A little over two years ago, I wrote on the issue of a "war surtax" being proposed by Representative David Obey and trumpeted by the reliably liberal EJ Dionne. Well, David Obey and his allies are at it again, now that it appears that President Obama is going to send more troops to Afghanistan rather than concede victory to the Taliban. Since the Obey proposal is back in the news, I'd like to bring that previous post back front and center for folks to access -- and to continue to show why the idea is no better today than it was the last time Obey tried to bring it forward.
Left-wing columnist EJ Dionne comes out in favor of the DOA proposal to impose a surtax to pay for the war in Iraq.
Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it?
That is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush's request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq.
Uh, Mr. Dionne, we already are paying for it. Unlike large parts of the Democrat constituency, we actually do pay taxes.
The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the "global war on terror." If the war's backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor.
See the point above -- we are already paying taxes to support the military and to fight the war in Iraq.
Obey makes the case pointedly. "Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs," he said in an interview this week. "If you're going to ask for that, it doesn't seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay 30 bucks for the cost of the war so we don't have to shove it off on our kids."
Or as Obey said in a statement, "I'm tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war."
Congressman -- some people volunteered to be a member of the military. It isn't like they were shanghaied off the streets of America, only to wake up with a drug-induced hangover to find themselves in desert camos in the middle of a desert with a weapon in their hand. Using your argument, though, we should actually be adopting THAT as policy as well -- or a draft, which morally amounts to the same thing. You ready to advocate for the draft, Senator? Or better yet, mandatory military service for every adult, no exceptions permitted?
And I remind you, Congressman, we taxpayers are already paying for the war. Maybe you could cover the cost of the war by undoing the Bush tax cut that took the percentage of Americans paying income taxes to under 50%. But you won't do that -- after all, those net consumers of government largesse are more likely to be Democrats, and you certainly wouldn't want to expect them to shoulder any of the citizenship obligation to pay for national defense.
And as one who grew up as a part of one of those military families, I find your statements of concern for military families today to be uninspiring. After all, I remember being told my father was a war criminal when I was a kid because he was off in Vietnam -- and your side of the debate on the war continues to make such claims today.
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you can say the words "Republican majority." That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "I am opposed to a war surtax."
Obey doesn't hold this against his leadership. "They don't want to be demagogued by the White House when they have other fish to fry," he said.
Well that was a wise decision on their part. It would be really bad to argue that we need to impose an extra tax to pay for national security and defense -- a core function of the federal government under the US Constitution -- so we don't have to scrimp on entitlement programs and transfer payments that would cause the authors of that document to whirl dervishly in their mausoleums.
I mean it does seem rather freakish to argue that we need to pay an extra tax for the military so that we can continue farm subsidies that jack up food prices and create an entitlement program for middle class and wealthy children out of general revenues. Why not impose a surtax for those programs instead -- how many Americans would be prepare to pay extra for those programs?
But it's a shame that Democrats remain so defensive on the tax issue that they aren't willing to bring this proposal to the floor. What if the price for passing President Bush's supplemental appropriation were a tax to cover its costs? What if opponents of the war voted no because they are against Bush's policy and Republicans voted no because they think low taxes are more important than national security as they define it?
That's an aggressive way to frame any such antitax "no" votes, but it's also accurate. If a war appropriations bill with a tax included went down to overwhelming defeat, wouldn't that tell us something about the depth of commitment to this war?
Again, this could be argues with any social program. Why not a surtax for AFDC or WIC? Why not a surtax to pay for the subprime mortgage bailout program Democrats want? Why not one for Medicaid? Why not one for the Earned Income Credit that gives a refund to Americans of withholding taxes they never paid? And since you folks now oppose the Bush tax cuts, why not recover that money by repealing the elements of those cuts that took Americans off the tax rolls, on the grounds that national defense and national security mandate that more Americans begin paying taxes. Indeed, why not require every American earning above the poverty line begin paying taxes -- especially since they are the net consumers of the social services that you want to pay for with general revenue instead of defense and national security?
The Obey surtax, co-sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.), envisions a sliding scale running from roughly 2 percent on the taxes paid by lower-income Americans to 15 percent on upper-income Americans. Since wars are waged, in principle, on behalf of the entire country, this is the rare Democratic tax proposal that does not put the entire burden on the rich.
But yes it does, EJ -- it puts the burden on less than 50% of Americans. Why not advocate placing that burden of taxes upon every single American?
The plan does not ask for a tax to cover the $45 billion in Bush's supplemental request to pay for the war in Afghanistan. "There are legitimate expenditures on which we don't mind sharing the costs with future generations," Obey says, noting that there is a broad consensus that the fight in Afghanistan is in the long-term interest of the country. It might be less gimmicky to pay for both wars now, but some revenue is better than none.
Well let's pay for it now -- tax the untaxed now!
Ah, you say, but this is just symbolic politics. I don't think so, but let's assume it is. This idea is far more serious than the utterly empty fight Bush is about to pick with Congress over a $21 billion to $23 billion difference in spending in a federal budget that totals some $2.7 trillion.
But EJ -- are you and the Democrats saying that we have money for additional discretionary spending in all these other areas, but not for national security and national defense? And why are you trying to shift the burden for these unnecessary programs on to future generations? Why not a surcharge to pay for them? Could it be that this plan to treat the core federal function of national security and defense as the equivalent of supersizing a fast food value meal is simply a gimmick intended to abandon our troops in the field or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for political purposes?
Here is a president who signed one bloated spending bill after another -- as long as they were passed by a Republican Congress -- posing as a fiscal conservative now that Democrats are in the majority. He's so tough and determined that he's also drawn the line on . . . children's health care.
Bush has often let it be known that he hates "small ball" politics. But there is nothing smaller or more trivial than a budget fight over a difference that any responsible president could easily resolve in negotiations with Congress. War spending aside, Obey says it would take no more than a week to reach a reasonable compromise on the overall budget if the White House would just engage.
And if the president believes in this war so much and doesn't want to raise taxes, let him propose the deep spending cuts it would take to cover the costs. Then Bush would show how much of a priority he believes this war is -- and he wouldn't be playing small ball.
Hey, I'm all for big cuts in spending -- and I find it interesting that you and the Democrats don't find a single dollar to trim anywhere, but instead propose a new surtax.
But then again, we know from experience what happens to such surtaxes. Americans were paying one imposed to cover the costs of the Spanish-American War, which occurred at the end of the 19th century, into the early years of the 21st century. This is really a stealth permanent increase in taxes, disguised as an anti-war measure. I'm sure that you already have your column written offering proposals on how to spend the money it raises once the Democrats have forced a withdrawal after the surtax has been collected.
When you take this sort of attitude when ticketed for a driving violation, it just proves that you believe you are “entitled”.
Al Sharpton's ex-wife and daughter launched an obscenity-laced tirade and tried to avoid being handcuffed after a Harlem traffic stop, prosecutors charged Monday. "Why the f--- are you locking her up?" Kathy Jordan, 53, yelled at officers as they arrested her daughter. "Get your f------ hands off her." Dominique Sharpton, 23, did not remain silent either when a cop handed her summons for cutting him off by crossing a double line and running a red light Oct. 30. "This is f------ bull----," police say she screamed. "You were driving too slow. I have a place to go to."
Now it isn’t just the speech that is the problem, but also the active resisting of arrest that the two engaged in during this confrontation that raises a real issue. After all, the cops had Al’s little princess dead to rights on three moving violations, and her conduct (as well as her mother’s) appears to have crossed the line into criminal behavior.
Of course, after Re. Al the Race-Baiter got off for inciting a race-based murder and attempting to frame public officials for a crime that never happened – and then became a “respected” elder statesman in the Democrat Party, I guess this sort of conduct is seen by this mother and daughter as their right because they and their family are more untouchable than your average Mafia don.
Oh, and be sure to click the link – the former Mrs. Sharpton sure does look like Ru Paul on a bad hair day.
I always love the smug "I'm better than you are" ton of liberal columns in the New York Times -- especially when they reveal the hypocrisy of the liberal writers, editors, and ownership of that once great newspaper.
If Joe Lieberman or other senators came across John Brodniak writhing in pain on the sidewalk, they presumably would jump to help him and rush him to a hospital.
Unfortunately, an emergency room won’t help — indeed, the closest E.R. has told him not to come back, he says. So, for those members of Congress who are wavering on health reform, listen to John’s story.
And most of the column that follows movingly tells us of this man's medical woes and uses them in an attempt to emotionally blackmail Americans into supporting some version of ObamaCare -- despite the fact that even if it passed tomorrow we would see a five-year lag before Americans get the promised health care (but no lag before the taxes to pay for that health care go into effect -- they would start immediately).
But interestingly enough, there are the things that Kristof does not do.
He doesn't follow up on the allegations of illegal behavior by one of the local hospitals, which has allegedly closed its ER to John, despite federal and state laws to the contrary. A little naming and shaming might have brought that hospital into compliance with the law -- and resulted in prosecution of those who have threatened to violate John's rights under existing law -- but that would have distracted from Kristof's purpose, which is apparently naming and shaming every liberal Democrat's least favorite senator, free-thinking independent Joe Lieberman. Ncik is more than willing to give Joe Lieberman the blame for the illegal actions of a hospital -- and in doing so, Kristof leaves John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" by not doing what he can to get him help right now.
He doesn't provide his readers with any indication of how they might personally help John and his family with the medical bills. After all, I suspect that if every reader of the column kicked in ten bucks we could probably get John the treatment he needs. But doing so would get in the way with the clear purpose of the article -- namely getting government to require compulsory payments rather than voluntary charity to pay for health care for those John. You see, ObamaCare will leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" for a very long time, because of the years of lag time before it will provide a single penny of help for individuals like John.
And, of course, Kristof doesn't tell us how much he, personally, has donated to aid John, which tells me that he has metaphorically left him "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" by not sparing him so much as one thin dime in charity. Nor does Kristof tell us what his editors and colleagues have given, leading me to believe that they have also chosen to leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" in the name of supporting ObamaCare. Ditto the New York Times Company and its major shareholders (like Carlos Slim, the third richest man in the world) -- Kristof has probably not made any sort of appeal to them, again indicating that this reliable liberal is prepared to leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" if it will somehow get ObamaCare through the Senate.
No, instead of doing any of the things that he could to help John get the help he needs right now, Nick uses him for propaganda purposes. You see, rather than act to help the man now, he'd rather see the federal government pick the pockets of every American for years before even a single American benefits under ObamaCare -- in the process hurting millions of American families like mine while holding out the promise of "free health care" at some future date, never mind that said "free health care" will cost more and give us less than what most Americans are paying for and receiving today.
Because after all -- liberalism is all about feeling good about yourself for getting the government to make others do what you would never voluntarily do yourself.
UPDATE: Nick more or less confirms for us that he and the NY Times have done nothing to help poor John, instead choosing to leave him "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" for political purposes. After all, he states that there is no fund to help John and his family, though he magnanimously supplies it for those who actually feel like doing what Kristof and his cronies at the Times won't do -- namely help John out voluntarily. The address is: John and Esther Brodniak, 770 W Main St., Sheridan, OR 97378. Be generous to the degree your conscience urges.
The ever insightful cartoonist over at Dry Bones Blog has really captured the nature of the Obama Regime's plan for Middle East "peace". After six decades of survival in the midst of the hostile Muslim horde that populates its neighbors, and after four decades of giving the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria greater rights and freedom than any Jew in the Muslim world is allowed to enjoy, those whose sympathy is not with the Jewish people still demand that it be Israel that makes concessions in order to stop the constant terrorist attacks upon its people while appeasing the terrorists and their supporters.
The latest example? The Obama "peace" plan that demands that the Israelis accept the pre-1967 borders as the foundation for any peace plan. You know, the borders that existed that forbade Jews from approaching the Western Wall. We've already seen that the Obama Regime has demanded such strict limits on Jewish neighborhoods and towns (what Israel's opponents call "settlements") that the birth of a baby would technically require another Jew to relocate before the child could be brought home.
Not that the Obama "peace" plan, which would ethnically cleanse areas occupied by Jews for over three millennia of their Jewish residents and which would dispossess Jews who purchased land and houses from Arabs of homes to which they have legal title. will satisfy even the "moderates" among the Arabs. If it would have, we could have had peace during the final year of the Bush Administration -- or for that matter, during the last days of the Clinton Administration. After all, Israel has already made offers substantially equivalent to the Obama "peace" plan on those occasions, only to have them spurned as insufficient by Arafat and Abbas. What we know, of course, is that no plan will be acceptable to the Palestinians other than what they have always demanded -- the destruction of Israel and the driving of Israel's Jews into the sea. And in Barack Obama, the Palestinians finally have an American president prepared to be complicit in their genocidal designs.
Barack Obama has sided with Iran's Islamist government over a US court decision intended to provide restitution to the families of Marines killed in the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut.
Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.
But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.
In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.’’
Yeah -- like I guess that allowing the families of slain heroes to collect damages from a government long acknowledged to be a state sponsor of terrorism will lead Iran to continue its illegal nuclear program. Oh, that's right -- it is already thumbing its nose at the US and the UN on that one. And there is little likelihood of Mahmoud the Mad becoming a lover of America over this decision.
But hey, Obama has been trying to appease the Muslim world since even before he was elected -- he knows he's already lost those who love America.
Read 'em and weep, liberals -- Barack Obama's support is dropping like a rock.
Obama's approval rate has declined among EVERY demographic group except African-Americans. Indeed, most groups have seen double-digit drops in their approval of the president. How long until it is fair to apply the EPIC FAIL label to the Obama presidency?
Next time Markos "Kos" Moulistas endorses a candidate or supports a political measure, we don't just have to remind he American public about how he supported the murder of Americans in Iraq a few years back -- we now have a whole new quote to remind folks about.
I hate the Afghanistan Taliban. Because they're anti-woman, they're anti-gay, they're anti-progress, science. It's the exact same reason I really hate the Michelle Bachmanns of the American Taliban.
Interestingly enough, he does not hate the Taliban because they hid Osama bin Laden, supported the 9/11 attacks, have killed American troops in the field, and continue to spout anti-American rhetoric. He hates them because they don;t support his politics.
And what's more, he can't tell the difference between those who engage in such barbarism and his fellow Americans who exercise rights protected by the US Constitution.
Remember, folks, this is Barack Obama's base.
But since the victims were just Jews, I suppose that liberals will tell us it is no big deal.
Ten North Naples Middle School students were suspended last week after district officials said they participated in “kick a Jew day.”
District Spokesman Joe Landon said a student told the dean of students at dismissal on Thursday that she was kicked because it was “kick a Jew day.”
The following morning Principal Margaret Jackson addressed the entire student body on the morning news regarding the incident, reviewing the code of student conduct, explaining why what happened was wrong, the need to respect one another and possible consequences, Landon said.
The little anti-Semites got only one day of in-school suspension -- and a phone conference with the parents. That's rather pathetic in my book.
Still, I'm willing to bet that had it been "Kick A Catholic Day", there would have been an even less substantial punishment.
But on the other hand, "Kick A N!99er Day" would have likely resulted in longer suspensions out of school, with referrals to the juvenile justice system
And if it had been "Kick A Muslim Day". . . well, I don't think think it takes much imagination to figure out what would have happened.
At least by those who want to keep America safe from jihadis rather than allow those who sympathize with them continue to occupy the Oval Office , Department of Justice, and Department of Defense.
A new group wants former Vice President Dick Cheney back in the White House.
The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.
"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong – and that person is Dick Cheney."
Am I jumping on the Cheney bandwagon? No, I'm not -- at least not yet. I see a number of other Republicans who are potentially serious candidates for the nomination who might bring with them the sort of strength of character and vision for American security that Dick Cheney has long enunciated in a clear fashion. But I think we do need to at least consider the possibility of nominating the former vice president -- and certainly listen to the ideas he has to offer. Otherwise we may end up with the unserious, unqualified, or unelectable.
I've never made a secret of the fact that my wife suffers from serious chronic degenerative health issues. It is a part of our everyday life.
Some folks have argued that folks like me ought to embrace ObamaCare (or one of its siblings) as a great boon to folks like us. I don't agree with that, because it will take from us choices that we currently have due to the fact that I work for, and pay for, our health insurance.
And I also contribute to a tax deferred flexible spending account in order to pay for my wife's medication (as well as my own) -- a predictable medical expense each month. But if the latest Democrat heath care scam goes through, I'm going to lose the ability to fully pay for those medications using that flexible spending account. You see, the current Democrat plans cap my contributions at an amount lower than what we currently pay for those medications each month.
Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special "flexible spending" health accounts will have "cruel" and "unintended consequences."
The Senate and House health care bills both include a revenue-raising provision that would cap at $2,500 the amount of money workers can put into flexible spending accounts. The accounts, used by millions, allow workers to store pre-tax dollars to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year.
Might I get some of that money back later at tax time? Maybe -- but only after being forced to give an involuntary interest-free loan to the federal government. In other words, we are looking at a revenue grab to pay for health care -- one being made at the expense of disabled and chronically ill Americans.
I won't be alone at my school, though.
My colleague with the severely disabled son will feel the bite of ObamaCare as she loses the ability to defer those taxes in order to pay for her son's needed equipment and therapy from her flex account. Ditto my colleague with the daughter with down Syndrome. Several colleagues have serious chronic health issues for which they use flex accounts -- and they will lose much of that ability to financially plan for their medical care.
Yeah -- ObamaCare is really going to help the Americans who most need the medical system. Tell me another one.
Islam is, of course, one big act of blasphemy against Jesus Christ, in that it relegates him to the position of mere prophet, denies his divinity, and places Muhammad above him. But I think that this latest act of Islamo-blasphemy goes a bit too far.
Jesus (Eesa (as)) was the penultimate Prophet sent by God (Allah) to bring mankind out of the darkness and hegemony of man-made law, into the perfection and beauty of divine law.
Sadly, his character is one of the most controversial in the world today, with Jews rejecting him and Christians elevating him to the blasphemous status of son of God or even God Himself; Muslims on the other hand venerate him as one of the most important Messengers of God, who will return one day, break the cross and prove to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) the truth of Islam.
In light of this, Islam4UK, a platform for Al-Muhajiroun, have decided to launch a unique campaign in the run up to Christmas, challenging Jews and in particular Christians to an open debate on the true message of Jesus.
This event has been booked for 18th December 2009, precisely one week before Christmas Day and we hereby call out to all Christian leaders in the UK to come forward and defend their claim to Jesus on this special day, if they sincerely believe they are on the truth.
If you or anyone you know are interested in participating in the debate and would like to know more about arrangements for the day please contact Abu Yahya on 07961577221.
You will also witness several articles as a precursor to this event, outlining the life of Jesus (peace be upon him) and his mission, in light of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Indeed, as Muslims we believe that Jesus was a Muslim, and moreover that if he were alive today, that he would reject the evil bureaucracy of man-made law and wholeheartedly embrace the divine law (Shari'ah)of the Final Messenger sent to the whole of mankind, Muhammad (saw).
Jesus a Muslim? Embracing the teachings of the demon-possessed pedophile Muhammad? What a sick joke.
But if Muslims do believe this, they certainly cannot object to the following response from Christians.
You know -- behavior supposedly justified under sharia when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the false prophet Muhammad. If Jesus really does embrace sharia as this Muslim group claims, then certainly Muslims can't object if Christians act like, well, Muslims when faced with blasphemy against our religion.
But then again, we know that such things will not happen -- because Christians reject the evil of sharia and instead embrace the Christ's Law of Love.
H/T Jawa Report
Seems President Obama was able to find something to read while visiting Camp David.
Fortunately, it even has an article about his favorite subject.
Seems to me that we may need to replace "Hail to the Chief" with a different song when GQ's "Leader of the Year" enters the room.
Over at American Thinker, they are pointing out where America is first -- when it comes to responsibility for caring for the sick of other nations, including those whose presence here is a mockery of American law.
Fifty-one people -- nearly all illegal immigrants -- are facing a "life-or-death limbo" after a cash-strapped Atlanta charity hospital decided it must stop providing them free kidney dialysis treatments that were costing the hospital (or rather taxpayers) $50,000 per year.
That's according to a heart-rending article in Saturday's New York Times about the “excruciating choices” faced by Atlanta's Grady hospital upon closing its outpatient dialysis unit. Over the years, the unit has been overrun by illegal immigrants, and it has thus become a major financial drain on the “taxpayer-supported safety-net hospital,” the Times explained in its lengthy article: "The Breaking Point: Hospital Falters as Refuge for Illegal Immigrants."
Who is to blame for this heart breaking situation?
Not surprisingly, the Times blames America's heartless polices on health care and immigration. Or as the paper explains, the moral dilemma Grady has faced is “a stark reflection of what happens when the country’s inadequate health care system confronts its defective immigration policy.”
But writer David Paulin notes that it is very interesting to see who the folks at the former paper of record do not hold accountable for the care for these illegal aliens, most of whom are presumably Mexican (an assumption based strictly upon the proportion of Mexican border jumpers in the immigration criminal community). The Government of Mexico (which rakes in a great deal of cash from its state-run oil industry) and the richest citizens of Mexico (like Carlos Slim, the third richest man in the world with $35 billion in personal assets) apparently do not have any responsibility for the health care of Mexicans -- and indeed, these people would be most unlikely to get dialysis in Mexico. Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that Slim, a crony of every Mexican leader for decades, is a large shareholder in the New York Times, so it would not be proper to suggest the confiscation of a portion of HIS wealth to pay for the medical care of impoverished Mexicans (especially since Slim took a $25 billion dollar financial hit when the markets crashed last year -- how is he managing to get by on only 60% of his pre-crash assets?).
No, it is we Americans and our government who somehow are supposed to be providing medical care to those who kick open our nation's door and waltz in to a country where they are neither wanted nor welcome because of their criminal disregard for our nation's immigration laws.
From ABC's Bill Weir on Good Morning America, in regards to Senator Mary Landrieu.
"The people of Louisiana sent her to Washington to get as much sausage as they could, you know, she could."
Bill, even though Mary has shown herself to be a political prostitute on ObamaCare, there are just some things you don't say about a lady.
Even when the lady has all the principles of a lady of the evening.
By the way -- this entire episode shows that the Democrats don't give a rat's ass about folks harmed by Hurricane Katrina, or that they don't believe these funds are really needed by the state of Louisiana. After all, if they did care about the victims of Katrina, they would have passed this measure as stand-alone legislation -- if the need for the money could actually be justified.
From Hugh Hefner.
"There was a moment when I was having sex with four Playmates and I almost swallowed a Ben Wa ball."
Well, we ll have to die somehow, and I can think of worse deaths...
Could you imagine the howls if some conservative leader made the statement that one cannot call oneself a white man if you supported Obama’s nationalization of health care?
Why, then, is there not similar disgust over this statement from a Democrat elder statesman?
The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.
“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”
Seems appropriate that this statement came at the same time that Robert Byrd (D-KKK) became the longest serving member of the US Senate. The coincidence only serves to show that the Democrats are now, as they always have been, the party of racism and race-baiting – and that the only difference between folks like Byrd and Jackson are their skin tone and the color of their robes.
Set aside his anti-Israel policies. The hostility seems to go beyond that.
The White House's forthcoming state dinner with the Prime Minister of India is expected to be larger than those of President Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. But another upcoming White House event will be smaller than in years past: The White House's annual Hanukkah party.
The guest list is expected to be shrunk by more than half, according to the Jerusalem Post. "Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder."
The move comes on the heels of Obama's cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week.
On the other hand, Obama still held the big Eid meal for Muslim leaders, and has made a point of sucking up to Muslims at home and abroad at every opportunity – even when a Muslim terrorist kills American soldiers on an American military base.
Sort of what you would expect from a guy who sat in the pew at the anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for a couple of decades.
Everybody say “Awwwwwww!
Apparently they need to teach the little fellow to walk on his hind legs for mating season.
Â« All done with "Too Cute For Words"?
Except for short blurb type articles, I almost never duplicate an entire article or column that appears in the press. I’m making an exception here, because this is a message from one of America’s finest on the ever of his unit’s deployment to the field of operation in Iraq.
Guard unit from Houston is ready for duty in Iraq By COL. MARK N. CAMPSEY
The 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) stands ready for duty in Iraq. Over the past two months, we've been in the New Mexico desert preparing for the situation in country.
During our time there, soldiers from the Houston area trained in detainee, convoy and urban operations. The training was some of the most realistic that soldiers in the 72nd IBCT have ever encountered stateside.
Throughout many training lanes, actual Iraqi civilians role-played and mock weapons systems simulated the environment in Iraq. The realism made it easy for our soldiers to stay battle-focused.
Very soon we'll be taking a plane ride into Kuwait. While there, we'll consolidate our personnel and equipment and perform precombat checks and inspections before we go into Iraq.
During the next year, the 72nd brigade headquarters will operate as the Joint Area Support Group-Central (JASG-C) with responsibility for supporting the government of Iraq with administration and security of the International Zone in Baghdad.
The 21 units, to include the 1-141st and 3-141st infantry battalion headquarters, which fall under the 72nd IBCT headquarters, will perform various roles in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, such as security force, detainee, combat and convoy operations. And we're prepared for that.
The assignment extends basic military training. And our soldiers are uniquely qualified for what's ahead due to the combination of their military training and civilian jobs.
In Iraq, our soldiers will be in roles similar to their regular Houston jobs, such as accountants, project managers, engineers, lawyers, contractors, real estate managers, carpenters, law enforcement, city administrators, marketing directors and logistics officers, to name a few.
This range of careers is crucial for success in stability operations. It's the reason why the president specifically called on our citizen soldiers in the Texas Army National Guard.
With the upcoming elections in January, our soldiers will be on the ground during a historic time in Iraq. Currently, 280 political parties have registered to run. For my team, this proves that Iraqis are interested in representative government.
As for the security situation, attacks have slowed down dramatically, but they haven't stopped. In Baghdad, where the 72nd IBCT headquarters will be located, attacks are consistent with February 2004 lows, representing a decrease of more than 95 percent since the surge operations began in June 2007.
An added benefit we have is that our families, the Houston community and surrounding areas continue to give us extraordinary support. As an example, during our deployment ceremony in October the Wal-Mart Corporation presented a large donation to support our soldiers' travel home on their final pass over the Thanksgiving holiday.
It was an exceptionally generous gift. It not only reduced a potential financial burden for some families, it ensured a safe mode of transport for participating soldiers. But the support didn't stop there. Countless other Houston businesses, community organizations and individual citizens have supported us in so many ways.
We are truly grateful to live in such a military-friendly city. That hasn't always been the case for soldiers. However, on behalf of the 72nd IBCT's soldiers and officers brigade, I want to thank you all very much.
I take comfort in the fact that the 72nd IBCT soldiers have the best training, equipment and support by the finest people — their loved ones and the great people of Houston, Texas.
Campsey is commander of the 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, based in Houston, Texas.
The thoughts and prayers of this community and a grateful nation with you and the rest of the 72nd, sir.
This is especially true for my wife and I, as one of your officers is numbered among our loved ones – a young man who we first met on one of his first dates with one of my younger colleagues. It has been our privilege to watch as he has become a loving husband, devoted father and exemplary military officer. It will be our privilege to offer support to his family until you return – a privilege that we are proud to share with so many others in this community, and in this nation.
I’m disappointed that a member of Congress would back away from a true statement at the behest of apologists for Islamist terrorism.
U.S. Rep. Donald Manzullo told WREX-TV in Rockford, Ill., that alleged terrorists imprisoned at the Navy base are "really really mean people whose job it is to kill people, driven by some savage religion."
The Republican lawmaker confirmed Tuesday those words were his. He said he never specified Islam and apologized for any misunderstanding.
However, the terrorist shills from CAIR leaped to the fore, claiming that Manzullo’s statement was defamatory of Islam. They appear less worried, however, about the claims of terrorists that they act in the name of Islam.
Remember – it is the terrorists themselves who make a claim that their acts of murder and mayhem are based upon religious imperatives. If that does not support the claim that they are practitioners of a savage religion, I don’t know what does.
Oh, that's right.
They commit acts of unspeakable barbarism in the name of the Religion of Peace -- and don't you suggest anything different about that religion or they will cut your head off.
Not very – as exemplified by this catch-and-release story.
A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Tuesday sentenced an illegal immigrant to time served in jail for his 10th illegal entry into the country.
Uziel Jesus Lopez-Jiminez, 28, of Mexico has been deported nine other times between 1998 and 2007, prosecutors said. He was last deported in March, re-entered the country in May or June and was arrested in Beaver County on Aug. 16.
This is one of the folks that Obama wants to legalize – probably with an eye to granting citizenship and Democrat voter registration by 2012.
Just breaking the laws that Americans want enforced.
Captain [Naomi] Surman, [Hassan’s supervisor in the Department of Psychiatry], who was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan with Hasan on Nov. 2 told investigators that Hasan had both social and academic issues in his medical training. She said that on one occasion, Hasan told her she was an infidel who would be “ripped to shreds” and “burn in hell” because she was not Muslim.
Would the individual in question have been counseled to change their attitude and behavior?
Would they have faced disciplinary actions?
Would their career have been ended “for the good of the service”?
I think we can all make a reasonable guess – but Hasan was coddled and kept on, even scheduled to deploy in Iraq where he would be a likely fifth columnist for his fellow Islamists, because it would have been politically incorrect to take any action against a “good Muslim”.
The result was13 dead – 14 if one counts the unborn child of one of the soldiers Hasan gunned down.
Ever since Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his fellow terrorists have been granted a civilian trial in a civilian court, I’ve been asking one very straight-forward question – what happens if one or more of the defendants is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed (in my opinion, quite possible on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial)? Does the Obama Administration release these terrorists? Or does Obama order their continued detention, creating a constitutional crisis in the process by rejecting the authority of the federal courts?
Well, there appears to be an answer coming from Obama’s Democrat allies – and the answer is somewhat akin to the arguments of Third World despots.
According to Democratic Senator Jack Reed, “under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.” Come again? You mean if KSM is acquitted he will still be detained? Yes indeed, according to Senator Reed. He will not be released, “because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities,” we can continue to hold KSM.
Well, now. It seems to me as though President Obama and Attorney General Holder need to be asked whether they agree with Senator Reed. If not — if they believe that the proud, self-confessed mastermind of the deadliest attack in history on the American homeland should be able to walk free if acquitted in this trial — then Obama and Holder should certainly say so. If KSM were acquitted, the president and his attorney general should proclaim from the rooftops that Mohammed is a free man, found innocent in a civilian court of law, and then allow voters to render a judgment on their decision.
If, on the other hand, Obama and Holder agree with Senator Reed, they should state that as well.
The problem is that it does not matter a whit what international law says in the scenario laid out by Reed – taking such actions would unambiguously violate the US Constitution. What’s more, in such a situation we would see established the principle that the mere acquittal of a defendant or dismissal of charges with prejudice is insufficient to guarantee that the Executive Branch will not continue to deprive an individual of their liberty after they have been adjudicated to be innocent. Quite bluntly, the Obama Regime cannot have it both ways – claiming that terrorism is a criminal matter best left to the criminal justice system while at the same time declaring it to be a military/national security matter subject to unreviewable executive discretion when the courts prove inadequate to the task.
Indeed, the only way that Reed’s argument based upon international law works is if one recognizes that the War on Terrorism is, in fact, a war and that combatants (both lawful and unlawful) may legitimately be held without trial or access to civilian courts for the duration of the conflict. It is impossible to argue for some sort of hybrid classification and system that allows for the continued detention of the legally innocent without making their trials nothing more than a sham and a show.
Such as conducting oversight investigations into Executive Branch agencies and departments.
President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.
On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.
“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president he was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.
Given the fundamentally unserious response of President Obama and his minions to this jihadi assault upon American military personnel on US soil – combined with the unserious response of the president to a jihadi assault upon military personnel on US soil last summer – it seems to me that Congress needs to seriously examine the operation of law enforcement and the military regarding the jihadi threat on our own soil.
But I do have to ask a question – wouldn’t we be hearing shrieks of outrage from Democrats and the media if such obstructionism were engaged in by a president named Bush instead of a Obama? Or does the standard once again differ when now that the unicorn-riding demigod is king, even if that means doing away with checks and balances and separation of powers?
H/T Hot Air
During the latter part of the Bush years, I complained about the pace of judicial confirmations. Sadly, the GOP in the Senate is now paying back the Democrats in spades for their obstruction of well-qualified Republican nominees by obstructing Democrat nominees. This is in addition to the delays caused by the failure of the Obama Administration to make timely nominations to fill many judicial vacancies and the focus on other legislative priorities by the Democrat leaders of the Senate.
Despite a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, President Obama is on pace to set a record for the fewest judges confirmed during a president's first year in the White House.
So far, only six of Obama's nominees to the lower federal courts have won approval. By comparison, President George W. Bush had 28 judges confirmed in his first year in office, even though Democrats held a narrow majority for much of the year. President Clinton put 27 new judges on the bench in his first year.
The slow pace of approving judges has gotten little attention while Democrats and Republicans have fought over healthcare, the budget and the economic stimulus bill. In mid-summer, Obama and the Democrats also won confirmation for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
* * *
Nationwide, there are 98 vacancies on the federal bench. Obama has 19 nominees who are awaiting votes in the Senate.
Obama's pace of nominating judges is also slower than previous presidents'.
Still, the obstructionism needs to cease. And so I am back to making a proposal that I made a couple of years ago – an amendment to the Constitution that places a time limit on the Senate’s advice and consent function so as to bring judicial nominees to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor within a reasonable time period. Such an amendment might read something like this one that I cobbled together as a proposal.
PROPOSED JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION AMENDMENT
Section 1 The power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts shall be vested in the President of the United States.
Section 2 Upon the formal submission of the name of a nominee to a judgeship of any federal court to the United States Senate by the President, the Senate shall vote to confirm or not confirm the nominee within 180 days..
Section 3 The Senate may, with a three-fifths vote, extend the time for confirmation by 90 days in order to allow additional inquiry into the fitness of the candidate or in order to permit the Senate to deal with other legislative concerns. Such an extension shall be permitted only one time.
Section 4 The consent of the Senate shall deemed to be given if the Senate fails to reject the nominee within the 180 days mandated under Section 2 of this Article, or within 270 days in the event of an extension of the deadline under Section 3 of this Article.
This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. This is an issue of ensuring the proper administration of justice and the filling of judicial vacancies necessary for that purpose.
In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.
Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
”We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.
Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said ”there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.
Do you see the arrogance literally dripping from Balzano’s words? Citizens have no right to contribute to their community – they merely have the right to pay ever higher taxes in order to make sure the corrupt union bosses like Balzano get their cut from the bloated paychecks of union members.
The time has come for the people of this nation to rise up and insist that there be no more public employee unions, because they clearly are not operating in the public interest. That a union thug like Balzano thinks there will be no consequences to his making such statements is proof of that.
So I really don’t give a damn if this jihadi pig ever walks again.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood gunman, is paralyzed from the waist down, his lawyer said Friday.
"It appears he won't be able to walk in the future," said Hasan's civilian attorney, retired Army Col. John Galligan.
Hasan also has severe pain in his hands, the attorney said.
Here’s hoping that they lubricate his wheelchair with bacon grease, and that we eventually solve his medical problems via lethal injection. The we can see if his false Allah will cure him when he joins his false prophet in Hell.
I don’t usually like it when events involving politicians and their staffers results in a change of rules by law enforcement. However, this is a rule change that is long overdue, and which tells the TSA that they have no legitimate grounds to quiz travelers about legal activities.
An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.
* * *
The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security" and that large amounts of cash don't qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.
"We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities," said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.
He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.
Steve Bierfeldt, the Ron Paul aide in question, was transporting a metal strong box with cash as a part of his duties as head of a Paul-affiliated political group. No illegal activity was alleged, and the only basis for suspicion was that he was carrying the cash. Clearly nothing untoward was going on, but Bierfeldt was still detained and subjected to threats of arrest because he would not explain why he was engaging in the legal activity of carrying the cash.
Frankly, this is in keeping with the experience that I detailed a last spring when my wife and I traveled to visit her dying mother. My mother-in-law gave my wife some old coins, jewelry, and other keepsakes she had accumulated over the years during the visit. While passing through security, my wife and I were extensively quizzed as to why we were carrying the collector coins. In addition, the screener (who had already assaulted my wife in her wheelchair) demanded to know the diagnoses for which my wife had been prescribed certain medications by her neurologist. I’m glad to see these petty goose-steppers reigned in by the government so as to ensure that they do not exceed their lawful mandate.
Well, you’ve got to hand it to Obama and his Democrat minions – they have managed to forge a new consensus on government run health care. And that consensus is NO, WE DON’T WANT IT!
The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.
The meaning of these results is very clear – the American people don’t want what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are selling. And even to the degree that Americans want to ensure that there is some safety net for their fellow citizens in need of medical care that is beyond their means, we are more and more convinced that the proposals coming out of the Democrats fail to address the issue in a manner consistent with our values and wishes.
Could be, according to some numbers crunched by Red State's Moe Lane regarding the House seats seen as competitive next year.
|SD-AL||Stephanie Herseth Sandlin||R+9|
|CA-45||Mary Bono Mack||R+3|
|FL-10||C. W. Bill Young||R+1|
|OH-15||Mary Jo Kilroy||D+1|
And Lane's analysis of this data? Big GOP gains.
As you can see, there are a lot of Democratic incumbents in districts that typically vote Republican in Presidential elections, and almost no Republican incumbents in districts that vote Democratic. For that matter, something like 72% of the total competitive races are in Republican districts… which would sound like bad news for the GOP, except that Democratic-held seats make up 75% of both the total and particularly competitive races surveyed by Cook. The midpoint for that list is at R+3; below that point there are 14 GOP districts held by Democrats, and only 7 Democratic ones held by Republicans.
What does that mean, in terms of the 2010 elections? Well, if you assume that every district held by Democrats that’s at R+4 and above gets flipped, every incumbent between R+3 and D+0 keeps his or her seat, and that every Republican in a Democratic district loses his or her seat… the Democrats lose 31 seats next year. Assume that an incumbent needs to at least break even (i.e., has at least a R or D+0), and the number goes up to 48 seats lost by the Democrats.
As a practical matter, the balance of power would change sharply. With the 31 seat change, we would see the partisan split change from 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans to 227 Democrats and 208 Republicans, which would give Republicans significantly more clout in the House. And if the change goes to the more extreme possibility suggested by Lane, the split nearly reverses, with Republicans holding a 225-210 edge over the Democrats, potentially giving the country a repeat of the 1994 election.
Of course, there is a lot that could happen in the next 12 months, and those events could turn the tables dramatically. But assuming there is not radical shift between now and the 2010 elections, the United States will have a radically different Congress during the second half of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term.
UPDATE: Don Surber points to the possibility of a 6 or 7 seat gain for the GOP in the Senate as well -- not enough for a majority, but certainly enough o allow fo the filibuster of the Obama Agenda.
You know -- the people's right to know, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, etc.
Guess it isn't patriotic any more -- at least now that a man who has no understanding of or appreciation for the military is in the Oval Office.
The Obama administration is increasingly exasperated by leaks of national-security-related information and is planning a major effort to root out and punish those responsible, top officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is “appalled” by a series of leaks surrounding the president’s deliberations about the way forward in Afghanistan and the investigation into last week’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.
How long until we see prosecutions and persecutions? And will we see the media turning over names at the demand of the demigod Obama and his minions?
And the Affirmative Action Presidency continues.
H/T Red State
Yeah, illegal immigrants would be covered under this proposal -- a sticking point for conservatives regarding the various incarnations of ObamaCare but a demand for most liberals -- but at least their care would be funded appropriately.
A Democrat congressman from Ohio has introduced innovative legislation that would require foreign countries to reimburse American taxpayers for the exorbitant medical expenses of illegal immigrants.
Appropriately titled, PAYBACK Act (Preventing All Your Bucks from Aiding non-Citizens is Key), the measure would save the U.S. government billions of dollars annually and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund health care services for illegal immigrants, according to its author, U.S. Representative Zack Space.
Medical bills for illegal aliens would be passed along to their country of origin, according to the proposed law, which was introduced in the House this month. The government would mostly collect by deducting the cost of illegal immigrants’ healthcare from the foreign aid their home countries would normally get from the U.S.
If the U.S. does not offer foreign assistance the country would get billed for 110% of the medical costs. In the case where illegal immigrants are from nation’s to whom the U.S. owes money, the cost of medically treating their citizens would be reduced from the debt. The money would be applied to strengthening border security. “It is fundamentally unfair and outrageous to foot the bill for immigrants unlawfully in the United States,” said Space, who has represented Ohio’s 18th congressional district since 2007.
Sounds good to me -- send the bill to their country of origin, and require that they pay for the medical care of their citizens who are violating American sovereignty and lw by their mere presence in this country.
Now if they would only add an automatic deportation provision to the plan, it would be perfect. I'm just shocked it is coming from a Democrat.
H/T Don Surber
That is the number of criminal aliens identified by the federal government by checking data on arrestees in 95 jurisdictions around the country.
Got that -- ONLY 95 JURISDICTIONS
Immigration officials announced today that a fingerprint-based system that screens for suspected illegal immigrants in local jails resulted in the identification of more than 111,000 people classified as “criminal aliens” in its first year.
The Secure Communities program, first launched in October 2008 at the Harris County Jail, uses biometric technology to automatically check the immigration history of all suspects booked into local lockups. The system is now in place in 95 jurisdictions, including Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties.
The Houston Police Department plans to have the system working in the city jails by the end of the year, city officials said.
Of those, 11,000 were guilty of serious offenses.
And that is just in 95 jurisdictions.
Imagine what will happen when it goes nationwide.
Seems to me that we need to get the machinery of deportation warmed up and in operation -- we need to get rid of an awful lot of those aliens who are simply committing the crimes that Americans won't commit.
In 1988, cult leader Fred Phelps was a delegate to the Democrat convention for candidate (later vice president) Al Gore. Over the years, perennial Democrat candidate Phelps has engaged in ever more vile activity in support of his twisted theology. No Republican, and no conservative, has ever embraced him as far as I can tell -- indeed, I can find only condemnation of the Phelps and his family.
So now that the Phred Phlelps Phreaks from his "Westboro Baptist Church" (really a cult composed almost exclusively of his family members) has appeared in front of the ritzy private school attended by the Obama girls and other children of privilege outside of Washington, DC, why are there calls from an anchor from MSNBC for conservatives and Republicans to denounce the protests?
The Westboro Baptist Church is telling the Obama daughters that God is their "enemy."
The Kansas-based far-right church known for its outrageous choices of protest venues picketed outside the private school attended by first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama on Monday morning, and in the process got embroiled in an angry war of words with an MSNBC anchor.
* * *
MSNBC anchor David Shuster described Monday's Westboro church protest as "beyond the pale."
"Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/Republicans will condemn this stuff today," he wrote on his Twitter account.
Good grief, even the hacks at Raw Story recognize that these folks are not considered acceptable by those of us on the right -- why can't a supposedly responsible journalist like Shuster?
And, of course, moonbats on the Left have jumped on the Shuster bandwagon.
But interestingly enough, there was silence from the Left when mainstream anti-war liberals engaged in precisely such tactics directed against the children of US military personnel invited to the White House. But then again, Code Pink has been doing such things for years without condemnation from liberals, so why should we expect outrage now at the targeting of children by this mainstream liberal group? Why should we expect an Obama shill like David Shuster to condemn such vile protests, even though he expects conservatives and Republicans to condemn the Westboro cult even after years of such condemnations?
We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target. What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.
And, of course, we could add a great many other terrorist incidents involving Muslims in this country. It wasn’t that long ago that I cataloged several stories that had appeared in the space of 24 hours about newly-convicted jihadis in various parts of the country. A recent investigation spanned the continent from Colorado to New York City, with charges brought against multiple participants. Indeed, we can expect multiple stories each month about would-be terrorists within our country seeking to aid the Islamist cause. Yet somehow, every time, there is a collective expression of shock every time such a story appears, with pious intonations of the P.C. mantra that such individuals are not representative of Islam as a whole and that we must not ask if there is something malignant in Islam that accounts for these cases – even when the perpetrators themselves clearly state that their motivation is their Islamic faith.
Am I saying that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I am not. Am I saying there are no odd ducks in the Christian (or Jewish or Buddhist or . . .) community that act violently and claim a religious justification for their misdeeds? Again, I am not.
But the reality is that there appears to be a higher proportion of such individuals among Muslims, and their propensity towards religiously motivated violence seems to be drawn from the same passages of the Qu’ran and oriented towards the same goal of establishing Islamic supremacy. Doesn’t prudence require that we acknowledge that reality and that our government look more closely at Muslim institutions – whether charities, political organizations, or houses of worship – in attempting to prevent such acts of terror from occurring on our own soil? And does it not require that we investigate more closely those in the Muslim community who have expressed some sympathy with the cause of jihad and those who engage in such religiously motivated violence?
It is now common knowledge that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, like so many of radical Muslims, publicly professed belief in acts of violence against those who Islam defines as infidels. We know that Hasan, like so many radical Muslims, expressed the view that the war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam. We know that the FBI was aware that Hasan was trying to connect with al-Qaeda. Indeed, there were plenty of signs that Major Hasan was going to “go Muslim” (or, more accurately, “go jihadi”) against his fellow Americans. And yet even now, after the fact, it seems that too many folks in positions of authority would prefer to gloss over that fact and instead express concern for members of the Muslim community rather than the victims of this latest attack and the potential victims of future attacks by radicalised Muslims.
Again, this is not an attack on Muslims as a group. Most are loyal, and the contributions of Muslims in the military and law enforcement are often exemplary. But respect for good Muslims and a desire to embrace the full diversity of our society cannot outweigh the need to provide for security of all. We cannot look away from the problem out of fear of failing to appear “sensitive” enough to a minority religion in our midst. Any other response is nuts.
No one favors abuse of the elderly. But when the clear purpose of a statute is twisted to provide special protection that would be unavailable for all, we have a serious constitutional issue.
PORTLAND, Ore. — A judge has ordered animal-rights activists to keep their distance from a 75-year-old furrier because state law protects the businessman from elder abuse by shouting profanities.
Horst Grimm, the owner of Nicholas Ungar Furs, won an order Wednesday requiring four anti-fur activists to stay at least 50 feet away from Grimm and 15 feet away from his downtown Portland store.
Attorneys in the case believe it was the first time state laws to protect the elderly have been used to limit free speech.
Clackamas County Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Jones said both sides presented reasonable arguments. But he said the level of profanity that protesters directed at Grimm clearly violated state law.
The Oregon elder-abuse law prohibits using derogatory names, harassment, coercion, threats, cursing, or intimidation that threatens significant physical or emotional harm to elderly or disabled people.
But wait – aren’t such laws designed to protect the elderly from abuse related to their age and dependency? If so, then this law is clearly being misused here to stop social/political protest that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment – and in doing so does violence not only to the free speech provision of the Constitution, but to the very concept of equal protection of the law as well. After all, younger furriers would not be able to avail themselves of protection from similar abusive treatment by protesters out to destroy their businesses.
That is not to say that I side with the harassers. Surely there are other laws that could be applied here – laws against disorderly conduct, stalking, and harassment that are laws of general application. And if there are not, then it is the province of the Oregon legislature to pass such laws, not of the courts to create novel interpretations of existing statutes to solve a problem that those laws were not designed to address.
The Chiefs released running back Larry Johnson on Monday, his first day back from a two-week suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. Johnson called out coach Todd Haley two weeks ago in a Twitter post before using a pair of gay slurs on his Twitter profile and, a day later, to a group of reporters. He missed Sunday’s game at Jacksonville, and the suspension cost him about $330,000. He also ended his Chiefs career 74 yards short of the franchise rushing record, set by Priest Holmes.
Now there is plenty of room to argue about whether or not this is the right move for the Kansas City Chiefs organization to make. After all, there are PR and other considerations that go into such a decision, in addition to the on-field issues.
But I’m still mighty disturbed by the decision.
After all, the team and the league were willing to keep him on the payroll when he had earlier issues involving his conduct.
Johnson has been arrested four times since 2003 on various assault charges against women. In 2003, he was arrested for felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor domestic battery for waving a gun at his then-girlfriend, during an argument at his home. The charges were dropped when Johnson agreed to participate in a domestic violence diversion program. In 2005, he was again arrested for assault when a woman accused Johnson of pushing her to the ground, but the case was dropped after the alleged victim failed to appear in court for three different hearings.
His third arrest for assault came on February 24, 2008, after allegedly pushing a woman's head at a nightclub on February 24. On October 10, 2008, Johnson was arrested for the fourth time and charged with one count of non-aggravated assault for allegedly spitting a drink in a woman's face at a Kansas City nightclub on Oct. 11. The woman involved, Ashley Stewart, has since filed a civil suit against Johnson, accusing him of negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In other words, it is acceptable in the NFL for a player to engage in repeated physical assaults against women – acts which are criminal in nature. On the other hand, the uttering (or typing) of the wrong word will end your career if it offends the wrong political pressure group.
But then again, we already knew that – just ask Rush Limbaugh.
I guess it is all just a matter of priorities.
Some see a contradiction between this report on Ft. Hood murderer Major Nidal Hasan and the picture of the man as a devout Muslim.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came into the Starz strip club not far from the base at least three times in the past month, the club's general manager, Matthew Jones, told FoxNews.com. Army investigators building their case against Hasan plan to interview Jones soon.
* * *
Hasan's presence at the club paints a starkly different portrait of the alleged killer from that offered by his imam and family members, who have described him as a devout Muslim, and one who had difficulty finding a wife who would wear a head scarf and would pray five times a day.
But is that really at odds with what we know about other devout Muslims who have engaged in acts of jihad against America? I don’t think so. After all, the 9/11 hijackers had a taste for strip clubs and strippers as well.
Call it getting a preview of the promised 72 virgins.
Winning Council Submissions
Winning Council Submissions
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan spoke these words before the berlin Wall, that great scar across a divided city.
And little more than two years later, the joyous moment came when the Berlin Wall was breached and a new birth of freedom came to the people of Eastern Europe.
I remember watching that report two decades ago. Today I will share the story with my students -- young people who have never known anything but a united Germany.
Sometimes one just needs to get away from the grind. This absence wasn't one of those.
Sometimes personal considerations just pile up and take priority. To a degree, that was the case here.
And sometimes you are just too sick to do anything other than the minimum needed to get through one's daily life. That was the major issue here.
After a long fight against a nasty sinus infection whole trying to work, run an election, and deal with my personal life, I finally feel up to sitting in front of a computer and posting something on the internet. So expect some commentary on recent events to trickle out over the next few hours and days as I get my strength back.