Like it or not, there is a war on between the United States and the forces of Islamist terrorism. Among the leaders of America’s enemies was Anwar al-Awlaki, who happened to have American citizenship.
Now in war, people are killed. This includes the leaders of one’s enemies – whether they are on the battlefield, in an office in their nation’s capital, or in some other location. They are customarily viewed as lawful targets. But that has not stopped the usual band of “blame America firsters” from wailing and gnashing their teeth over the fact that our military forces took out this enemy of America.
Take Glenn Greenwald, who waxed indignant this morning.
After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.
What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. . . .
Greenwald, of course, conveniently fails to note that al-Qaeda has made the world its battlefield and foreign soil its base of operations. Indeed, under the Greenwaldian paradigm, the civil war should have been conducted by police officers with warrants and handcuffs, not the Union army – after all, those killed in the war were American citizens who were never given their day in court, nor did they receive so much as an indictment.
And then there is the ACLU, once again siding with those who hate America and America’s values.
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said, “The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.”
ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner said, “Outside the theater of war, the use of lethal force is lawful only as a last resort to counter an imminent threat of deadly attack. Based on the administration’s public statements, the program that the President has authorized is far more sweeping. If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”
Oddly enough, no one has ever claimed that a president has the power to summarily execute any American any where in the world without review. What has been claimed – and what must be claimed if the president’s power as commander-in-chief is to have any meaning – is that a sitting president can and must be free to target the leaders of trans-national organizations engaged in belligerent acts against the United States, even if they happen to be American citizens.
And then there is CAIR, which traditionally mouths condemnations of terrorists while actually condemning America – which I must admit sounds somewhat more patriotic in this statement than either the ACLU or Greenwald.
"As we have stated repeatedly in the past, the American Muslim community firmly repudiated Anwar al-Awlaki's incitement to violence, which occurred after he left the United States. While a voice of hate has been eliminated, we urge our nation's leaders to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of American citizens without due process of law."
The reality, of course, is that use of the word “assassination” makes it clear that they’ve already decided that the terrorist is a victim while the US has done evil – making it clear that they really are repudiating the US while embracing their Muslim brother.
But most disturbing is the statement of presidential candidate Ron Paul, who disgraces the nation, the state of Texas, and the Republican Party with his latest outrageous words.
Ron Paul aggressively criticized President Obama today for al-Awlaki's death.
"No I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said in a media avail after his remarks at the Politics + Eggs event here. "He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.
"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."
Does he feel the same about Bin Laden? "
Not exactly. "Because he was involved in 9/11 and I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11," Paul said. "Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11."
By his logic, if Congress votes the president the power to “assassinate an American citizen without trial,” then it is perfectly OK – despite the fact that this would constitute a bill of attainder of the very sort banned by the Constitution. Never mind that this would constitute the passing of a bill of attainder, a power specifically denied to Congress. So let’s quit thinking about this guy as a legitimate – much less serious – candidate for the GOP nomination for the presidency.
And while we are at it, can we get away from the notion that there is something illegitimate about killing someone outside of the United States – American citizen or not – to decapitate an international terrorist organization that is engaged in terrorism against the United States. Those who make war on the United States are not the victims of "assassination" -- they are legitimate military targets.
UPDATE: Here's are two unusual -- but unsurprising -- sources for the "blame America" rhetoric of assassination.
At the Washington-area mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki preached a decade ago, there were few tears over the death of the influential al-Qaida figure who more than anyone gave the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center its unwanted association with international terrorism. But some found the way he was killed to be un-American.
* * *
Leaders of the mosque issued a statement saying that although al-Awlaki "encouraged impressionable American-Muslims to attack their own country," they deplored "extra-judicial assassination" and believed the drone attack "sends the wrong message to law-abiding people around the world."
* * *
Edgar Hopida, a spokesman for the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, attended al-Awlaki's classes at [San Diego's al-Ribat al-Islami mosque] and said nothing he heard prepared him for the violent rhetoric the cleric went on to preach from Yemen. But he opposes the way the U.S. responded.
"Our main concern is with the fact that our government committed an extrajudicial killing on one of its own citizens without due process," Hopida said. "... He was just marked for assassination, which is against our foundation as Americans."
Folks from the mosques where al-Awlaki preached and 9/11 highjackers worshiped have a problem with the US takeing out a terrorist kingpin. Why am I not surprised?
UPDATE II: Bravo to Don Surber, who notes that Anwar the Dead Terrorist DID, in fact, get his day in court:
The facts are, al-Awlaki was given due process.
From another lawyer, Kenneth Anderson: “When it became public that the Obama administration had put Al-Aulaqi on a target list, the ACLU filed suit on his behalf through his father; it made international law arguments that included the proposition that he was outside of the war zone and hence could only be sought through law enforcement methods, as well as domestic law arguments that this amounted to the execution of a citizen designated by the President without judicial process. The suit was .”
So the American-born Yemeni got his day in court and the judicial system said (blank) him.
You can argue with the outcome but al-Awlaki had his day in court. The judge looked at the lawsuit, said pfft and that was that.
Well said, sir!
And might I add the following:
Gotta love that Joe Biden and the endless amusement he provides. This time it is courtesy of the headline writers. Consider these examples from CBS and Daily Caller.
Now there is nothing funny about that headline per se – but there is when you take into account this headline on another story.
Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for supplying every Republican candidate in the United States with their theme for the upcoming campaign.
I like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the general direction he has taken politics in his state. I think he has potential on the national state. However, Christie has repeatedly said he isn’t interested in running for President now. Unfortunately, we keep getting stories like this one, even as he continues saying no.
Chris Christie seriously considering run for president in 2012
Gov. Chris Christie is seriously rethinking his months of denials and may launch a campaign for the White House after all, a source close to the governor said tonight.
In the last week, Christie has been swayed away from his earlier refusals to run by an aggressive draft effort from a cadre of Republicans and donors unhappy with the GOP field, said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.
Enough of this already. Call me when he makes an announcement of some sort saying he is running. But stop this speculation otherwise.
By the way – I doubt I’ll support Christie, who I think would make an excellent Attorney General in the next administration. I believe he needs more seasoning – because the jump from US Attorney to half-term governor to President seems a bit quick for me.
The U.S.-born terror mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed, Fox News confirms.
Yemen's Defense Ministry said Friday that the U.S.-born Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed.
The Yemeni ministry provided no details in the statement, which appeared on one of its website.
Yemeni security and tribal officials said an air strike thought to have been carried out by U.S. aircraft on Friday targeted a convoy of cars traveling in the eastern province of Marib but could not say whether al-Awlaki was in the convoy.
Anwar al-Awlaki has been either a direct articipant in or the inspiration for multiple attacks on America. He was in touch with Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal Hassan. He was directly involved in the 2009 "Crotch Bomber" effort that failed to bring down a plane over Detroit, and inspired the Times Square bomber. He is also believed to have been involved in a number of mail bombs.
If an American effort has managed to take out the American-born terrorist leader, it is great to see one policy area in which Barack Obama's Administration is actually achieving sustained success.. However, we've seen erroneous reports out of Yemen in the past confirming the deaths of terrorist leaders, so I'm hesitant to refer to this a s a "confirmed" report like the article cited does.
UPDATE: Multiple Tweets from MSM reporters indicate that Obama Administration is confirming the report. This would make it appear that it was a US operation and that they are confident that they sent this terrorist leader straight to Hell.
Have I missed a flood of snowbacks into this country, taking American jobs and having anchor babies?
The United States is looking at building fences along the border with Canada to help keep out terrorists and other criminals, according to a draft report by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency
The report proposes the use of "fencing and other barriers" on the 49th parallel to manage "trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control."
I guess that Canadians don't vote Democrat in sufficient numbers to leave our northern border as unsecured as the southern one. After all, the number of illegals coming in from Canada is miniscule compared to the number coming from Mexico -- but the Hispanics are part of the Democrat constituency.
Oh, that’s right – only when the dissenter is a liberal (preferably minority) and the President is a Republican. Otherwise it is “racist”, “disrespectful” and must be silenced
From the sounds of it, this is simply a form of modern-day slavery.
Two men who worked on the hit movie “Black Swan” have mounted an unusual challenge to the film industry’s widely accepted practice of unpaid internships by filing a lawsuit on Wednesday asserting that the production company had violated minimum wage and overtime laws by hiring dozens of such interns.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, claims that Fox Searchlight Pictures, the producer of “Black Swan,” had the interns do menial work that should have been done by paid employees and did not provide them with the type of educational experience that labor rules require in order to exempt employers from paying interns.
“Fox Searchlight’s unpaid interns are a crucial labor force on its productions, functioning as production assistants and bookkeepers and performing secretarial and janitorial work,” the lawsuit says. “In misclassifying many of its workers as unpaid interns, Fox Searchlight has denied them the benefits that the law affords to employees.” Workplace experts say the number of unpaid internships has grown in recent years, in the movie business and many other industries. Some young people complain that these internships give an unfair edge to the affluent and well connected.
Über-Lefty Natalie Portman, who earned big bucks for her multi-award winning performance in the film, could not be reached for comment. Neither could other Hollywood left-wingers who decry the exploitation of workers in other nations and other industries while getting rich of this egregious practice in their own.
You said it, Rick, and you have embraced your policies on immigration wholeheartedly, even as many Texas conservatives have objected vociferously to them. How dear you try to weasel out of that reality with this buck-passing comment.
Rick Perry shifted his message Thursday on illegal immigration, blaming the federal government for its handling of an issue that has appeared to be the Texas governor's Achilles heel as a GOP presidential candidate.
* * *
"There has clearly been a failure of our federal government. That's the reason that we're having to deal with issues like in-state tuition," Perry said on CNBC. "The federal government allowed them to come in with their lack of security. We decided in our state it was better to have those kids be educated. How to cure that is for the federal government to secure that border."
Now I can agree with every word Rick Perry said about the failure of the federal government to be serious about the border. But where I become disturbed is when he then goes on to start talking about the importance of the rule of law – despite the fact that the policy that he has so vigorously defended is itself in violation of federal law by virtue of its failure to also extend in-state tuition rates to all US citizens regardless of their state of residence – a requirement of federal law since 1996 if a state is going to extend tuition breaks to illegals. His words therefore ring hollow.
Remember this when the job gets weird.
Here's what the Declaration of Independence says about the purpose of government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .
Here's what New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says on the matter.
Speaking on the government's role in diet and health last week, Bloomberg told the UN General Assembly, “There are powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve. To halt the worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases, governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option. That is ultimately government’s highest duty.”
Now I'm confused here. America's founding document makes it clear that the highest duty of government is the protection of our rights. Bloomberg makes it clear that he views government's highest duty as enforcing and mandating restrictions on personal choices and decisions. As much as I hate using the word, I'd have the latter view unAmerican.
Looks like the space shuttle ripped off from electorally-red Houston to reward Obama cronies in New York will not be displayed how and where the initial proposal declared.
When New York made its pitch for one of NASA’s decommissioned space shuttles, one of its selling points was location: a glistening berth on the Hudson River alongside the aircraft carrier that is home to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum.
But five months after the Intrepid was awarded the shuttle Enterprise, museum officials have turned their attention from the end of the newly revamped pier to a parking lot on 12th Avenue, across the cacophonous West Side Highway. They envision converting the lot, which is surrounded by H & H Bagels, a car wash, storage warehouses and a strip club, into a space-themed museum that would serve as the home of the Enterprise and draw as many as one million visitors a year.
Aesthetics aside, the plan has several obstacles to clear. One problem is that the Intrepid does not own the parking lot; the State Department of Transportation does. Another is that the property, in Hell’s Kitchen, is zoned for manufacturing, not a museum. And perhaps the biggest hurdle is the many millions of dollars that would have to be raised to build this new home for the Enterprise, which was a prototype for the space shuttles but never flew into space.
That there is not a shuttle coming to Houston is a travesty. That the entire New York proposal was obviously a sham ought to be a basis for reconsidering the that bad decision and putting Enterprise in Houston where it belongs. Bravo to Congressman Ted Poe for making that point.
Iranian pastor refuses to renounce Christianity, faces execution
ISTANBUL, September 28 (Compass Direct News) – Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani refused to recant his Christian faith today at the fourth and final court hearing in Iran to appeal his death sentence for apostasy (leaving Islam).
The court house in Rasht, 243 kilometers (151 miles) northwest of Tehran, has swarmed with security forces for four consecutive days since Sunday (Sept. 25), the first day of his four appeal hearings. Applying sharia (Islamic law), the court on Monday, Tuesday and today gave Nadarkhani, 35, three chances to recant Christianity and return to Islam in order for his life to be spared. In all instances, Nadarkhani refused to recant.
Sharia law. Sharia court. Sharia barbarism. And not just in Iran, either.
Given that this sentence of death for apostasy is in conflict with the dictates of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, don't we have to once again ask if Islam is itself a human rights violation.
I don't know what more we need to settle the question of responsibility for 9/11.
Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
So attention all 9/11 Truthers, whether you are stubborn anti-Semites, hateful anti-Zionists, murderous Muslim extremists, whacked-out Leftists or run-of-the-mill Ron Paul supporters -- even the terrorists concede their responsibility for the worst attack ever on American soil, so would you kindly acknowledge your error and slink back under your rocks.
I've noted many times that most Muslims are peaceful people, but that terrorists are disproportionately Muslim and we as a society need to recognize that truth and quit labeling said acknowledgment as "Islamophobia". After all, a phobia is irrational and pathological -- but looking at the statistical data and drawing a reasonable conclusion is neither irrational nor pathological.
A 26-year-old Massachusetts man has been arrested and accused of plotting to attack the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol with large remote-controlled aircraft filled with explosives.
CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports that U.S. officials say the suspect, Rezwan Ferdaus was deadly serious about his plans, but the plot had no chance of succeeding.
Ferdaus, an U.S. citizen and Northeastern University graduate, went by the name "Bollywood" when he played in a Massachusetts band. However, U.S. officials say the drummer is also a self-radicalized jihadist, intent on attacking Americans in the U.S. and overseas.
Ferdaus now faces charges of plotting attacks and supporting a foreign terrorist organization.
Ferdaus was arrested after he bought what he believed to be 25 pounds of plastic explosives, three grenades and six automatic assault rifles from undercover FBI agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.
Over the past nine months, the agents recorded multiple conversations in which Ferdaus laid out plans for an aerial attack. He bought one small drone aircraft and planned to buy others which he hoped to fill with explosives and fly into Pentagon and Capitol from a park along the Potomac River.
I'd dismiss this as a crazy scheme by an ignorant fool, except for the fact that this wannabe jihadi has a degree in physics from one of the most prestigious universities in the United States. The government may say that there was never any danger of him pulling this one off -- but is that really true? Certainly he had the know-how to make the devices, and a scheme that could have plausibly worked to deliver them. The only reason he was not an imminent threat was that it was the FBI doing the supplying of materials.
Which leads us back to the question that is so troublesome -- how do we acknowledge that statistically significant correlation between Islam and terrorism? How do we keep a closer eye on the Islamic community and its institutions without crossing the line into irrational profiling? And will we again hear Muslim groups defending the would-be jihadi and attacking the authorities for daring to pursue the investigation in the first place?
Consider this correction of an article about the release of a remastered DVD of one of my favorite films, Ben-Hur
For the record: "Ben-Hur": A Sept. 26 Calendar article about a new DVD and Blu-ray release of the 1959 film "Ben-Hur" described the title character, played by Charlton Heston, as a Palestinian nobleman. The character Ben-Hur was a Jew from Judea who lived long before the place now known as Palestine was given that name.
Palestine? What is this Palestine of which you speak? I see no "Palestine" on any map -- nor has such a country ever existed. As for so-called "Palestinians", they are just another bunch of jumped-up Jew-hating Arabs out to finish the work of the Third Reich.
By the way -- the DVD sounds great.
Yeah, that's right -- they didn't highlight Colorado on this press pass. They highlighted Wyoming instead.
Now I'll grant you that both states are located in "flyover country" and so don't make a difference to Obama and his "beautiful people" supporters who consider only the east and west coasts of the country to be worthy of notice, but such carelessness really does send a message about how screwed up things are in the White House under President 57-States.
Not, that I think that even a president as venal and incompetent as Obama would try such a move, but I cannot help but find it rather troubling that we should begin hearing such proposals out of Democrat leaders.
Speaking to a Cary rotary club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."
Frankly, I'm confident that such a move by this or any other president would be met with immediate intervention by the US military to take the perpetrators into custody, followed by a court martial and the immediate imposition of the sentence. It wouldn't be long before the top selling book in the country would be titled Sic Semper Tyrannis: The Arrest, Trial, and Execution of an American Dictator.
Unfortunately, Gov. Perdue's unwise and thoroughly seditious words will have the effect of confirming conspiracy theories believed by a small fringe on the extreme right about an Obama plot to do something along the line of what Perdue proposed here. After all, the outliers who truly believe such a thing is imminent heard for years from the fringe left that Bush and Cheney were planning something similar in 2002, 2004, 2006, or 2008, and therefore believe that the Left finds such a plan to be plausible -- despite the fact that 98% of Americans recognize that not only do American presidents lack the constitutional power to make such a move, but they would also not be supported by the overwhelming majority of the people. Even more to the point, they if such an extreme measure was not found appropriate during the Civil War or World War II -- or, in a situation that more closely parallels today's troubles, during the great Depression -- then it is certainly not warranted today.
But on the other hand, Think Progress likes the idea -- so maybe George Soros will find a way to pay to make it happen.
President Obama made an appeal to the religious faith of black voters at a Congressional Black Caucus rally, likening Biblical prophets who had faith in God — and so refused to worship an idol — to the black voters who “keep the faith” by supporting him and his policies – and, he hopes, his reelection campaign.
Obama opened the speech by mentioning the Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three captive Jews who were thrown into a fiery furnace because they would not worship a golden idol. Obama quoted a pastor who referred to the three men as “good crazy” for having that faith. He added that the pastor had attributed the same “good crazy” to him when he decided to run for president.
The thing is, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood up to an unjust ruler and so were thrown into the fiery furnace. Obama, on the other hand, is the unjust ruler who seeks to punish those who don’t follow his commands. In the end, it strikes me that the proper biblical allusion is to a different story from the Book of Daniel – that of King Belshazzar, of whom the finger of God wrote the words “mene mene tekel upharsin” upon the wall. Seems to me that Obama is becoming “progressively” more frightened that the American people have weighed him in the balance and found him wanting. His days in power are numbered, and his office shall be taken from him and given to another.
Considering what his policies have done to America, is there really an alternative that would be worse?
"This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country. 2008 was an important direction. 2012 is a more important election."
Quoting Vice President Joe Biden, Obama effectively laid out his reelection strategy, saying "Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative.".
Well, let's consider what Obama promised on unemployment with what we actually got.
We'll take the alternative.
H/T Gateway Pundit
Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.
This from the former director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights -- support for false charges f racism for the purpose of bolstering the political interests of one party and its incompetent president. Just part and parcel of Mary Frances Barry's life-long effort to warp the vision of equal rights for all Americans into a racial spoils system designed to confer partisan advantage upon her patrons.
But nobody on the Left is going to call ">Jonathan Bryant a racist for his uncivil attack on an ethnic minority, since George Rodriguez has strayed outside the boundaries of the Democrat hacienda where minorities are supposed to be confined so their votes can be harvested by liberals.
“So you would have students in this room deported?” asked the teacher.
The panelist replied, “Yes, I would if they were illegal. You bet.”
Rodriguez also told the teacher if the person is here illegally, they are breaking the law.
“You know what I would have? I would have you teach more balanced – conservative,” added Rodriguez.
After those remarks is when the teacher made the Nazi comment saying, “You can just say what you are – a Nazi.”
Do I think that Bryant should be fired? Probably not -- though his engaging in that sort of racist hate speech towards a minority political activist at an event that he had obviously organized students to attend is unprofessional in the extreme.
As an aside -- my buddy Hube contends that Bryant gave teachers a black eye with his antics. I don't know that I agree -- but if Bryant or his ilk directed such a slur against me in public or in the faculty lounge, I'm reasonably certain that I'd be giving the speaker a black eye.
H/T Right Scoop
Immigration law is a federal matter -- that's what we always hear. The federal government dealt with the issue of in-state tuition for illegals in a statute signed by Bill Clinton between visits from Monica Lewinsky.
Federal law passed in 1996 prohibits illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. Specifically, Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623(a)) states: "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."
In other words, Rick Perry signed a statute that flies in the face of federal law, and he is obligated to either stop in-state tuition for illegal alien students OR issue an executive order granting in-state tuition to every US citizen, regardless of their state of residence.
You see, opposition to in-state tuition for illegals isn't about having a heart -- it is about having respect for the law of the land and not having a policy that has the potential to cost the state millions of dollars in out-of-state tuition illegally collected from non-resident US citizens.
Why did we waste so much as a penny bringing this guy home?
There are no human rights violations at Gitmo, nor are the human rights of Muslims abused here in the US. Either this guy is a typical America-hating leftist, or he has been thoroughly brainwashed by the Iranians. In either case, I fully support sending him back to complete his sentence in that Iranian prison.
After all, Obama has shown his not-so-latent anti-Semitism here.
"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew..."
H/T Gateway Pundit
Here are this week’s full results:
Students at Sam Houston State University (SHSU) in Texas found this out the hard way yesterday when they erected a “free speech wall” — a recently popular way for students to highlight the importance of free speech in which students put up a freestanding wall covered in paper, upon which anyone can write anything they want. Students jumped on the chance to participate. To cite a few examples: “Don’t hate against Gays …,” “If you make less than $200,000 Republicans don’t care about you,” “Life’s not a bitch, Life is a beautiful woman …,” “Han Solo Shot First,” “My boyfriend is a liar!,” “Legalize Weed!!!,” and “NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF!!!”
But just hours in, the free speech wall was vandalized by a professor — yes, a professor! — who was offended that someone had written “FUCK OBAMA” on the free speech wall. Students being students, the “F-word” was written on the wall many times about many different topics, but apparently the only expletive that offended this professor enough to take action was the one referring to President Obama.
The professor, whom students identified as Joe Kirk, demanded that the student groups sponsoring the wall — including Republicans, Democrats, libertarians and socialists — cover up only the Obama statement. They refused. He then told them that he would come back with a box cutter and cut it out of the wall himself, which he then did. You can see the before and after pictures at thefire.org.
Shocked that a professor would do this, the student organizers got in touch with the campus police. When the police arrived, they interviewed the students and the vandalizing professor. Then came the surprise: The police told the students that since Prof. Kirk was offended by some profanity on the wall, the students were engaging in “disorderly conduct,” a misdemeanor, and had to cover up all the swear words on the wall or take it down. Realizing that this would make a mockery out of the purpose of a free speech wall, the students simply disassembled the wall. Thus ended SHSU’s several hour-long experiment with free speech.
As a Texas taxpayer, I'm offended. I'd therefore like Professor Kirk and the SHSU police officers involved charged with "disorderly conduct". Seems to me that they need to be sentenced to training on the First Amendment. After all,Cohen v. California settled the matter four decades ago.
Most of us with at least a passing interest in science have been fascinated by this news about CERN's new scientific discovery that may overturn all understanding of the speed of light and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
>From 2009 through 2011, the massive OPERA detector buried in a mountain in Gran Sasso, Italy, recorded particles called neutrinos generated at CERN arriving a smidge too soon, faster than light can move in a vacuum. If the finding is confirmed by further experiments, it would throw more than a century of physics into chaos.
This discovery, of course, would have the effect of overturning a century of scientific consensus on the matter. And so Dale Franks of Q&O offers us this fusillade against the "Deniers" who are attacking the "scientific consensus" around this "settled question".
Since 1905, through direct experimentation, mathematical modeling, and, later, measurements taken during the space program, as well as computer models, science has time and time again proved that the Special Theory of Relativity does, in fact, accurately model the way the universe works. The entire foundation of modern physics is built upon SRT. It has been proven correct over and over again. Clearly, SRT is settled science. An attempt to overturn it is, essentially, an attempt to overturn the entire body of physics that has been so painstakingly established over the past century.
Obviously, SRT is true. Its conclusions are beyond questioning. Again, the science is settled, and there is almost universal scientific consensus about the truth of SRT.
* * *
SRT’s proof is incontrovertible, and any attempt to prove otherwise is a perversion of science. The science is settled. Consensus is almost universal. So, let’s not pursue these silly, pointless experiments. The important thing to remember about science is that, once you question the received wisdom proven repeatedly in the past, the result is chaos. It is vitally important that we do not throw all of modern physics and cosmology into disarray over some odd experimental results that really have no real-world application.
That would just be silly.
Al Gore, please call your office. You have another
group of dissenting scientists to slander area of science to defend.
Remember -- dissent is patriotic unless only when directed against conservative policies. Racism is evil unless directed against a conservative. Sexism is wrong unless the woman is a conservative -- then she deserves it.
Just ask Michelle Malkin, who dared support the execution of a cop-killer. Here's hoping that each and every one of these folks has been reported to Twitter -- and that their accounts have been permanently shut down.
Knew it when he resigned, and it seems confirmed now.
Harris County Commissioner Jerry Eversole, who on Monday announced his resignation from office, is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to FBI agents in a federal court Sept. 30, sources said Wednesday.
A document filed with the court Wednesday afternoon set a "re-arraignment" court date for Eversole and his codefendant Mike Surface to appear before U.S. District Judge David Hittner at 10 a.m. that Friday.
Eversole's attorney, Rusty Hardin, Surface's attorney, Chip Lewis, and Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined comment.
"The fact that a re-arraignment has been set in this matter means he will be pleading guilty to the criminal information that was filed (Monday)," said former federal prosecutor Philip Hilder, who is not connected to the Eversole case.
"It is a confirmation that a plea deal has occurred and that a plea of guilty will be officially entered by the court to the charges contained in the criminal information."
I said it nine months ago when he was indicted -- Jerry Eversole needed to resign. I'm glad to see it happen, and I hope his successor is a more honest, more dedicated servant of the people than Jerry Eversole has shown himself to be.
They don't want a two-state solution -- they want Israel eliminated entirely. Just look at the map they are distributing at the UN.
Notice what they call "Palestine" -- it is Israel proper.
Should the UN recognize a Palestinian state, Israel needs to pass a resolution recognizing that the new state is a belligerent and then clear the territory of that newly recognized state of every last Arab. After all, by its the admission of the ruling authority of the putative state of Palestine, it exists only to destroy Israel. The government of Israel needs to kill the viper before it can strike.
Why no effort to save the life of this unfortunate soul who was "Murdered by Rick Perry's Texas" this evening? After all, Lawrence Brewer did claim he wasn't responsible for the murder for which he died this evening.
At his trial, Brewer blamed Byrd's death on Berry, and said the slaying climaxed a fight between Byrd and King.
"I had no intentions of killing nobody," Brewer testified. "If I knew the results, I would have gone to the cops."
Surely, surely this poor man who claims to have been innocent of any intent to harm his victim deserved a lesser punishment, and should have been permitted to live. Where were the protests? Where were the media sob stories pleading for Brewer's life? Where was the Pope's plea for mercy? Where was Jimmy Carter's call for compassion? Where was the righteously indignant band of celebrities?
There weren't any.
Because Lawrence Brewer was one of the three white supremacists convicted of killing James Byrd in the horrific Jasper dragging case. Nobody was going to speak on his behalf (not even the local left-wing blogger who advocated killing political opponents the same way). And what's more, the murdering scumbag didn't deserve any of those things, either.
But then again, neither did Duane Buck or Cleve Foster here in Texas -- nor does Troy Davis, who is fighting to cheat the executioner in Georgia. Those three are loved by death penalty opponents, because their victims never got the sort of public canonization that Brewer's did, and therefore it is easy to manipulate the murderers into martyrs at the hands of a blood-thirsty America.
Let's be clear about one thing. The world became a better place at the moment Lawrence Brewer's heart stopped beating and he ceased fouling out planet -- except for the plot of earth that will be polluted when he is buried in it.
America watched in horror when two thugs brutalized a Connecticut family, killing the mother and two daughters. Those events have not been forgotten in our home -- my wife worked for Jennifer Hawke-Petit's father for almost a decade.
The trial of the second killer has just gotten underway this week, and my wife was particularly struck by this detail from one of the articles she read last night.
For the first time, Komisarjevsky's father, Benedict Komisarjevsky, showed up in court. Just before court was convened, the Rev. Richard Hawke, Jennifer Hawke-Petit's father, walked over to introduce himself and, according to the Hartford Courant said to the elder Komisarjevsky, "I just wanted to say I'm sorry about what happened….God Bless You." Komisarjevsky nodded.
Paula commented to me what an honor it was to have worked for a man who so embodied the love and forgiveness that are at the core of Christianity. I certainly agree with her -- and question whether I would have it in me to reach out in such a way if i found myself in the same position.
Over at Big Lizards, Dafydd offers this observation on the definition of hypocrisy.
The problem is that liberals, Progressivists, and Democrats in general do not understand what the word "hypocrite" actually means. Not surprising, as they have their own idiosyncratic definitions for many common English-language words; "to lie," for instance, which they evidently believe means to say something that later turns out to be inaccurate (or quite accurate, but not in accord with liberal dogma). It's easy to tease out the liberal definition of hypocrisy...
- The proper definition of hypocrisy: Preaching a moral standard that applies to everybody except you and your cronies; that is, falsely saying one thing while actually believing another.
- The liberal definition of hypocrisy: Preaching a moral standard that, try as you might, you do not always achieve.
Am I right about what the word means? From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Vol II:
- The act or practice of pretending to be what one is not or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have; the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
Falsity is an integral part of the definition, but perfection is not required.
So let's clarify.
You are not a hypocrite if you mend your ways and adopt in adulthood more wholesome values than you followed in your youth.
You are not a hypocrite if you strive to live by high standards but sometimes fall short of the goal you have set for yourself, despite your efforts to live them out.
It is only when one puts up a false front that one is a hypocrite.
This story is breaking here in Houston, so there are still lots of possible wrinkles to emerge. But the key thing is that Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole has submitted his resignation from the County Commissioners Court effective October 1.
Harris County Commissioner Jerry Eversole (above at left) has submitted his resignation, county officials said, effective Oct. 1.
Representatives in Harris County Judge Ed Emmett’s office confirmed Eversole submitted his resignation shortly after 2 p.m. today.
“I ran for this job to try to solve problems and then I looked in the mirror one day and I was the problem, so that’s the main reason I’ve resigned,” Eversole said. “I wanted to allow Harris County government to get me out of their system and get a person in there to start running Precinct 4 in their way.”
Eversole represents about 1 million constituents in north and northeast Harris County, a post he has held since 1991.
A mistrial was declared in the commissioner’s corruption trial earlier this year. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in the second round of that trial in late October.
My take on this is best summed up in three parts.
1) Jerry Eversole should have left office a long time ago -- and certainly after his indictment.
2) Jerry Eversole is correct that he has become the problem rather than the solution -- but that has been true for most of my time in Harris County.
3) It seems to me that this may well be a prelude to a plea bargain that will net Eversole a nominal penalty and save everyone the cost of another trial.
The next question, of course, is who will be replacing Eversole. I'll keep my ear to the ground at tonight's Harris County GOP Executive Committee meeting and see what I hear -- County Judge Ed Emmett will be making the appointment., but I have no idea when.
UPDATE: Two bits of information.
1) At last nights Harris County GOP meeting, we were all told that County Judge Ed Emmett is looking for citizen input on a replacement for Eversole. If you have a suggestion, contact the County Judge's office.
2) My speculation in the original post seems to have been spot on:
Documents filed with the court Monday suggest Eversole - who is facing four charges - may plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to FBI agents, said former federal prosecutor Philip Hilder. That charge carries up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Another document suggests Surface, who faces two charges, may plead guilty to one count of filing a false income tax return, which carries up to three years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said many black Americans are so disappointed that “If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House. There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.”
So now we know why the CBC calls the Tea Party racist – I believe the psychological term is “projection”.
Barack Obama, the Vacationer in Chief, only just got around to getting us a bill.
Everybody remembers the urgency of President Obama's attitude toward the awful jobs situation.
Back in early August, Obama said the jobs situation was so urgent that he was going to give another speech about it -- in a month or so, in September after his vacation on Martha's Vineyard.
And then in September the president announced he would give his major jobs speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 7. But he neglected to check with congressional leaders first. And they suggested the 8th. So, since it was their House, the 8th it was.
"Tonight," the president said in the first 34 of his 4,021 words to a national television audience that night, "we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse."
So, of course, after the White House waited another week to get the bill written and roll it out to the public, we now find that there is going to be even more delay – because the Vacation-crats in the Senate aren’t interested in even discussing it until after the recess they have scheduled from September 26 - October 2.
CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?
DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...
CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?
DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.
One has to wonder if this isn’t all just a bit of kabuki theater for the Democrats, as they stall the introduction of a plan that everyone knows won’t work and will instead harm the economy (tax more; fewer spending cuts), so that they can manipulate the calendar in such a manner as to draw it all out to into the heart of primary season.
Personally, I’d prefer the longest possible – dead for all eternity. But barring that, a sentence much longer than 17 years seems appropriate.
The 17-year prison sentence imposed on convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla is far too lenient for someone who trained to kill at an al-Qaida camp and also has a long, violent criminal history, a federal appeals court ruled Monday as it threw out the sentence.
A divided three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new sentencing hearing for Padilla, a U.S. citizen and Muslim convert convicted in 2007 along with two co-conspirators of several terrorism-related charges. Padilla, 40, was held for more than three years without charge as an enemy combatant before he was added to the Miami terror support case.
The ruling affirmed the convictions of Padilla, Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi on terrorism support and conspiracy charges. The sentences of Hassoun and Jayyousi — more than 15 years and more than 12 years, respectively — were also upheld.
Let me note one problem I have with this story. The convicted jihadi has indicated he wants to be known as Abdullah al-Muhajir – he should be called that. After all, he renounced everything -- religion, ethnicity, family -- for radical Islam, so we should honor that choice and remind the whole world of that decision.
Here's their headline.
Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires
One problem -- the Obama plan, if adopted, will not "ask" anything of millionaires (and lots of us who aren't anywhere near that level of income). It will instead DEMAND more of folks, AT THE POINT OF A GUN under threat of arrest and imprisonment.
Remember, it isn't a request if failure to comply will result in criminal charges and jack-booted thugs seizing your assets.
I keep hearing from liberal bloggers and professional Hispanics (individuals with no discernible skills or qualifications who are none the less looked to by the media as allegedly representative of what other Hispanics feel and believe) that Hispanics are opposed to voter ID laws. I wonder if these numbers will shut them up? Probably not, since they tend to be unconcerned with little things like the truth.
As part of a broad survey of Hispanic attitudes on a variety of political issues, the poll, conducted for the conservative group Resurgent Republic, asked a sample of 1,200 voters the following question: "As you may have heard, many states are considering laws that would require registered voters to present photo identification, such as a driver's license, in order to cast their vote. Do you support or oppose those laws?"
In Florida, 88 percent of those surveyed said they support the laws, while just ten percent oppose them. In Colorado 71 percent support the law, while 26 percent oppose, and in New Mexico, 73 percent support the law, while 25 percent oppose. In general, Hispanic voters in Colorado and New Mexico are more liberal than those in Florida. But strong majorities in all three states favor photo ID laws.
Got questions about a poll by a conservative Republican group? Fine -- take a look here to find information about the methodology and results of the poll. Once you've done that, be prepared to revise your views about what Hispanics thing -- or follow the path generally adopted by liberals and argue attempt to throw the dissenters out of their racial/ethnic group over their political heresy.
Here are this week’s full results:
Congratulations to the winners and all participants. And the rest of you -- get reading! there's some great stuff in here.
Loved the Hamsters then, love the Hamsters now.
I love my Houston Texans – but I’m not sure I’m willing to put up with this additional indignity on top of the cost.
The NFL wants all fans patted down from the ankles up this season to improve fan safety.
Under the new "enhanced" pat-down procedures, the NFL wants all 32 clubs to search fans from the ankles to the knees as well as the waist up. Previously, security guards only patted down fans from the waist up while looking for booze, weapons or other banned items.
The stricter physical screening policy impacts the 16.6 million fans expected to attend live regular season NFL games this season. The more thorough searches will spell longer lines for ticket-holding fans seeking entry to games. It's sure to raise the ire of some fans who consider it an invasion of privacy.
I’ve been with the team from Day One. I love the games, and the fans around us. But I’m not going to let someone touch my junk for the privilege of seeing the games live. And I don’t want to even think of what this will mean for my wife in her wheelchair. So my pointed suggestion to the Houston Texans organization is that they not even think about trying this at Reliant Stadium.
And why was it that the city refused to act until it was Muslims complaining?
The great religious war, waged on top of yellow cabs, has ended. Devout Muslim hacks -- who were crouched behind their steering wheels in shame while driving with ads for strip clubs atop their taxis -- won a major victory yesterday in their war on roof smut.
The city’s Taxi & Limousine Commission agreed to give cabbies who own their vehicles absolute veto power on the content of ads on their cars -- delighting scores of modest hacks of various faiths who had fought hard for the rule overhaul.
“We are Muslims, and we do not like the ads!” crowed cabby Mohamed Tahir, 66, whose cab is topped with an image of a sexy brunette from Flashdancers Gentlemen’s Club.
Do you mean to tell me that no group of Christian or Jewish drivers ever raised this issue before? Did Hindus and Buddhists never offer a moral objection to being required to advertise porn and strippers by medallion owners? For that matter, didn’t at least some secular liberals and atheists have qualms about the objectification of women inherent in the ads? And if there were such folks complaining, why were their objections spurned but those of the Muslims looked upon favorably? Not that I find the decision to be the wrong one, but I’m curious if it took an objection by the Religion of Peace to bring about the proper result?
Remember the violent mob action by union thugs who took over a port facility in Washington state last week? Well, a judge has upheld the rule of law by holding the union in contempt for its members’ actions.
A federal judge found a union in contempt of court Thursday, a week after police said hundreds of its members raided a grain terminal in southwestern Washington, smashed windows and menaced security guards.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said he wants the operator of the Longview grain terminal, EGT, to provide him an accounting of the damage for purposes of gauging how much he should fine the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Locals 4 and 21.
Leighton had issued a temporary restraining order before last week's actions, demanding that the union not block entrances to the grain terminal. But the union's members, upset that EGT has hired a contractor staffed with workers from a different union, repeatedly blocked a train carrying a grain shipment there, then stormed the terminal and dumped some of the grain.
In other words, this one is pretty cut and dried. Not only did the thugs engage in numerous illegal activities, they also violated the direct order of a court not to engage in those illegal activities.
And in typical fashion, the communist racketeers who run the longshoreman’s union are angry that their illegal activities are being punished while the legal rights of the proeperty owner are being vindicated in court – because, of course, the capitalist is always an exploitive opressor of the working class.
Leal Sundet, of the union's coast Longshore division, said the company hasn't been held to account for hurting the community with its employment decisions.
"If union members stand on a train track exercising their First Amendment rights, it is a crime," Sundet said. "But, if a major corporation plunders an entire community, it matters not."
Translation – in the eyes of the commie racketeers of the Longshoreman’s union, if a union thug blocks unlawfully blocks access to a lawfully operating business, breaks down the gates of a business, terrorizes its employees and destroys equipment and product there, it should be deemed First Amendment activity that must be permitted in the name of protecting some warped conception of First Amendment rights; but the lawful hiring decisions of a business ought to be punished by thuggery and the law. We’ve heard such arguments before by those who claim a First Amendment right to engage in lawlessness to punish the exercise of rights by others – the KKK used the same sort of argument to justify its misdeeds against blacks, Catholics, Jews and Republicans who were exercising their legal rights.
The answer here is clear – the current regime in Washington is siding with the lawless against the job-creators of America. That is part of why any economic policy that Barack Obama seeks to implement is doomed to failure. Congress must therefore step in and declare an end to union tyranny and pass legislation to make the United States a Right-To-Work Nation, where no employee may be forced to pay extorted dues to the lawless union bosses.
I looked over as you settled into the seat next to me. There you were, every bit as beautiful to me as the day we brought you home. And yet things had certainly changed. You sat alone, rather than riding to your new home in my wife's arms. You've grown so much over the years as well. Could it really be that you are leaving us at last? After so much time, would we really not be sharing another ride together?
I reached over to you, and stroked your fur. You tail twitched, your head tilted into the caress as you tried to make sure I scratched that spot just behind your ear. "Well, baby girl -- it's just you and me. Do you remember the first time we took a ride together, just you and me? I held you in my lap so you would feel safe. But we're both bigger now -- no room for both of us behind the wheel. Can it really be fifteen years?"
As we rolled to a stop at the first light in town, I glanced into the rear view mirror. In my mind's eye I saw a ghost of an image -- another car, another time, another ride. I could hear Paula laughing, back in the days of that old Ford Escort, as yet another car passed us, someone pointing as that big stuffed toy lying in the rear window lifted its head and tracked the approaching vehicle as it closed the gap and moved ahead. That was your throne, and when you sat up you looked like the Sphinx in all its glory. I glanced over at you, older, grayer, yet still not looking like the little old lady you were, curled up on a blanket to comfort your aching bones. My heart broke.
And then you struggled to your feet, knocking aside my hand so that you could look out the window at the traffic. Some things don't change, even as others do. I couldn't help but ask you, "So, little dog, are you wishing you could put that old head out the window one last time, to let those ears flap in the breeze? I do, too." And then the feet slipped, the legs buckling beneath the weight they had been avoiding.
Or so I thought -- until you launched yourself down into the space in front of the seat. What did you find? An old french fry? A used tissue for you to chew up? You were the master of that scrambling around the car looking for such treasures. "Maybe," I thought, "this won't be the last time after all."
But then you struggled to raise yourself back to the seat, and I remembered the first time we took this particular trip to this particular place. You were shivering, quivering on the seat in back, sick nearly to death as you bled internally. Oh, how we prayed then that you would be well -- I lifted up the same prayer again, knowing that the answer would not be so favorable. God ordained that sick dogs can be healed -- old dogs, on the other hand, cannot be made young again.
I lifted you up again, one hand feeling the ribs through the layers of skin and fur. You struggled back into a comfortable position, and licked my hand. All I ever had to do was reach out to you in the back seat to get those puppy kisses, profuse and wet as you showered me with affection in exchange for a pet. Now it is all you can do to give the canine equivalent of a peck on the cheek, so tired were you from your exertions. I pet you more, feeling your labored breathing on this hot Houston afternoon. My heart breaks. I'm reminded of the reason for our ride once more.
it wasn't long before we made that turn. You sigh, as if in acknowledge that the journey's end is near. How many times had you darted excitedly from side to side of the back seat when we would enter the driveway at the vet, looking to escape, looking to see the girls inside who would fuss and fawn over you and your golden coat. No excitement this time, only resignation and something akin to relief.
Somehow we found a parking space not far from the door. As I pulled in, your head dropped back to the seat, and you didn't stir. It seems so odd -- even a few weeks ago you would have jumped into my lap, eager to be out the door before me and into the grass to take care of your business. You seemed to know that this was the end of the road, that the tears Paula had shed for you at the house and those I had cried as we drove were a signal to you of what was to come.
And so I lifted you, wrapped in your favorite blanket, and gently took you to the place where you would make one last trip, one to which I could be a witness but not a companion. It was the time for farewells, as our last trip together reached its sad conclusion. And so I hugged you tightly and kissed you one last time -- not nearly enough recompense for the love and devotion of fifteen years, nor solace in the face of the knowledge that I would soon begin another drive alone, with only a leash and collar to remind me of those happier times.
Remember -- that is what Barack Obama demanded that Congress "Pass this bill now" -- even before it was written. Now Harry Reid says the Senate has other priorities.
Reid said he won’t immediately take up Obama’s plan because the Senate must tackle other issues first. He didn’t specify which bills would receive priority over Obama’s economic solution."
Wouldn't you like to know what is more important than "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Could it be that Reid is trying to save (Senate Democrat) jobs, (House Democrat) jobs, (Democrat-supporting union) jobs" by delaying the vote -- either stymieing a bad bill or allowing the Obama Administration to falsely paint the GOP as obstructionist when the bill is not passed immediately?
And we should all be concerned.
First, consider the question from the GOP debate the other evening.
Monday night, Tyler Hinsley, of theTEA Party Teens of Napa, stepped up to the microphone and posed a question that rocked the audience with cheers and applause - "Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"
“I think you need to pay your fair share for things we’ve decided are our national priorities,” Schakowsky added.
Host: So Jan Schakowsky, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?
Schakowsky: What is really your question here? Do you think you should not contribute to firefighters?
Host: No, no, it’s a very simple question. Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you, Jan Schakowsky, think I deserve to keep?
Schakowsky: No, it’s not a simple question. No, it is not a simple question. I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it.
Schakowsky: It’s not a question of deserving. What government is, is those things we decide to do together.
Got that -- YOU DON'T DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL.
You worked for it.
You earned it.
But you don't deserve to keep it all because someone in government has decided that they know better how it should be spent.
Now am I arguing that all taxation is illegitimate? No, I'm not. Neither am I arguing that all government spending is somehow a violation of the rights of the individual. But that Jan Schakowsky can't even come out and say "as much as possible, with government taking as little as necessary" is rather frightening. After all, it appears in her "it’s not a question of deserving" comment that she believes that government has a first claim on your labor and your wealth. She apparently presumes that the correct question is not "how much of what I earn do I deserve to keep", but rather "how much of of what you earn are we willing to allow you to retain".
In other words, it is nothing more than a return to the Marxist view of "from each according to his ability" -- because the government will always find someone it thinks needs your money more.
We The People need to put this question to every politician -- especially every Democrat politician -- and demand an unambiguous answer. Those who cannot answer or will not answer need to be out the door along with those who put the figure too high.
I recently blogged on how Turkey was making aggressive noises towards Israel, and threatening to take actions that could drag the US and NATO into war with the Jewish state if responsible world leaders didn't take action. Well, now come reports of two new developments beyond Prime Minister Erdogan's big mouth.
The first is that, following up on the threats made to use the Turkish navy to break the legal Israeli blockade of Gaza, the Turks are actively preparing 3 warships for a mission to do precisely that.
Turkey is planning to send three warships to the Eastern Mediterranean to defend against Israeli vessels if necessary and ensure freedom of navigation for Turkish ships, Today's Zaman reported on Monday.
The Turkish ships will provide protection for ships bringing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and confront Israeli warships outside of Israel's territorial waters if necessary, according to the report.
But of more concern is the Turkish move to ensure that its warplanes can shoot down Israeli aircraft.
Turkey has developed a new radar system for its US-made F-16 fighter jets that will allow them to fire at Israeli targets, Ankara's Star Gazete reported on Tuesday. The orders to modify the system reportedly came directly from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's office.
The new radar system – Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) – is a defensive command and control system developed by Turkey's Military Electronics Industry (ASELSAN) for the nation's air force and navy. It is slated to replace a similar US version which is in use today.
The US system is comprised of lists of "friends" and "foes." The system's settings are designed to prevent pilot error as well, to an extent, disabling the ability to fire at "friendly" targets even by mistake. The US system identified Israel as a 'friend,' thus preventing Turkish fighter jets from firing at them automatically.
Now it would be easy to argue that this new system is simply a case of Turkey taking control of its own defense rather than allowing the US to pull its defense stings. Unfortunately, the NATO treaty has provisions that would potentially bring the US and the rest of the alliance into the war on Turkey's side, or shatter the bulwark of European peace and mutual defense. And one of those two outcomes is what would inevitably happen if a shooting war ensues between Israel and Turkey -- something the Turks appear anxious to provoke.
“I’m just a Bill and I can’t save your re-election…”
This is up today at Lucianne.com. I printed it out and took it to a departmetn meeting today -- it got great laughs since we all use the original Schoolhouse Rock video as a tool for Constitution Day every year.
Remember -- Teamster's leader James Hoffa declared the union movement to be Obama's troops to "take out" Tea Party and other conservative members of Congress. Well, after some of them last weeks engaged in hostage-taking and other lawlessness, now we have another unit of the Obama Army demonstrating different tactics.
Police say union supporters have directed racial slurs and racist symbols at replacement workers and security personnel outside an American Crystal Sugar plant in North Dakota.
Will America's first black president denounce the actions of his supporters against American workers of color? Will America's first black president demand that the generals in his army -- union leaders like Hoffa and Richard Trumka (who sat with the First Lady at Obama's jobs speech last week) -- denounce such disgusting conduct by their subordinates in the union movement?
Or will real, documented racism by Obama's union goons be ignored, while debunked charges of racism against the Tea Party and other conservatives are not merely repeated by Obama supporters, but allowed to flourish in the media?
UPDATE: While the union claims it opposes and condemns racism, why is the monkey hanging from a noose hanging from the inflatable rat owned by the union?
Liberal blogger Oliver Willis offers the following tweet that gives some excellent advice.
I agree wholeheartedly -- indeed, not only should we ignore Barack and Michelle Obama, but we should vote them out of office in next November.
We've got a local domestic violence case going on, involving some prominent folks in the community. That's sad -- and the story takes an ironic twist right off the bat.
An early morning confrontation turned into an expletive-screeching fracas last year as former hand surgeon Michael Brown threw two crystal vases and a humanitarian award at his wife while chasing her through their mansion, prosecutors said Tuesday.
"Corpse Found in Tub with TV Weatherman"
That is one that just boggles the mind.
And the details are. . . interesting. You have to read them for yourself.
Heck, I'd even love a duplicate of the original devoted to Maggie Thatcher.
I've just been to the very enjoyable 40th party held by my friend and colleague, Dan Hannan, held at Maggie's, the Thatcher-themed nightclub on the Fulham Road, in west London.
It will come as no surprise to Dan's readers that he is keen on the Lady, as indeed am I; as were most of his guests. But what was staggering that, later on in the evening, the nightclub opened its doors to people who weren't Dan's guests. And in poured a tide of young, attractive and fashionable clubbers. When I left, at around 11.30, there was a long queue building up on Fulham Road to pay a £15 cover charge to get in.
A Thatcher themed nightclub? I absolutely love it!
The author goes on to note the irony of the youth of the UK loving Maggie today, given how she was reviled by the youth of the 1980s. But then again, the UK has not had a real leader since the Iron lady was driven from power in the 1990s, so there is no doubt a great longing for one. That is why I expect to see the younger generation latching on to Ronald Reagan any day now -- the last truly great American president of my lifetime (the only one, in point of truth).
We all have an image of 9/11 engraved into our brains. For some it is the plane striking the WTC. For others it is the crossbeams. Still others point to the firemen raising the flag, people in the streets, or workers plummeting from the upper floors.
For me it is this one, of Fr. Mychal Judge -- who gave his life ministering to the firefighters, cops, and others who found themselves facing that day of Hell on Earth.
On September 11, 2001, the world learned a lesson about what it means to be a martyr in Islam. Fr. Mychal Judge showed the world what constitutes Christian martyrdom. I believe that the stark contrast speaks volumes about the two faiths.
I first became aware of the World Trade Center when King Kong carried Jessica Lange up the building in 1976 -- I even had a poster for the monster flick on my bedroom wall. I didn't realize how many films the Twin Towers showed up in until I saw this video.
Snoopy the Goon from Simply Jews points to these two statements regarding 9/11.
Paul Krugman, the NYT pet economist and the Liberal Conscience, said recently:
United States used the September 11 attacks as an excuse for launching wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mahmoud (The Mad) Ahmadinejad said, however:
And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
Remember -- the Left has decreed that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. . . as long as the dissenter echoes the words and policies of America's enemies and is directed against a conservative. That is why Krugman won't allow comments on the blog post in which he expresses the same sentiments as the Islamist leader of Iran.
Others commenting on Krugman's disgustingly unAmerican commentary include Gateway Pundit, Professor Althouse, RedState, PoliPundit, HotAir, Chockblock, FireAndreaMitchell, Michelle Malkin, InstaPundit
It was a couple of minutes before my first period class ended when I noticed a news alert email popping into my mailbox at school. I read the blurb -- about a plane hitting the World Trade Center in New York and immediately hit the link, fully expecting that I would find that some stray pilot in a little plane had made a horrible navigation error. I tried to go to the ABC News website to see the story, but it would not load.
Not in a minute.
Not in five minutes.
And then I got the dreadful second email -- that a second plane had hit the Twin Towers, that both planes were passenger jets, and that America was under attack by parties unknown.
Over the next few hours, I learned more from television coverages as lesson plans were scrapped and I let my students watch history unfold before them.
The thing most clear in my mind was the moment when intelligence experts began talking about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda -- and the apparent Islamic inspiration of the attack. In the back of the room, my one Muslim student began to shake his head and weep. The students sitting around him later told me that they heard the words he softly spoke as if in prayer -- "No, no. It can't be true. Please -- let it not be true." Those words serve as a reminder to this day that the evil committed in the name of Islam that day does not represent that faith as lived by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
That evening I learned more, including personal connections -- that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania went down not far from the home of one of my wife's college friends. That there were a number of my college classmates from New York who no one had heard from, including some who worked in the I would learn that the New York contingent were all safe and sound -- but that the office of Commander Robert Schlegel, USN, was near the point of impact at the Pentagon, and that he had been killed in this act of war against our country.
We are ten years on from that terrible day. There will be many speeches, many articles, and many news stories commemorating the events of 9/11. That is important, as we must never forget, and must never let our guard down. If all the commemorations do nothing except refortify our resolve to protect this nation, then they are worthwhile. May our people always know they are secure -- and may our enemies know that they will face our undying wrath.
Here are this week’s full results:
See you next week!
You are quoted as saying the following regarding Obama's jobs "plan".
“He introduced it as one bill,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday, raising one finger for emphasis.
Need I remind you that no president has the ability to introduce any bill in Congress -- only a members of the legislative branch may do so. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for any member of either house to introduce elements of Obama's proposal as stand-alone pieces of legislation, since Obama has not and cannot introduce anything.
Failure to listen to obey the summons of the unicorn-riding demigod and give rapt attentions to his words is unpatriotic, according to disgraced former preacher Jesse Jackson.
Rev. Jesse Jackson said the GOP is being unpatriotic by not attending President Obama's speech
"In a jobs state of emergency, to actually have official Congress people who would not come to work last night shows contempt for the president, that is really unpatriotic for a congressman to do such an heinous act," Jesse Jackson told Redding News Review.
Jackson spoke with radio talk show host Rob Redding.
Apparently dissent from, disagreement with, and disrespect towards a president are only patriotic when those who engage in them are on the Left and deploying them against a conservative. Conservatives, on the other hand, are unpatriotic if they show similar contempt for an occupant of the Oval Office -- even if said individual has shown himself to be incompetent to do the job.
Besides, isn't this the same guy who wanted to emasculate Obama over policy differences?
Here's the relevant passage of the Obama "jobs" speech as reported by the New York Times.
"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."
Lincoln, of course, was not the founder of the GOP. He was its second presidential candidate, and was not even at any of the original meetings that are considered to be the founding of the GOP. That is basic knowledge, and is a major goof by "the smartest president EVAH!"
So what did NPR do? They altered the historical record lest they make Obama look foolish.
"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."
Actually, they didn't even do a good job excising the errors -- after all, while Lincoln signed the legislation authorizing those programs, none of them were Lincoln initiatives. Instead, they were proposals of GOP members of Congress who shepherded them through the legislative process and to the desk of a president who governed during a period when the veto pen was rarely exercised AND who was more concerned with directing a conflict for the salvation of the Union than expending political capital over lesser issues.
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez is one of the highest ranking Mexican-American elected officials in this country. That fact particularly irks those who shill for border-jumping immigration criminals, who believe she should put ethnic solidarity ahead of loyalty to America and the upholding the laws and Constitution of the United States. After all, she has wandered off the Democrat hacienda and become a Republican, and supports border enforcement and denying drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
So the latest attack on Gov. Martinez is that her grandfather – a man long-dead who abandoned her father and grandmother in the 1930s – was an illegal alien, and therefore she cannot legitimately support the policies she has been advocating. Apparently having an ancestor who did something you believe should be illegal makes you a bad person, a hypocrite, or something.
But that is neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned – after all, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, grandfathers, or any other relative. But I do love the response made by Martinez’ official spokesperson.
"The governor has no reason to question that 1930 Census record about her grandfather and has always known, and publicly spoken of the fact for years, that her family roots trace back to Mexico," Darnell said. "It's unfortunate that some are choosing to personally attack the governor, but these tactics prove that supporters of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants have run out of legitimate defenses for a bad policy."
That is precisely on point. If the best argument these folks have in support of illegal aliens is “but your grandfather was one”, then they really have no principled basis for the policy they support. Their arguments should be ignored, and they should personally be treated with scorn and ridicule by loyal Americans.
That is the interesting perspective of one commentator.
Consider, objectively, some of the points of Barack Obama’s plan.
He wants to extend unemployment benefits again. He wants to extend a payroll tax holiday. He wants to give tax credits to small businesses to hire people. He wants more government pork for more roads and bridges.
These are all things Republicans have gone along with in the past. These are all things Republicans will probably go along with this time.
Some of these things just preserve the status quo. The status quo last month created zero jobs.
In other words, Barack Obama has largely proposed a plan key portions of which can pass with bipartisan support. And they will pass with bipartisan support. And there will be a grand bipartisan signing ceremony. Lots of pictures will be taken.
No jobs will actually be created. The recession will double dip. But Barack Obama will have gotten his bipartisan jobs plan. So he will not be able to blame the GOP. He’ll have to blame mother nature again.
If that happens, it is Game Over for Barry Hussein.
Be sure to read the rest.
Remember -- this is Obama's Army, as we were told by Jimmy Hoffa over the weekend. Their leader, Richard Trumka, was even granted the privilege of sitting with the First Lady during last night's presidential address to Congress.
Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said.
No one was hurt, and nobody has been arrested. Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union believes it has the right to work at the facility, but the company has hired a contractor that's staffing a workforce of other union laborers.
Now let's look at this.
They trespassed at a facility they had no right to enter.
They damaged and destroyed property.
They detained those who were working legally at the facility for hours.
Cops were threatened by violence and forced to withdraw from the scene.
They violated a pre-existing court order not to attempt to disrupt the facility.
And not one arrest was made.
In other words, we had an act of domestic terrorism committed by an organized criminal conspiracy allowed to go unchecked by the authorities because the terrorists are operating under the protection of the President of the United States. That is an affront to the rule of law.
The union -- which claimed that it and its members had nothing to do with the attack despite the fact that the mob returned to the union hall after the incident -- faces no repercussions.
After all, it claims the "right" to organize and staff the jobs at the port facility -- a position that is the affront to the freedom of Americans who wish to be employed without being forced under color of law to pay protection money to the organized crime syndicate that is the International Longshore and Warehouse Union -- an organization that operated for years as an explicitly Communist-dominated organization and which clearly continues to be an anti-law, anti-order, anti-American entity.
The proper response to yesterday's events should include the arrest, trial and imprisonment of the leaders of this criminal organization and the use of the RICO statute to crush it from existence. Those who can be documented as having participated in yesterday's lawlessness should be arrested and tried for their crimes. The US military should be brought in to protect the right of the business to operate free from terrorist attack, and the free Americans working those good jobs ought to be protected as they enter, leave and labor at the site of their employment.
And if the union terrorists seek another violent confrontation like yesterday, they should be repelled in the same fashion that an al-Qaeda attack on the port would be.
Instead, all we have seen is another toothless court order.
I've made no secret of the fact that I wanted John Bolton to be the next President of the United States.
Unfortunately, it is not to be.
“I kept coming to the conclusion that I could not possibly win the nomination and I didn’t like that answer,” Bolton said.
All I can say is that I'll be disappointed if John Bolton doesn't get the big office at Foggy Bottom after the next election.
And let me highlight this statement in the same interview.
“My view has not changed one iota that we need a much more robust discussion of national-security issues as part of this presidential campaign.”
“I say that not because I have an abstract interest in foreign policy but because the policies that President Obama has been pursuing are extremely harmful to the nation, now and into the future,” he continued. “And unless we start talking about them, I don’t think we are going to be able to fix them with a new president.”
Amen, Ambassador Bolton.
And for the record, this leaves me officially uncommitted in regards to the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. I'm waiting to hear the issues Bolton raised in the above quote addressed by the candidates -- thought that will not be the only factor in my decision. I'd be quite happy to hear from any and all GOP candidates (at least the ones not named "Ron Paul") and/or their campaigns if they are looking for an endorsement from this blogger and precinct chair.
H/T The Other McCain
In June of 2010, the Israelis engaged a group of jihadi pirates who were engaged in a martyrdom operation designed to break a legal blockade established by Israel against terrorist-controlled Gaza. At the time, the Turkish Prime Minister threatened to provide a military escort to future groups of ships seeking to run a blockade in violation of international law -- a course of action which I pointed out at the time would be tantamount to provoking a war with Israel if it were carried out.
Turkey said on Thursday it would escort aid ships to Gaza and would not allow a repetition of last year's Israeli raid that killed nine Turks, setting the stage for a potential naval confrontation with its former ally.
* * *
"Turkish warships, in the first place, are authorized to protect our ships that carry humanitarian aid to Gaza," Erdogan said in the interview, broadcast by Al Jazeera with an Arabic translation.
"From now on, we will not let these ships to be attacked by Israel, as what happened with the Freedom Flotilla," Erdogan said.
This threat again creates a dangerous situation for the United States -- and for the NATO alliance -- in the event that the Islamist leader of Turkey carries out this newly announced policy. After all, Turkey is a NATO member, and as such is covered under this portion of the NATO agreement.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Which was extended by the agreement under which Turkey joined the alliance:
If the Republic of Turkey becomes a Party to the North Atlantic Treaty, Article 6 of the Treaty shall, as from the date of the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Turkey of its instruments of accession with the Government of the United States of America, be modified to read as follows:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Do you see the problem? You should.
If Turkey carries out this announced policy of using its military forces to break the Gaza blockade, Israel is likely to be forced to engage Turkish forces to enforce the blockade. At that point, Turkey is likely to invoke the Article 5 principle "that an armed attack against one or more of them. . . shall be considered an attack against them all". In that case, Turkey will be making the case that Israel's enforcement of the blockade would constitute the creation of a state of war between Israel and all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
It is obvious that Turkey is trying to provoke precisely such a situation. It is even more obvious that permitting Turkey to do so unrestrained cannot be allowed. The United States must therefore take a leadership role in declaring that the United States will not regard any military engagement between Israel and Turkey in such a situation to be an event that triggers Article 5. The rest of the NATO members must affirm that declaration.
However, the Obama Administration has not been supportive of Israeli security, and one has to ask if President Obama will show the leadership needed in this instance. If he does not, will other nations take the lead in making such a declaration? And in either event, will Turkey's actions serve to fragment the six-decade old alliance into pro and anti Israel camps? Will NATO survive such fragmentation if the United States does not take a leading role in curbing the Turkish aggression -- especially if some or all of Israel's neighbors take the opportunity created by Erdogan's bellicosity to attack the Jewish state in a show of solidarity with their Islamic brethren.
What I'm suggesting is that the Turkish words today present a much more grave security issue for the United States than press coverage in this country would make it appear. We need to talk about this now -- and it needs to be an issue raised by GOP candidates as they discuss foreign policy and national security leading into the presidential primaries.
You know, this reminds me once again why I am happy that we bought our house on this side of the county line -- the next town south would have put me in Ron Paul's district, and I would have found myself obliged to vote for a Democrat for Congress rather than give any support to someone who is so clearly delusional.
PoliPundit makes this point.
Is the way he disagrees with people.
Consider these descriptions by Perry:
A border fence – “idiocy”
Social Security – “Ponzi scheme”
Global warming – “nonsense”
I happen to agree with Perry on the last two. But the way he expressed himself on the first one makes it impossible for me to vote for him in the general election.
This is just one more reason I find it hard to support Perry in the primaries -- though if push comes to shove, I would vote for any Republican (Ron Paul excepted) in the general election because I believe any of Republican (Ron Paul excepted) would be better for America than the guy currently in the White House.
More than 40 police officers came to control the crowds at Whitnall Park Rotary Club Tuesday afternoon where Congressman Paul Ryan was invited to speak.
Dozens of picketers came to protest Ryan at the event. Meanwhile, an equal number came to show their support for the Wisconsin Congressman.
Inside the Rotary luncheon, Ryan's speech was interrupted a dozen times by protesters. Police anticipated the disruptions and brought officers from four departments.
"There were three individuals who did not want to leave and physically resisted our attempts to remove them from the facility and they are currently in custody," said Greenfield Police Chief Brad Wendtlandt.
So let's get this matter really clear -- individuals came to a Rotary luncheon and disrupted it -- and were ejected when they did so. Three who resisted the police were arrested. There was no "town hall" event, and (as I know from having two past Rotary chapter presidents in my immediate family), the cost of admission paid for the lunch (and probably a bit towards the Rotary operating budget), so they didn't go into the Congressman's campaign fund.
So how does the Left present it online? I think the headline and opening paragraph say it all.
5 Kicked Out and 3 Arrested at Paul Ryan Town Hall For Asking Questions
Paul Ryan held his PPV town hall event at Klemmer’s Banquet Hall in Milwaukee. When some protesters who had paid their $15 stood up and asked him questions about jobs and the Bush tax cuts, Ryan not only had them kicked out. He also had three of them arrested.
Unfortunately for the folks at PoliticusUSA, , the video they have on their site proves that their presentation of the "facts" is wrong -- though we already knew that because of the fact that they claimed it was a town hall event rather than a Rotary luncheon.
As you can see, there were no innocent questioners ejected or arrested at the behest of an angry congressman trying to avoid tough questions from constituents. Instead, there was an organized effort to disrupt a speaker -- in this case a congressman -- at a private event in order to score cheap political points and use thuggery to censor a public official whose policies they oppose. But the truth doesn't seem to matter to the Left -- and you can bet that the talking points found in the story will be on the lips of Leftists for years to come.
A town in Virginia that is very close to my heart has adopted an ordinance for politically correct reasons. It restricts the flying of flags on city owned poles to only the American flag, Virginia flag, and the city flag. In the process, the city council did violence to the historical character of the town.
Officials in the rural Virginia city where Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson are buried voted late yesterday to prohibit the flying of the Confederate flag on city-owned poles.
After a lively 2 1/2-hour public hearing, the Lexington City Council voted 4-1 to allow only U.S., Virginia and city flags to be flown. Personal displays of the Confederate flag are not affected. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose members showed up in force after leading a rally that turned a downtown park into a sea of Confederate flags, vowed to challenge the ordinance in court.
I spent two-and-a-half wonderful years in Lexington, Virginia, attending Washington and Lee University. As I walked to class each day, I passed the school chapel, the last resting place of Robert E. Lee and his family. Lee was the president of the school, then known as Washington College, from 1865 until his death in 1870. A few blocks further on is the campus of Virginia Military Institute, which sent its students to fight at the Battle of New Market. Prior to the Civil War, Stonewall Jackson was one of the professors at VMI. He is buried across town, in the city cemetery. To this day, much of Lexington’s tourism industry is bound up with the Civil War history connected to these two Confederate heroes. It is therefore something of an anomaly that the city would choose to disassociate itself from that heritage out of a perceived need to be “sensitive” to the feelings of some – especially when it flies in the face of the views of the majority of city residents.
Most residents who spoke, both blacks and whites, opposed the ordinance.
That‘s right – the views of the majority of residents were rejected when this ordinance was passed. Seems to me that this should be remembered at election time – and that those four members of the city council who voted against the will of the people should pay the price at the ballot box.
Not, mind you, that I have a constitutional objection to the ordinance. The city is, of course, permitted to adopt content-neutral limits on the use of city property for flying flags and banners. But as has been noted, this ordinance will ban more than just Confederate flags.
The key is that the city did not target Confederate flags, although clearly eliminating those was the driving force in its decision. Instead, it abolished all flags from city-owned poles beyond the official flags of specific government entities. It did not favor some non-government causes or ideas over others, which would have made the ordinance constitutionally suspect.
* * *
“City council could live to regret this ordinance, as it imposes unusually restrictive limits on the use of the light poles,” said Kent Willis, the ACLU’s executive director in Virginia. “Sometime in the future when city officials want to use those light poles to promote a special event they may find themselves handcuffed by their own lawmaking.”
Consider this – the city has effectively banned a number of other flags and banners from these locations. The ordinance does not include the county flag (if one exists) – nor does it include the well-known POW/MIA flag. In the event of a visit by a head of state of a foreign country to one or both of the prestigious educational institutions in Lexington, the city may not honor him or her by flying the flag of the dignitary’s country. And forget allowing banners to fly honoring either of those two Confederate heroes or the schools where they taught on the occasion of an anniversary – such as the 150th anniversary of the death of Stonewall Jackson in 2013 – because of the strict limits imposed by the ordinance. For that matter, the law also prohibits the flying of special banners marking national holidays – including, ironically, MLK Day.
Were those who supported this ordinance well-intentioned. I’ll acknowledge that they were. But the reality is that they chose to use a blunderbuss to kill a gnat.
Remember back in January, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot? One of those racing to the microphone to condemn heated rhetoric was Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who even invoked her daughter in an effort to silence the conservative opposition to Obama.
[W]e all agree that the language and the tone and the tenor of our debate has gotten too intense and that we need to lead by example. . . After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, 'Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot?' And then I, you know, did my best to reassure her, tell her, 'No, you know, Mommy takes precautions. You've been to my meetings. You know we have, we take steps to make sure that we're all safe.' . . .
But today, when it is her president giving approval to one of their mutual political allies calling for a “war” to “take out” their political opponents, Despicable Debbie can’t bring herself to offer a word of criticism, much less condemnation – and instead attacks those who would dare to even question the violent rhetoric.
“Fox and Friends” host Gretchen Carlson repeatedly pressed Wasserman Schultz for a comment, with the DNC chair attempting to stay on message by stating only that “the American people want us to focus on working together” to create jobs.
After Carlson prompted several times for a specific response to Hoffa’s shot at the tea party, Wasserman Schultz asked the host “are you kidding me?”
“Really Gretchen? How many times have you called out coarse language at tea party rallies? Almost never,” she said.
The thing is, of course, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has set herself up as the arbiter of acceptable political discourse. She is also the head of the President’s party, and therefore the official voice of the Democrats. That she cannot bring herself to condemn someone who was introducing her party’s president for using much stronger rhetoric than that which she has condemned in the past when it comes from the mouths of those who dissent from the president’s agenda is quite telling. She doesn’t want to introduce a new civility – she wants to silence dissenters. That’s the sort of hypocritical double standard that makes Gretchen Carlson’s question completely legitimate – and which shows Wasserman Schultz’s attack to be nothing more than a tactic for dodging the inconvenient truth about the dissent-suppressing agenda that she revealed in the interview.
He’s running an attack ad against Rick Perry – but given his own history with regarding presidential endorsements, does he really want to raise this issue?
Ron Paul is taking on Rick Perry in a new television ad blasting the Texas governor for for supporting Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned. The 60-second spot, backed by a six-figure ad buy — the first negative ad attacking Perry to come directly out of a Republican campaign this primary season — contrasts Paul’s endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1980 with Perry’s role as the Texas chairman for Gore’s first presidential campaign.
“The establishment called him extreme and unelectable, they said he was the wrong man for the job. It’s why a young Texan named Ron Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president, believing in Reagan’s message of smaller government and lower taxes,” the ad says. “After Reagan, Senator Al Gore ran for president, pledging to raise taxes and increase spending, pushing his liberal values. And Al Gore found a cheerleader in Texas named Rick Perry. Rick Perry helped lead Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan revolution, fighting to elect Al Gore President of the United States.”
Of course, Politico gets one fact wrong here—Perry was not Gore’s campaign chair, he merely endorsed the Tennessee Senator. And let’s not forget that in 1988, Perry was still a Democrat. Perry then switched parties and has followed a generally conservative path since that time.
But what of Ron Paul? In 1980, he did endorse Ronald Reagan. But in 1987, he attacked Ronald Reagan, abandoned the GOP, and sought the presidency as the Libertarian Party candidate. Loyalty? Good judgment? Really, Congressman? That you would now tie yourself to Ronald Reagan shows that you are a man without honor or shame, Congressman.
Here’s the spin given to new polling data on Obama’s handling of the economy.
What is this based upon? The fact that 34% of Americans say Obama’s policies are making the economy worse and 47% say it is having no effect.
But that assumes that one believes that Obama is implementing policies designed to improve our capitalist – and that Obama is clearly doing so in an incompetent fashion. But we have been told that Obama is the smartest occupant of the Oval Office since Jefferson and the most competent since FDR – in which case, one is forced to draw one of three conclusions:
Did Obama disapprove of Hoffa’s incendiary message? Apparently not; he mentioned Hoffa only to say that he is proud of him. But, what the heck: he sat through “God DAMN America” for twenty years without protest, so I guess he can put up with Tea Party “sons of bitches,” too.
Game, set, and match to John Hinderaker.
Here are this week’s full results:
See you next week!
Remember when it was considered unAmerican to question the patriotism of your political opponents? You know -- back when the President was a Republican and the opponents were leftists who declared their dissent to be the highest form of patriotism rather than partisan opportunism or outright anti-Americanism?
Well, those days died on January 20, 2009, when the nation unwisely engaged in an act of affirmative action by installing an untested, unqualified community organizer as head of the Executive Branch. And today that same individual, Barack Hussein Obama (AKA Barry Soetoro), called into question the patriotism of his political opponents during a speech marking Labor Day.
"We're going to see if we've got some straight shooters in Congress. We're going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party," he said.
Now here's the problem with that statement. It presumes that GOP elected officials are supporting and enacting certain policies for some reason other than their belief that they are what is best for America. It presumes as well, that Barack Obama and the Democrats have the right answers, and that the only reason they have not been put into effect as public policy is obstructionism by Republicans -- despite the fact that the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress from the beginning of 2009 through the beginning of 2011.
If Obama and his minions have evidence that the GOP is opposing him for partisan advantage, he has a moral obligation to present that proof to the American people NOW. He needs to make his case, supported by proof. If he cannot or will not, he ought to resign his office in disgrace -- or at least announce his intent to not seek reelection in 2012.
Why do I say this? Because if Obama is prepared to impugn the patriotism of the opposition party without evidence, it is him who is putting party ahead of country -- and that would be so frighteningly unAmerican on his part that his continuance in office is unthinkable to any true lover of America.
One of the things you have to realize is that there was a conservative element to the national Democrat Party in America as recently as three decades ago. Indeed, it was that conservative element that managed to get Jimmy Carter nominated and elected as president in 1976. That element hung on in the South into the 1980s -- remember the "Reagan Democrats" of that era, who crossed party lines and handed the father of the modern Republican Party his overwhelming victory in 1984? But by 1990, that conservative element had pretty well migrated to the GOP as the Democrats nominated liberal Walter Mondale and liberal Michael Dukakis. Among those who switched during this time period was a state legislator here in Texas named Rick Perry.
Unfortunately, those who either never knew or don't remember that history are making a big deal out of Perry's Democrat past today.
From Charleston to Ottumwa, GOP voters are closely questioning an aspect of Gov. Rick Perry‘s past that seems to barely raise a Texas eyebrow.
In a story familiar to many Texans, Perry was once a Democrat. As a state House member with a D behind his name, he supported Al Gore‘s 1988 presidential bid.
His Democratic past isn’t unique in a state once as heavily dominated by Democrats as it now is by Republicans. Here, his one-time support for Gore is viewed through that prism. But throw Gore’s name into the mix nationally, and the reaction is ramped up considerably.
People have mentioned it privately and publicly in early-voting states, with an audience member in Ottumwa telling Perry it was “disturbing” that “in 1988 you were Al Gore’s campaign manager” and asking for an explanation.
He added “whatever” when Perry said he supported Gore but didn’t manage his campaign. Perry had no title in the Gore effort, according to Perry’s campaign. Several newspaper stories from the time simply list him among a group of lawmakers endorsing Gore.
Let's be honest -- in 1988, Al Gore was the conservative Democrat running for president. Many southern Democrats supported him, thinking him the best way of infusing their conservative principles on a national level. Yeah, he had some focus on the environment, but it was not his major issue -- and in the end, those southern Democrats either jumped to the GOP or left office within a couple of years. That is what Rick Perry did when he left the Democrats to seek statewide office as a Republican. He is, in fact, one of the folks whose decision to abandon the Democrats as irredeemable ultimately led to the GOP seizing control of every statewide office in this state within a decade and of the Texas legislature shortly after that.
What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons to have an objection to Rick Perry if you want to look at them. That said, it is important to look at what Perry has said and done in his more than two decades in the GOP and his 11 years as governor of this state. After all, Ronald Reagan was not always a Republican -- and, might I add, Mitt Romney always has been. Draw your own conclusion from that.
If he really believes the claim he made in today's Labor Day speech, that is the only conclusion that can be drawn by observers who haven't drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
In his Labor Day message to the nation, President Obama credits himself and his administration with having “pulled our country back from the brink” of economic disaster.
“In the last several years, we have pulled our country back from the brink, through a series of tough economic decisions,” Obama writes. “While we have come far, great challenges still face us.”
On the other hand, a look at the nation's unemployment numbers makes it clear that this is not the case.
And let you think this graph has no credibility, please realize where it appeared this weekend.
Face it -- Barry Hussein has buried the US economy. Even the reliably liberal Democrat bastions of the MSM recognize that fact, and can't even try hiding it any more. So if Obama believes he has "pulled our country back from the brink"< then he is howling mad. Otherwise he is a bald-faced liar trying to deceive the American people for his own electoral benefit. Either way, is this the guy we need in the White House today -- or for the next four years?
Well, there's a new book out on the question of whether or not the children of one Sally Hemmings, a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson, were in fact fathered by Jefferson himself. Given that the book adds nothing to the scholarship that hasn't been in the public domain for over a decade, I thought I'd ignore it -- until I saw this piece over at the site my Delaware blogging buddy Hube calls the "Local Gaggle Of Moon-Bats".
I just leaned that there are “Founding Fathers truthers”. Sigh. Why as the made up word “truther” signify that there is no truth behind what anyone is saying. The latest salvo from the Founding Father truthers is a new book that says that Thomas Jefferson did not father any children with Sally Hemmings.
Certain factions of “Founding Father truthers” are still unable to reconcile themselves to the generally-accepted historical and DNA evidence that white Founding Father squad captain Thomas Jefferson was perenially knocking up one of his black slaves, mostly for the twin reasons that a) as the American reincarnation of Jesus, Thomas Jefferson was not supposed to be sleeping around, and b) he was white.
When a commenter tried to present the scholarly view attacked by the never-scholarly Wonkette, one of the other site owners from the LGOMB then quoted a comment from Balloon Juice attacking the scholars behind anti-paternity position as political ideologues rather than respected academics -- but ignored the link in the comment she quoted that proved quite the opposite.
The reality, my friends, is that we cannot know who the actual father was based upon the DNA alone. There is solid anecdotal evidence that would point to Thomas Jefferson as the "baby daddy", but there are other candidates as well whose DNA would match in precisely the same manner as his, and who would also have had access to "baby mama" Sally Hemmings in the proper time frame for at least some of the children. Historians may therefore debate who the responsible party was some two centuries ago. But the reality is that all they can do is debate, because unless we get more than a murky DNA match, the various men crossing paths with Sally Hemmings in the proper time frames, and a basket full of rumors and speculations that point to several different men. Indeed, it is equally possible that more than one Jefferson fathered Sally's children -- hey, that theory fits with the evidence every bit as securely as the other two.
In the end, does it matter? Does it change the brilliance of the Declaration? Does it in any way change Jefferson's literary, architectural, scientific, and political contributions to America and the world? Does the truth one way or another alter the judgment that we make of him as a slaveholder in an era of slavery? For me, the answer to all of these that the answer to the parentage question doesn't alter my view of the man at all -- and so I really don't give a damn one way or another about the question -- and I say that as a student of history and politics who greatly admires Jefferson for his accomplishments.
Apparently Brahms performed in London by Jews is more than the supporters of the murderous Arabs of Gaza were willing to allow.
Protesters have disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra's BBC Proms concert at London's Royal Albert Hall.
Several demonstrators in the hall shouted as Zubin Mehta stood to conduct Bruch's violin concerto. Many other audience members booed in response.
BBC Radio 3 said it had to interrupt its live broadcast twice "as a result of sustained audience disturbance".
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign had earlier called on people to boycott the concert and urged the BBC to cancel it.
In a statement published on its website ahead of the Proms, the pro-Palestinian group claimed the IPO showed "complicity in whitewashing Israel's persistent violations of international law and human rights".
The BBC Proms Team tweeted: "We're sorry that the concert was taken off air following hall disturbance. Glad both pieces were heard by the audience in the RAH."
No doubt the terrorist supporters would be more than willing to see the musicians performing Wagner at Auschwitz or Buchenwald -- just like their ideological forbears.
Please direct them here.
WASHINGTON — President Reagan on Monday asked for an opportunity to address the House to make a personal appeal for aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, but Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) rejected it as an "unorthodox procedure."
White House spokesman Larry Speakes said that Reagan was "deeply disappointed" by O'Neill's refusal of his request to address the House today--just one day before that chamber is scheduled to vote on the proposed $100 million in aid for the contras, as the rebels are known . Wednesday's vote is expected to be extremely close.
A President requested to speak to the House about his policies and proposals. The Speaker said no.
I wonder -- was it because Reagan was black?
After consulting with President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner has invited him to address a joint session of Congress at 7 pm EDT on Sept. 8. —and Obama has accepted.
Boehner’s office said Obama requested the 7 p.m. time slot, which will solve one programming problem while creating a time zone problem. A 7 pm start will allow Obama to avoid competing with pre-game coverage of the first game of the 2011 NFL season. The opening contest pits the defending Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers against the New Orleans Saints, who won the Super Bowl the year before.
But the pre-prime time start on the East Coast puts Obama on TV sets at 4 p.m. on the West Coast, where millions will be at work, in traffic coming home from work or retrieving children from post-school activities.
Obama is trumped not only by a candidate debate in his preferred time slot (and he and his advisers should have known that he wouldn't win that battle), but now he can't even make it into primetime in most of the country due to a football game.
The White House is supposedly pissed off about this -- but let's be honest -- this is an embarrassment of their own making. After all, throwing one's weight around only works if one has the heft to pull it off...
She must be – or she is being intentionally disingenuous in order to attack Rick Perry.
What is the context for this judgment? An article about Perry’s support for amending the Constitution to term limit Supreme Court justices.
"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist — which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution — you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."
Oh no she didn’t!
But yeah, she did.
After all, supporting the use of the amendment process included in the Constitution by the Framers is not a rejection of the wisdom of the Framers – it is actually very respectful of them. They made it possible to amend the Constitution because they recognized that, as Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government in such manner as they believe will best protect their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Perry proposes following that process – a respectful thing indeed, given that we have seen a couple of dozen amendments added since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 – things like the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and Women’s Suffrage. Just as the Constitution was an effort to form “a more perfect union”, the amendment process is there to make this union even more perfect. Strict constructionists (the word is not “constructionalist” like Bellows used) revere the amendment process no less than the other provisions of the document.
By the way – I disagree with Perry on this proposed amendment. I’d oppose it if it made it out of Congress. But I would never accuse someone of not being faithful to the Constitution because they are prepared to follow the Constitution to amend the Constitution.
After all, they killed three innocent members of a family who were minding their own business. Certainly there should have been more than 90 days in jail time included in the sentence.
Christopher Yovino, 18, and Brett Taylor, 19, the two convicted of manslaughter in the racing deaths last year of the Houston mother and her two children [Mayra Castillo Torres, 37, Christopher Nuño, 14, and 6-year-old Katia Nuño], could have been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jurors gave them probation.
After Nuño's brother gave a victim impact statement in court, saying the teens never apologized for their actions, State District Judge Denise Bradley sentenced both boys to 90 days in jail as a condition of probation.
"These youths do not understand the magnitude of what they did, and have never shown a shred of remorse," the widower's brother, Oscar Nuño, said in court. "Not one apology or attempt of an apology has ever been extended to my brother or our family since the accident. "Not that we would ever accept such an apology, but it is the human thing to do."
Bradley agreed with Nuño that the teens had not taken responsibility for their actions.
These boys annihilated a family -- a mother and two kids are dead because they decided to make the streets of Harris County into their own personal race track. Surely the judge ought to have given them a significantly harsher sentence than she did -- especially given her own in court assessment of their lack of remorse for their actions.
Sadly, the judge in this case didn't have much choice after the jury made its decision. She remedied the situation by imposing the jail sentence, so that the two punks involved will at least spend some time locked up. But the reality is that they deserve to be in the general population at one of the fine facilities operated by the Texas Department of Corrections.