For all that FoxNews has been accused of bias by the Left, it never turned its programming over to the Bush Administration or conducted such a blatant propaganda broadcast. And yet somehow ABCNews claims to be an objective news outlet. I guess that reputation is out the window now.
Shades of Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela! But who needs a state-run media when the so-called independent media will do the bidding of the President?
Remember -- this is a corrupt Democrat who was embraced by his party after his crimes were exposed.
Opening statements are scheduled in the trial of a former Louisiana congressman charged with bribery after federal agents found $90,000 in cash in his freezer.
The case is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria, Va.
William Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes, racketeering, money laundering and other crimes. Jefferson represented parts of New Orleans until losing re-election last year.
Prosecutors say he received more than $500,000 and sought millions more for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.
Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage of this trial. After all, Jefferson is a Democrat, and we all know that they are as pure as the driven snow.
UPDATE: NewsBusters notes that nowhere does the article ever identify Jefferson as a Democrat. Isn't that an important bit of information?
It isn't really an apology, and CIA chief Leon Panetta doesn't even have the manhood to make the statement himself.
A CIA spokesman is sharply downplaying Director Leon Panetta 's recent comments that appear to question whether former Vice President Dick Cheney is hoping for another terrorist attack against the United States.
"The Director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a statement to CNN. "He did not say that. He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives."
The statement comes days after the New Yorker published an interview with Panetta during which he said Cheney's recent criticism of Obama – including the decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – show the ex-vice president "smells some blood in the water on the national security issue."
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics," said Panetta. "When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
The statement doesn't go nearly far enough. Impugning the patriotism of Dick Cheney was a cowardly thing to do, and the fact that Panetta still has a job in this administration shows exactly how low the Obama regime is willing to sink in its effort to destroy those who fail to fall in line with its proposals.
UPDATE: You know, absent a real apology I'd rather that Panetta took the Ed Schultz route -- which at least has the virtue of being honest even as it is fundamentally disgusting.
Here's Schultz spewing his bile . . .JOE SCARBOROUGH: Do you agree with the CIA Director that it's as if Dick Cheney hopes Americans die so that he gains a political advantage?And a bit later . . .
ED SCHULTZ: Absolutely. Absolutely.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So you believe Dick Cheney wants Americans to die --
SCHULTZ: I want Dick Cheney to come out and say "I do not want this country to get hit, and I will do anything I can to help the president so we don't get hit."
SCARBOROUGH: You just said "absolutely." So again, I want this on the record: you believe the former Vice-President wants Americans to die in a terrorist attack so he can gain a political advantage?
SCHULTZ: You got it, Joe. You got it. I think Dick Cheney's all about power. I think Dick Cheney's all about seeing this country go conservative on a hard right-wing and I think he'll do anything to get it that way.SCHULTZ: I'm telling you what I think; I'm telling you what I believe. I got a lot of support when I said that on the Ed program, I got a lot of support overnight when I said it again. I think Leon Panetta backed off of that because he probably got a talking-to.A bit later still . . .
SCARBOROUGH: But you know what? You can also say that America took down, that we plotted to destroy and kill Americans on 9-11. You'd get a lot of support if you said thattoo.
SCHULTZ: I don't believe that.MIKE BARNICLE: I certainly don't believe that the former Vice-President of the United States is sitting there in McLean, Virginia saying "you know, I hope today's the day." Do you believe that?
SCHULTZ: I really do, Mike. I do. I really believe, because I think it's all about the conservatives grabbing the power and keeping it. These folks hate. Just my opinion. I mean, I don't want to offend anybody.
At least Schultz is honest about questioning Dick Cheney's patriotism, whereas Leon Panetta lacks the testicular fortitude to stand by what he clearly meant. Both men and their statements are contemptible, but at least one of them is man enough to stand up and say what he believes -- and not send out a spokesperson to try to evade the clear meaning of his words.
Barack Obama's health care plan will cost more but still fail to accomplish its goal of covering all Americans, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.
In other words, that trillion dollar expenditure will still leave one-in-ten Americans uninsured -- meaning that it will only reduce the rate of uninsured Americans by about 7%. What's more, the result will be fewer health care choices and greater government control of health care options for those who are insured. Seems to me that this is indicative of the reality that ObamaCare is an EPIC FAIL.
H/T Hot Air
Well, at last we are up to date with all Watcher's Council Results from my time without a computer and various other catastrophes. I commend to your attention these fine submissions from around the blogosphere.
Drop by, take a look at these posts, and consider the wisdom contained therein.
While awaiting the pulling of my abscessed tooth, I neglected to post these results from June 5, 2009. Now that I'm feeling better, I commend these to your attention.
I missed some really great posts during this time, and now that I've had a chance to go back and read them, I encourage you to do the same.
As school wound down and life got hectic, I missed some results from the Watcher's Council. Here are those from May 29, 2009.
There are some great posts here that you should take the time to read.
For those who argue that the test in the Ricci case was obviously racially discriminatory, consider this detail that is oft overlooked -- and indeed, is generally gotten wrong in reporting on the case.
Contrary to reports that no blacks passed, nine did. Their pass rate was about half that of the white test-takers, a common phenomenon in New Haven and elsewhere. Although no black candidate scored high enough to qualify for immediate promotion, three would have been eligible when, it turned out, new vacancies opened up over the next two or three years.
So not only were promotions denied the highest-scoring candidates based upon their race, it is untrue that there would have been no blacks promoted because of the test. Rather, their promotions would have come a short time later, as additional spots opened up through natural attrition and the operation of the neutral principle of promoting the next qualified candidate as determined by the qualifying test.
Oh, and by the way, the record further indicates that racial animus was a conscious basis for throwing out the results of the neutral, non-biased test.
• Politically powerful African-Americans led by the Rev. Boise Kimber demanded loudly that no high-scoring whites or Hispanics be promoted. He has long been a key vote-getter for the city's (white) mayor, John DeStefano.
• The mayor told aides that he would block promotions of the high scorers even if the city's civil service board approved the tests as valid and fair.
• Kimber warned civil service board members of a "political ramification" if they approved the test results.
In other words, the demand of black leaders and their puppet mayor was that less qualified blacks be promoted ahead of more qualified whites and Hispanics -- and the mayor threatened reprisals against civil service board members if they voted to let the promotions go forward and also indicated that he would block the promotions based upon the race of the firefighters who were to be promoted.
This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor considered constitutionally acceptable when she joined a one paragraph opinion upholding the district court decision in the case. That therefore is indicative of the sort of racial discrimination she is willing to allow under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Seems to me that she not only should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but that she should be driven from the bench in disgrace -- through impeachment if necessary.
Time to see the first high-profile firing of an Obama appointee. After all, this comment cannot stand.
CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.
"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.
"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
Panetta then had the audacity to label Cheney's statements as "dangerous politics" -- not recognizing that the head of the CIA claiming that the second-highest officeholder in the previous administration is a crypto-traitor is significantly more dangerous. Indeed, I will label it as fundamentally unAmerican -- and any president who would permit such words to go unretracted and who would allow their speaker to stay in office would clearly be more partisan than patriot.
To argue that a patriot like Dick Cheney wants America attacked by terrorists is insane. For such a comment to come from the director of the CIA is intolerable, as it reeks of the politicization of the agency by the Obama regime.
Now let's review what the former vice president has said.
He has indicated that he believes that Obama's policies are wrong.
He has stated that he believes they render America less safe.
He has not in any way indicated he wants America to be attacked.
And, God bless him, Cheney has come out with a response that indicates he has infinitely more class than Leon Panetta ever could dream of having.
"I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted," Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. "The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."
On the other hand, Senator John McCain offered a much more strident defense of the former VP.
"I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America," the former Republican presidential candidate said during an appearance on Fox News. "It's unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately."
* * *
McCain said the remarks crossed a line, and said Panetta "knows better" than to level such a charge against Cheney.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Obama regime intends to stay on the low road, as indicated by the response of the White House press secretary to a question on the issue.
At his press gaggle, Robert Gibbs was asked: "Does the President agree with Director Panetta's assessment that Vice President -- former Vice President Cheney almost wants another attack to happen?"
Gibbs replied: "Well, look, I'm not going to get into motivations. That's not what our business is. The President's concern is keeping the American people safe. We've had policy disagreements, but I think what is true for anybody is doing what's -- doing what we need to to keep the American people safe and secure. That's what the President is working on every day."
In other words, Barack Hussein Obama stands by the words of his CIA director -- and implicitly joins him in questioning the patriotism of a man whose exemplary career of public service is nearly as long as Obama's life to date. Not only that, it is the latest example of the Obama regime and its supporters repudiating the notion that they trumpeted during the Bush years -- that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and that it is a shameful thing to question the patriotism of those who criticize the policy decisions emanating from the White House.
Well, if these numbers have any meaning, then perhaps.
Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Could Obama be shifting the American public to the right? Hard to tell -- but it is a possibility.
However, there is an area of concern when one looks at the various age cohorts.
The pattern is strikingly different on the basis of age, and this could have important political implications in the years ahead. Whereas middle-aged and older Americans lean conservative (vs. liberal) in their politics by at least 2 to 1, adults aged 18 to 29 are just as likely to say their political views are liberal (31%) as to say they are conservative (30%).
Now it will be interesting to see how matters develop over the next several years -- or decades. But considering that there is a historical trend of folks becoming more conservative as they age, I again see a positive trend for the GOP. After all, when the policies of Obama prove to be a disaster, many of the liberal youth will likely shift towards the conservative side of the spectrum.
But the key is outreach. Conservatives may be 40% of the public, but it takes better than 50% to win. We cannot insist upon ideological purity if we want to see GOP victories in the future -- a position I have long noted as I've criticized those who would object to moderate conservative candidates (such as, for example, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison). My fellow conservatives would do well to remember that in politics we must be prepared to welcome those who agree with us 70% of the time lest we find ourselves governed by those who agree with us less than 30% of the time.
When even an Israeli hardliner like Netanyahu offers a two-state solution to the conflict with the Terrorstinians, it isn't enough.
Arab leaders, both friends and foes of Israel, sharply criticized on Monday the prescription to peace unveiled Sunday night by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, one of the few Arab leaders with diplomatic ties with Israel, said Mr. Netanyahu's words "scuttled" chances to end the conflict, a harsh reaction that could complicate President Barack Obama's efforts to push a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israeli officials have emphasized that Mr. Netanyahu's acceptance of the creation of a Palestinian state in the speech marked a major shift from his previous policies both as leader in the late-1990s and as an opposition parliamentarian. White House officials have expressed cautious optimism for that stance, calling the Israeli position a good first step.
But Arab diplomats said they were disappointed with the tone of the address, calling Mr. Netanyahu's speech deeply ideological. They also were concerned over the narrow list of topics covered in the 28-minute speech. The Israeli leader did not refer to the Arab's own peace initiative that promises recognition of Israel in exchange for territorial withdrawal and its compromise on the other core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the issue of refugees. Nor did he commit himself to removing settlements in the West Bank, something that both the White House and the Arab world see as an impediment to a two-state solution
So now the leaders of the thugocracies of the Middle East are waiting for Barry Hussein to put even more pressure on the Israelis.
And while the son (and step-son) of Muslims in the White House has professed pleasure with the restraint of the Terrorstinians, consider what a spokesman for the "moderate" president of the Terrorstinian Anarchy had to say about Netanyahu's speech.
"It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed."
So tell me -- where is the "partner in peace" for the Israelis to negotiate with? And how on earth can Barack Hussein Obama be seen as an honest broker when he has so moved further in the direction of the Arabs from America's traditional policy of demanding that Israel make all concessions in return for an end to the continuous violence committed against its people for over six decades?
When, oh when, will the Israelis finally come out and acknowledge that there is no peace plan that will satisfy the Arabs except for one that includes the total destruction of the Jewish state? When, oh when, will God's Chosen People give the appropriate response to those who would have them surrender the land promised to them so long ago -- a promise reaffirmed by the nations of the world at the reestablishment of Israel some six decades ago?
You know, this one.
Oh dear -- we could be finding out that Michelle Obama is right in the thick of things, going after independent officials who cross Obama supporters.
In an email and fax sent late Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded that Alan D. Solomont, the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, provide "any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form" related to President Obama's firing of CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
Walpin had investigated Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's community service organization, St. HOPE Academy, which confessed to misusing AmeriCORPS grants. In April of this year, St. HOPE Academy agreed to pay a $423,836.50 settlement -- $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson.
Interestingly enough, the OIG was left out of the settlement process -- which resulted in the recovery of less than half of the misused taxpayer money. But now a close aide to Mrs. Obama is moving into a senior policy making position within the agency -- and reports indicate that Mrs. Obama was deeply involved with the decision to remove Walpin.
I wonder -- how long until a "pretty in pink" press conference?
Sometimes life sucks.
You know -- you get into a minor fender-bender that puts your car out of commission.
Or the computer crashes.
Or you get an abscessed tooth that has to be pulled.
Or you spend days fighting with your contractor.
Or all of the above.
I'll try to get back in the swing of things here. We'll see how it goes.
When the people of a people's republic demand freedom, there is always the same response -- repression and murder. Let us not forget the heroes of Tiananmen Square, who truly spoke truth to power and who paid a real price for doing so.
Now I’ve got no use for idiots like Hal Turner, even when such folks are right on a particular issue. And while he is correct in opposing Connecticut efforts to force the Catholic Church to register as a lobbying organization for daring to oppose legislation that would have directly interfered with the authority of Catholic bishops over Catholic parishes. Such a move is clearly unconstitutional, and Turner is right to join with advocates of religious freedom and church-state separation in opposing both efforts. But he certainly strayed over the line with a part of his opposition, and it is appropriate for the state to act against him in this instance.
Internet radio host Hal Turner — accused of inciting Catholics to "take up arms" and singling out two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official on a website — was taken into custody in New Jersey late Wednesday after state Capitol police in Connecticut obtained a warrant for his arrest.
Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. On Tuesday, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the State Ethics Office.
"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech," Capitol Police Chief Michael J. Fallon said in an e-mail announcing the warrant. "He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
While filing a lawsuit is quaint and the "decent" way to handle things, we at TRN believe that being decent to a group of tyrannical scumbags is the wrong approach. It's too soft.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve tyranny: The Second Amendment.
TRN advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force. To that end, THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT ON "THE HAL TURNER SHOW" we will be releasing the home addresses of the Senator and Assemblyman who introduced Bill 1098 as well as the home address of Thomas K. Jones from the OSE.
After all, if they are so proud of what they're doing, they shouldn't mind if everyone knows where they live.
It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die.
If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too.
The state pushed; it is about to get pushed back. Elected and other government officials sometimes need to be put in their place. They serve; they do not rule. They need to learn their place or be put there by force.
Now I’ll be honest – I don’t object to the disclosure of the home addresses of public officials – they are usually matters of public record, anyway. And while I regularly point out that the Second Amendment is in the Constitution to allow Americans to defend our rights against overreaching government, I make a point of NOT suggesting that any particular individual be made an example of when I do so. Recognizing the purpose of the amendment is one thing; suggesting that it be applied against particular individuals is something else entirely and constitutes a threat of violence. Hal Turner clearly went a bridge too far – and I fully support his prosecution.
The headline is as follows.
BIDEN BID TO BURY BONER
Why, oh why, did they have to use this picture with the article? After all, it does look like he is doing the Viagra shuffle so he can play “hide the canolli” with his companion.
Of course, the real article is much less entertaining – just another Biden backtrack from a Biden gaffe.
The commander-in-chief finally gets around to regretting the terrorist murder of an American serviceman on US soil and the wounding of another.
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”
Passive voice. No acknowledgment of the confessed motive for the attack. Utter unwillingness to call it terrorism -- or, more appropriately, jihad. And no condemnation of the violent tendencies once again demonstrated among members of a certain population.
Oh, yeah -- and he's still going to suck up to the "religion of peace" which provided the ideological basis for the attack on US troops on US soil.
Too bad these guys weren't a couple of abortionists -- it might have caught Obama's attention sooner and moved his heart more.
Well, at least he's made clear where his priorities are.
As we enter the third day of White House silence about the murder of an American serviceman on American soil by a jihadi, we now find out that this convert to Islam had planned a whole lot more murder and mayhem for Muhammad.
A senior U.S. official tells FOX News that more targets were found on the computer of a man charged in the fatal shooting at a military recruiting center in Arkansas — suggesting the accused gunman may have been part of a larger plot to attack military targets and may not have been acting alone.
Officers found maps to Jewish organizations, a Baptist church, a child care center, a post office and military recruiting centers in the southeastern U.S., New York and Philadelphia, according to a joint FBI-Homeland Security intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press.
After Monday's attack outside the Army-Navy Career Center in Little Rock, detectives searched a computer linked to suspect Abdulhakim Muhammad, and discovered research into multiple sites in different states, according to the memo.
Looks like he was out to kill all sorts of folks for Allah.
And interestingly enough, most of the targets are the sort of folks regularly discussed in hateful terms by folks on the so-called “progressive” Left. You know – military personnel, Zionists, fundamentalists. I wonder – how much responsibility do such lefties have for the murder that took place and the many more murders that were averted by the quick action of law enforcement? Do we need laws restricting such hate speech about our armed forces, supporters of Israel, and Christians? Should Keith Olbermann, Cindy Sheehan, and their ilk be prosecuted as accessories to this crime? Should MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets be muzzled for the sort of hate speech they have spewed against these groups over the years? Sort of like what has been suggested by many of these culprits regarding pro-lifers following the murder of abortionist George Tiller.
And I have to wonder – even though the commander-in-chief has remained silent in the wake of the murder of one of those under his command while preparing to suck-up to the co-religionists of this jihadi assassin, will he at least have Attorney General Eric Holder provide the sort of security ordered for slaughterhouses like Tiller’s facility to the institutions -- in particular military recruiting offices, churches, and synagogues – targeted by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad?
Oh, and by the way, we can never forget the middle name of this jihadi killer – Mujahid – which he chose upon his conversion to Islam. After all, it means one who is engaged in jihad against the enemies of Islam, and is the root of the term “mujahadeen” – a favorite label applied by Muslim terrorist groups to themselves.
Comments Open -- Play Nice
The Internal Revenue Service has filed a tax lien seeking more than $800,000 from Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, escalating a dispute over payroll taxes that the lawmaker's office blames on faulty government paperwork.
The episode has left a candidate who fell just a few percentage points short of winning the White House trying to convince the government's tax collector that his campaign already paid the taxes and doesn't owe any more.
The IRS filed the lien in the District of Columbia earlier this year, claiming that a previous attempt to collect the money was unsuccessful. "We have made a demand for payment of this liability, but it remains unpaid," the tax filing stated.
The IRS is taking action more than a year after the campaign closed its books and sent nearly $200,000 in leftover presidential campaign money to Mr. Kerry's Senate election fund.
I guess that is an example of trying to ensure public funding of his Senate campaign.
Perhaps Gigolo John should start checking behind the couch cushions at one of Teresa’s many homes or under the seat of one of her many vehicles – there’s sure to be a million or two in cash that slipped from his billionaire wife’s purse or pockets.
We’ve all had that question go through our mind since the disappearance of Air France flight 447 – could it have been terrorism? But let’s be honest – few of us have really wanted to give voice to that thought, especially in light of the two terrorist shootings earlier this week.
Just days before the mysterious crash of Air France Flight 447 in the Atlantic Ocean, Argentinean authorities reportedly delayed a similar Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris after the airline received a bomb threat over the phone.
Police and officials at Buenos Aires' Ezeiza Airport spent 90 minutes inspecting the threatened plane for explosives on the evening of May 27, but found nothing, according to a Brazilian news report.
During the search, passengers were not evacuated from the jet and later arrived safely at their destination in Paris.
Now it is unclear what happened on the flight. We may never know, given where the flight was lost. But the possibility of a terrorist incident does bear thinking about.
After alerting everyone to stay inside after reports of a gunman, Princeton University's Department of Public Safety has issued an all clear.
CBS station KYW reports that person is now in custody and that he had a toy pistol.
Police took four juvenile suspects into custody just before 11:30 a.m. None of the four suspects were students. One had a dark green toy gun in his waistband that school officials said could have been mistaken for a real gun.
The four kids were apparently rummaging through some sort of trash dumpster and told cops that's where they found the toy gun, police sources told NBCNewYork.com. One of the juveniles picked up the fake gun, put it in his belt and started walking away with the other three kids when a woman spotted the gun in his waistband and called police. It's not clear whether or not she was a student.
No shots were fired.
Of course no shots were fired – it was a toy gun. And that there were arrests over the incident is insane, given that there was no threatening behavior by anyone.
Hardly – and I don’t say that to denigrate Islam. After all, even by the most generous estimate of the Muslim population in the US shows it to be under 1/40 of the population – and perhaps under 1/50.
The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said.
Actually, the US barely scrapes its way into the top 40 in terms of its Muslim population.
But Obama does seem intent upon making much of his Muslim roots on this trip – after downplaying them during the campaign and accusing those who wanted to discuss them of engaging in religious bigotry.
The Left is in an uproar that Manuel Miranda is one of those on the Right leading the charge against Sonia Sotomayor’s SCOTUS nomination. They have resurrected the scandal that cost him his old job as a Senate staffer.
There’s a bit more to Manuel Miranda than that, however. Miranda, as longtime Congressional insiders will recall, was the GOP Senate staffer who was nailed in 2004 for hacking into the computers of Senate Dems and downloading thousands of documents relating to the strategies of Dem Senators on judicial nominations.
Miranda’s scheme — widely referred to as “Memogate” — was a big deal. A Senate probe found that many of the swiped files had been systematically downloaded “from folders belonging to Democratic staff,” with some leaked to friendly reporters. Miranda resigned, and a Washington Post editorial denounced his “political spying operation” that indicated “how low the nominations process has sunk.”
Now let’s be honest here – what Miranda did in this case was not hacking. Files were left on a publicly accessible server open to all staffers on the committee, and he accessed them. While one can certainly question the ethics of those actions (and I’d argue they were a mighty dark gray, ethically speaking), let’s not forget what information he uncovered – information that the Obama knee-pad brigade in the media are loathe to bring up – including evidence that the Democrats sought to keep Miguel Estrada from being confirmed as a judge because he was Hispanic. In other words, a Hispanic whistleblower who disclosed actual racism deployed against a well-qualified Hispanic judicial nominee is being attacked by the Left for having acted to disclose that unAmerican activity on the part of racist Senate Democrats
Comments Open -- Play Nice
Seriously – how can the press be the watchdog of government if reporters are literally sleeping with high government officials?
A Los Angeles television reporter is dating Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, about two years after his extramarital affair with another local newscaster led to the breakup of his 20-year marriage.
KTLA-TV Channel 5 reporter Lu Parker, a former Miss U.S.A., has been dating Villaraigosa since March, station officials confirmed Monday. On Sunday, while working as a weekend anchor, Parker announced a story about the likelihood of Villaraigosa running for governor in 2010.
"Now that we're aware of the relationship, she will no longer be covering local politics," said KTLA-TV news director Jason Ball, who defended the journalist's ethics but declined to elaborate. "I have the utmost faith in Lu Parker's abilities."
I love how the station manager indicates that this relationship is a personal matter and raises no ethics questions.
Good grief – she was still reporting on him as of this past weekend! Could that relationship have influenced coverage in the weeks and months before the relationship became public knowledge? And will co-workers at the station be willing to do hard-hitting reporting when they know that one of their own is “sleeping with the enemy”?
Let’s be honest – politicians screw everybody. But when journalists are screwing politicians, they ought to be fired.
Dick Cheney had a slip of the tongue. You know, one similar to something done by Ted Kennedy – indeed, a slip less outrageous than Kennedy’s, if the truth be told.
"I believe he's still out there someplace," Cheney said of bin Laden. "I'm sure the current administration will continue to search for him. He's an important figure, obviously. We would have loved to have captured on our watch. We didn't. I'm sure the Obama people feel the same way.
"The important thing is that I don't think he can have much impact in terms of managing an organization, because that link between Obama [sic] and the people under him is pretty fragile. I don't think he has the capacity to do as much harm as he did at one point, but we ought to still continue to chase him."
Two names, only one letter’s difference. Clearly a slip of the tongue. And it isn’t like the man called him “Osama Obama”.
One more bit of proof that Howard Dean is an idiot.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told CNSNews.com yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's comment that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" has been taken out of context by critics.
Then he immediately conceded that he himself had not actually read the full context of the speech in which Sotomayor made the comment.
If you haven’t seen the comment in context, how can you know it was taken out of context?
After all, the right to petition the government is a fundamental one under the First Amendment. When you publish names and addresses of individuals who do so and encourage “uncomfortable talks” (read that harassment), then you are engaged in a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of those petitioners.
A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington's same-sex partnerships.
WhoSigned.org says it's partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.
In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.
This is rather reminiscent of the actions of Kluxers and other racists who opposed the exercise of constitutional rights by blacks and their supporters. What next – bombings and arson against petition signers if harsh words, intimidation, and economic coercion don’t work?
I’d encourage folks in Washington state (including my parents) to remember that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect one’s ability to exercise one’s other rights. Whoever decides to initiate those “uncomfortable talks” ought to be prepared to be ventilated by those who refuse to be intimidated.
Comments Open -- Play Nice
A tragic act of terrorism took place in America's heartland yesterday.
A man with "political and religious motives" killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center in Arkansas, police said.
The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, reportedly had been under investigation by the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force after he traveled to Yemen and was arrested there for using a Somali passport.
According to ABC News, the investigation was in its early stages and was based on Muhammad's travel to Yemen. While there, Muhammed, a recent convert to Islam, studied jihad with an Islamic scholar, Jihadwatch.org reported.
A police report based on an interview with the suspect said Muhammad, 23, told police he observed two soldiers in uniform on Monday, drove up to the recruiting center in Little Rock and started shooting.
"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them," Lt. Terry Hastings told The Associated Press. "That's what he said."
This attack is horrible, and the killer needs to face the strongest possible punishment under the law.
Prayers go out to the family of William Long (I've been unable to locate his rank -- the press left that out of the reports) on the loss of their loved one, and prayers for a speedy recovery go out to Quinton Ezeagwula, who was wounded in the attack.
Interestingly enough, there hasn't been the outcry over this murder that there was over Sunday's murder of abortionist George Tiller. If anti-war groups and Muslim groups have condemned this killing, I've missed the statements. There is a dearth of outrage from the lefty-blogs that fulminated mightily over the death of Tiller. And where is the White House statement from the commander-in-chief about the murder of a soldier, when Obama certainly had time to speak out about the death of an abortionist?
I stand with Dafydd from Big Lizards.
So far as I've heard, every single pro-life organization and a great many pro-life individuals denounced and condemned this murder as despicable, cowardly, and a violation of the entire thrust of the pro-life community. And they did so the very day it happened, Sunday, May 31st, 2009.
But I have yet to hear or read a single radical leftist anti-war organization, politician, or blogger condemning the assassination of Private William Long, United States Army, and the attempted assassination of Private Quinton Ezeagwula, United States Army. As of the timestamp of this post, not a word on the website of International ANSWER; nary a peep from the chicks at Code Pink.
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 95%), "America's most courageous congressman," hasn't the courage to speak out against killing American soldiers in America's heartland -- not even on his Twitter feed. Perhaps if it turns out that additional laws are needed, Congress should take action; Rep. Kucinich could introduce a bill.
Andrew Sullivan -- I've heard he has a blog or something; I think it's called the Daily Dirt; or something -- found occasion to publish 58 blogposts yesterday, including many about the assassination of Dr. Tiller. But Sullivan found no occasion even to mention the assassination of Long and the attempted assassination of Ezeagwula.
But it's early yet. Maybe mañana.
Today there is a new grave in Arlington National Cemetery, a grave containing the remains of one of our nation's Medal of Honor recipients. The tragedy is that this honor comes over eight decades after his death, which came after several decades of racist neglect by a nation which ought to have been more grateful.
Rank and organization: Corporal, Company B, 24th U.S. Infantry. Place and date: Arizona, 11 May 1889. Entered service at: Columbus Barracks, Ohio. Born: 16 February 1858, Carters Bridge, Va. Date of issue: 19 February 1890. Citation: Gallantry in the fight between Paymaster Wham's escort and robbers. Mays walked and crawled 2 miles to a ranch for help.
Debbie Schlussel shares the story at her blog -- read it there.
Some things just are not done – but this idiot did one of them anyway.
"Transformers" star Tyrese Gibson has upset patriotic NBA fans after altering the lyrics of the national anthem at Game 5 of the Western Conference finals on Wednesday.
The 30-year-old actor/singer turned up to sing the Star Spangled Banner at the Staples Center arena in L.A.
However, Gibson, who hails from California, took the chance to sing the anthem and cheer his favorite team at the same time.
He replaced the line "our flag was still there" with "our Lakers were still there."
Now granted, down in Atlanta there is a little tweaking of the final word of the song during baseball games, but the statement that the flag waves over the “home of the Braves” rather than the “home of the brave” still communicates an essential truth that the emblem of freedom still flies over our land. But to gratuitously insert the name of any sports team in the middle of the song is another matter entirely. What next – paid product placement during the anthem?
Hurrah for the fans at the game who booed Gibson’s disrespectful deed.
Harsh title? Yeah – but it fits, given the nominee’s hostility to the political speech of one teenager.
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff. The case was argued on March 4, 2008 and decided on May 29, 2008.
Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.
The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.
Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.
In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”
However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.
“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”
In other words, Sotomayor ruled that the off campus political speech of a student can be the grounds for punishing that student at school if the school authorities feel insulted and inconvenienced by being required to respond to adults who were moved to ask questions about the operation of the school district due to that political speech.
What’s more, even though Sotomayor and her colleagues acknowledge that the punishment did not fit the crime, they were unwilling to act, much less confront the reality that school officials were doing nothing less than declaring that not only do students shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, but that they also lack those rights at any time and in any place that some school district official finds their exercise inconvenient – including in the middle of the night in their own homes when they are under the custodial authority of their parents and not the school.
I wrote extensively about this case at the time it happened. I was pleased to have had an extensive exchange of email with both Avery Doninger and her mother at that time. And as I said then, the best way for a school administrator to avoid being called a douchebag is to not act like one. That goes double for judges who would ignore the obvious First Amendment implications of school administrators overstepping their rightful authority – and is the single biggest reason that I oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the US Supreme Court.
An article appeared last week in the New York Post about the case and Sotomayor’s part in it. I’m particularly struck by Avery’s observation on the matter -- "We want someone who is going to protect our First Amendment rights." Well said, Avery, well said. Here’s hoping that some member of the Senate Judiciary committee seeks to have both Avery Doninger and her mother testify at the confirmation hearings this summer, so that the nation can see what sort of erosion of fundamental liberties this nomination presages.
The last link to the most famous ocean tragedy has passed from this life into the next.
Millvina Dean, 97, the youngest passenger on the Titanic and the last living link to history's most famous sunken ship, died May 31 at a nursing home in Hampshire, England, a friend told the BBC. No cause of death was given.
Born Elizabeth Gladys Dean in London on Feb. 12, 1912, she was about 8 weeks old when the luxury liner set sail. She was on the ship because her parents, Bertram and Georgetta Dean, had sold their London pub in hopes of beginning a new life in America. Their plan was to open a tobacco shop in Wichita, where they had family and friends.
The Deans and their two children were originally booked on another White Star liner, but a coal strike prompted a transfer to the Titanic, on its maiden voyage. They boarded at Southampton as third-class passengers and set sail April 10, 1912.
On the night of April 14, while sailing south of Newfoundland's Grand Banks, the elder Dean felt the iceberg's fatal gouge into the ship's hull. Leaving the cabin to investigate, he soon returned to shepherd his wife and their sleeping children up on deck. Millvina and her mother, who had lost track of her 2-year-old son in the panic and chaos, were seated in Lifeboat 10 and were among the first steerage passengers to escape the sinking liner. Millvina was so tiny that she had to be lifted into the lifeboat in a postal sack.
After their boat drifted in the water for some time, they were rescued and taken aboard the Carpathia, a ship that had answered the Titanic's distress call.
Millvina's brother was already aboard the Carpathia. The ship arrived safely in New York on April 18.
One life saw so much change in the course of nearly a century, from the age of ocean liners to the age of space travel. It is my hope that she is, at last, reunited with the father she lost in that terrible tragedy which marked the beginning of her life, and the family that she lost since.
That in a nation in which the President of the United States has a long personal and professional relationship with a domestic terrorist, his minions have crawled out of the woodwork to accuse everyone who shares Scott Roeder’s opposition to abortion as somehow complicit in the murder of George Tiller.
Take this crap as an example.
By mid-afternoon, authorities reportedly had someone in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller at his church on Sunday morning.
So far, we know very little about the suspect, other than that he's a man in his 50s and was driving a blue Ford when they stopped him outside Gardner.
However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.
And if we're right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.
They include every one who has ever called Tiller's late term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Who ever called Tiller "Tiller the Killer."
The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
Blind hatred? Hardly. Rather, those of us who have expressed our contempt for Tiller and the work he has performed in his human slaughterhouse have dared to speak truth to power by labeling Tiller’s “purpose” as what it what it was – the killing of our fellow human beings. We have done so because we see clearly and refuse to obscure the truth by cloaking his deeds with pretty words. To label one whose daily work was the killing of the most vulnerable among us as “Tiller the Killer” is not only not hatred or incitement or complicity – it is truth in advertising. I will not apologize for speaking and writing what is the indisputable truth – and daring to write and speak that truth does not make me culpable in Tiller’s murder, which I have unequivocally condemned.
As for the individual who killed George Tiller, I condemn his actions every bit as much as I condemned (and still condemn) George Tiller’s misdeeds. Scott Roeder is no hero, and is every bit as warped a human being as his victim was. Vigilante justice is not the answer to the evil that is abortion – and those who, like Roeder, resort to it are certainly every bit the enemy of the pro-life movement as those of Tiller’s ilk. Indeed, I’d have to go further and argue that they are even greater enemies of the innocents who are killed daily in the slaughterhouses operated by the nation’s abortionists than are the abortionists themselves.
Which is why I am shocked and disgusted to read the information in this article.
Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.
"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."
Given other activities detailed in the article, it seems to me that folks who did know Roeder ought to have been calling the police about him on a regular basis – and given his past conviction for bomb-making as a part of the Freeman movement, his activities would have likely caused him to be arrested and taken off the streets. I’m also shocked to hear of the magazine Prayer and Action News – despite nearly a quarter century of involvement in various aspects of the pro-life movement, I’ve never heard of this publication, but now that I’ve heard of it, I unequivocally condemn the publication and those behind it. The entire notion that killing abortionists is justifiable homicide is an obscenity.