The storm-the-gates conservative movement that keeps finding ways to stick it to the establishment did it again Tuesday night in Texas, this time propelling the insurgent campaign of an Ivy League-educated son of a Cuban immigrant, Ted Cruz, to perhaps its most impressive victory yet.
* * *
Once the underdog, Cruz, a constitutional lawyer who had never before run for office, vaulted ahead of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in the final days of the race. Dewhurst, who finished 11 percent ahead of Cruz in the May primary, had long been seen as the prohibitive favorite to capture the seat of retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
It marked another tea party triumph, after recent wins in Republican primaries in Nebraska and Indiana. Cruz had won the support of leading conservative figures as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. Dewhurst, meanwhile, had the backing of much of the state’s political class, including Gov. Rick Perry. Many of Perry’s aides assisted Dewhurst in his effort, including Dave Carney, the governor’s longtime political hand.
Outspent nearly three-to-one by Dewhurst, a multimillionaire who spent nearly $19 million of his own funds on the race, Cruz fought back by riding a wave of conservative support. He secured endorsements from tea party-aligned groups like the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, both of which invested in his campaign. The conservative elite, including columnist George Will and the National Review, also threw their support to the upstart.
I'll admit, I wasn't always a Ted Cruz backer, having initially supported former Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams -- but threw my support enthusiastically to Cruz when Williams left the race early to instead seek (unsuccessfully) a Dallas area congressional seat. Yet even though he was my second choice, I was always impressed by Cruz's intellect and conservatism. I'll be thrilled to see him take the US Senate seat in January, given that the Democrats have nominated a non-entity to be the sacrificial lamb in this race (Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since Bob Bullock won the lieutenant governor's seat in 1994).
On the other hand, early returns leave me very concerned about the outcome of the GOP runoff for the new 36th Congressional District where I live. My fellow Republicans cannot seriously be about to nominate a truth-impaired carpetbagger, can they?
A White House spokesman noted that Mitt Romney's calling Jerusalem the "capital of Israel" contradicts United States policy over several successive administrations.
The spokesman, Josh Earnest, said that the presumptive Republican presidential candidate’s declaration that Jerusalem is “the capital of Israel” contradicts the policy of previous Republican and Democratic administrations. He said Romney could further explain the comments, according to The Jerusalem Post.
"Well, our view is that that’s a different position than this administration holds,” Earnest said in a news briefing Tuesday, according to the Post. “It’s the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties."
Setting aside the fact that Israel says that Jerusalem is the the capital of Israel and that the Palestinians have never negotiated in good faith with Israel, we actually do have a federal law on the matter that also indicates that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Not that Obama gives a rat's ass about anything that is found in American law if he disagrees with it...
And then there is this helpful reminder on the matter as well -- and the level of duplicity shown by this president on the issue.
But then again, every statement made by Barack Obama carries with it the implicit disclaimer that it is valid until it is politically convenient for it to no longer be valid.
Write about Justice Department corruption, and who visits your site?
Time from posting to DOJ visit? One hour, ten minutes (I never put the blog on daylight savings time).
I can't get this song out of my head.
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
* * *
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making. … In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
I can't help but note that Scooter Libby was convicted of a felony based upon less evidence than this.
And this case is particularly galling not just because a group of Kluxers engaged in similar behavior would undoubtedly have been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed for their actions, but also because the Obama Regime and the Holder Department of "Just Us" are now positioning themselves as the great defenders of voting rights in a series of cases designed to strike down Voter ID laws and maps drawn as a part of the decennial redistricting in various states. How can a department which began with a decision to ignore a clear-cut violation of voting rights via voter intimidation by armed thugs at a poling place (in favor of the newly elected president) have any credibility?
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, notes that this ruling ought to provoke a whole wave of investigations -- both within the Justice Department and from outside entities as well.
The Commission on Civil Rights repeatedly asked Attorney General Holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate the handling of the NPBB case by the Department and the refusal of Perez to comply with lawful documents requests and subpoenas served on DOJ by the Commission. When will the attorney general do so, and when will he ask for an investigation of this possible perjury by Perez?
Where is the investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of whether Perez violated his ethical and professional obligations as a DOJ attorney? Will the DOJ inspector general open an investigation of the possible violation by Perez of 18 U.S.C. §1621, which outlaws presenting false statements under oath in official federal proceedings? Or will they all respectively yawn and ignore this?
Imagine if a conservative political appointee at DOJ had just been cited in a federal court decision as having apparently testified falsely under oath. Not only would it be a top headline at The New York Times and The Washington Post, but the IG and OPR would be rushing to investigate. All of which is a sad commentary on the liberal bias not just of the media, but of too many of the offices and officials within the Justice Department who are supposed to administer justice in an objective, non-political, and impartial manner.
The disparity in the response is striking -- this decision was handed down on July 23 -- and as of yesterday (July 30) it had not been reported on by a single mainstream media outlet, despite its relevance to both the current voting rights litigation by the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ and the ongoing presidential election.
Dick Cheney has some advice for Mitt Romney on choosing a running mate: Don’t pick another Sarah Palin.
In his first interview since receiving a heart transplant in March, Cheney told ABC News, that John McCain’s decision to pick Palin as his running mate in 2008 was “a mistake” — one that it is important from Romney not to repeat.
* * *
“The test to get on that small list has to be, ‘Is this person capable of being president of the United States?’”
Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test.
“I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She – attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years. I don’t think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”
I had -- and still have -- warm feelings for Sarah Palin. That said, I look back and realize that Cheney has it right about her -- she was not someone whose experience made it clear she was ready to be president should the worst happen. That isn't an insult -- nor am I saying that she would have been incompetent -- but her background was not the sort of thing which inspires confidence.
That said, let's apply that advice to some of the names being bandied about as potential picks for Romney's running mate. How do they stack up?
I could look at a lot of other possible nominees whose names are tossed around, but many of them do not make the cut under the Cheney standard.
Coming out of a commercial break at 8:40 AM eastern time today, during Randi Kaye’s shift on CNN, the network “unexpectedly” chose to play the refrain from the song “Stupid Girls” by the pop singer Pink going into a story about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The two word refrain repeated over and over as the camera panned past Ms. Kaye and faded into a picture of Palin visiting a Chic-fil-A restaurant. The host then went on to a fairly stock story about the recent Chic-fil-A brouhaha, including Palin’s visit, with no reference to the introductory tune.
So if they are going to hand out gratuitous insults towards Republican women, they had better do the same with female Democrats.
And if they won't use my song suggestion, they can at least take this one.
Here are this week’s full results:
See you next week!
Why on earth would anyone use payday loans? That's easy -- a payday loan could be used to deal with a financial emergency or unexpected expense that one needs to meet right now.
Where would you get one? Well, there are payday loan companies in many towns and cities, but you can also seek a variety of payday loans online.Continue to be enlightened while reading "Payday Loans" Â»
The standard for receiving a payday loan varies from lender to lender, of course, but there are some common standards. Generally, you need to have a bank account and a verifiable source of income before getting one of these small short term loans. Of course, if your income is limited you might find yourself only being approved for a very small amount of money.
Typically, those seeking payday loans are dealing with a time critical situation in which they need money right now. For example, there might be an overdue credit card payment, a late utility bill or some other debt that needs immediate payment. A payday loan of -- to be repaid within a few days or a couple weeks -- might make all the difference. Best of all, decisions on such loans are often made few hours.
To get a payday loan, you generally need to complete an application at a brick-and-mortar location or to fill out an application online. You will usually get a response within two days -- and often on the same day.
When it comes right down to it, a payday loan is really a cash advance on your future earnings. You get that money now, and will repay it out of the next paycheck. For example, if you get $500 today to pay your credit card, you are expected to make your payment back to the payroll loan company within a short span after you are next paid. That means the size of your loan will be tied directly to what you make each pay period.
Of course, it is always important that you be aware of what these loans are going to cost you. The fee for a $300 loan and one for a $1000 loan will be different. In effect, you are taking out a high-interest short term loan to meet an immediate need. Knowing that cost will help you determine if it is the best course of action for you, or whether you need to take a different action. And, of course, if you find yourself taking out such loans frequently, there are bigger issues to deal with.
Â« All done with "Payday Loans"?
Remember -- Joseph and Jesus were small businessmen who struggled with high taxes imposed by oppressive rulers.
A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court.
The mandate has generated massive opposition from pro-life groups because it forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.
* * *
In his order, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, ‘there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict with [another statutory scheme]….’ Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case.”
Bowman said Judge Kane explained that the government’s “harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”
Sadly, this decision does not apply nationwide, and does not even apply beyond this one company, Hercules Industries, and its owners, the Newland Family. But given that we now have a federal district court recognizing that the ObamaCare regulation that would punish businesses and institutions for living up to the religious beliefs of the individuals and groups that own them, we have a chance to strike down Obama's freedom crushing regulation.
Of course, the best option for America is to defeat Barry Hussein and his Congressional supporters at the polls in November.
And from a liberal black law professor at an Ivy League school!
I'm reading Stephen L. Carter's The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln -- it is a great alternative history book that has Lincoln surviving the assassination and speculating on what would happen later. Last night I came across a rather cutting line.
"Like so many people of liberal persuasion, they value their own progressive opinions more than they value the people they hold those opinions about."
It referred to abolitionists who really knew (or cared) little about blacks -- but certainly knew they were superior and their opinions were better than those held by anyone who disagreed, and that those who did needed to be pulled down.
It really does present an interesting parallel to the Chick-Fil-A situation today. One cannot merely treat people who are gay decently but disagree with some element of the progressive agenda regarding homosexuality -- in particular regarding same-sex marriage. Failure to conform must result in punishment of some sort -- and public failure to conform must result in significant sanctions due to one's deviation. Thus we have mayors and city council members and others seeking to destroy Chick-Fil-A for the "crime" of not being all-in on the "gay agenda" -- and at least one celebrity has wished death on consumers who eat there (and suggested that parents who give their kids Chick-Fil-A are child abusers).
But hey -- their hate-filled attacks on those with different beliefs are righteous. After all, their position is the correct one, and those who disagree deserve what they get. As it was in the 1860s, is now and ever shall be, progressivism without end. Amen.
That is a serious question -- because I want to see the exact same thing happen to Kathy Griffin.
Kathy used to be funny -- now she is just sickening.
Now, will the folks who insist that the minor children of political figures are off limits please have the decency to slap down Griffin?
No, not that Barack Obama -- those are the words of the bigamous absentee sperm donor who sired the president.
Makes it pretty clear what sort of dreams he got from his father.
No doubt trying to find much more vicious hate criminals -- Chick-Fil-A customers, anti-Islamists, advocates of secure borders, and individuals planning to vote against Obama.
Three adults and two juveniles were arrested this week after they allegedly terrorized a Wayne County Jewish camp for boys and teenagers, WNEP TV News reported. The five were charged with menacing children at Camp Bonim on three separate occasions.
Police made arrests after a separate incident in which one of the suspects, while off camp grounds, hit a camp counselor with his truck and was subsequently stopped by authorities in New York state.
According to the report Wednesday, the attacks occurred during the early morning hours. The accused allegedly entered the camp grounds in a white pickup truck, chased campers and damaged property.
Wayne County District Attorney Janine Edwards said that the suspects also “yelled ethnic slurs that are unspeakable and…shot a paintball gun at some campers, hitting one with the paintball gun.”
Is anti-Semitism so commonplace in America that we now don't even note attacks on Jews? Have we truly gone from "never again" to "no big deal" in the span of my lifetime?
H/T Gateway Pundit
In 1980, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan and against Jimmy Carter because the former was my hero and the latter was incompetent. I was not racist for doing so.
In 1984, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan and against Walter Mondale because the former was a great man and the latter was a continuation of Carter. when I cast my ballot for Reagan (my first), I was not a racist for doing so.
In 1988, I voted for George H. W. Bush and against Michael Dukakis because I saw the Bush as the continuation of Reagan. I was not racist for doing so.
In 1992, I voted for George H. W. Bush and against Bill Clinton because I saw thought Bush was doing a good job and believed Clinton to be a scumbag. I was not racist for doing so.
In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole and against Bill Clinton because I saw KNEW Clinton to be a scumbag and because Jack Kemp was my college hero. I was not racist for doing so.
In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush and against Al Gore because I saw thought Bush was a good governor in Texas and believed Gore to be a dangerous man. I was not racist for doing so.
In 2004, I voted for George W. Bush and against John Kerry because I saw thought Bush was doing a good job and believed Kerry to be a treasonous bastard. I was not racist for doing so.
In 2008, I voted for John McCain and against Barack Obama because I saw thought McCain was a patriot and believed Obama to be a frighteningly out-of-his depth tyro. I was declared a racist for doing so.
In 2012, I am prepared to vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack obama because I admire Romney and recognize that Obama is every bit as incompetent as Jimmy Carter was. There are those who fear that I won't fear being called a racist!
By telling potential voters “It’s OK to make a change,” the RNC is acknowledging all that I mention above. It’s OK to like [Obama] personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.
Let's be honest -- the racist vote in 2008 was made up of those who decided to "give the black guy a shot". Obama was clearly not ready for the office he sought but was given the nomination by Democrats engaged in affirmative action -- Hillary Clinton was at least somewhat better qualified -- and then rode into office on a wave of anger over a last-minute economic crisis and a desire to make history by electing a black guy, no matter how unready he was for the job. We have suffered the consequences of that racist wave for 3 1/2 years now -- and it is time to set the country on the right path by electing someone who actually understands the economy. And like Jimmy Carter (and, some would argue, the first Bush) he may be a nice guy but he has shown by his performance that he just wasn't the right guy and needs to be replaced. Race doesn't enter into the equation -- and to the degree that it does, it is the liberal Obama supporters who are engaged in racism.
Celebrities! What don't they know?
Actually, Michael Moore has it dead wrong here. The Founders, if they could have seen AK47s and Glocks and other modern weapons would have said the following:
Damn! Wish we would have had a few cases of those to use against the Redcoats.
H/T The Other McCain
And what's more, I urge that the investigation not be confined to the swing-state of Virginia, but be expanded to include every single state where the VPC sent out registration forms.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.
The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.
The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.
In a letter to Cuccinelli's office and the State Board of Elections, Kathryn Bieber, an attorney for the Romney campaign, calls for an investigation into the matter by law-enforcement officials, claiming that the mailings appear to violate "at least one and maybe several Virginia laws aimed at ensuring a fair election."
Bieber refers to the mailings as "tactics that amount to, or at the very least induce, voter registration fraud," and says the issue "presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election."
Citing a Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch story that brought the mailings to light, the letter also asks the State Board of Elections to require registrars to reject all pre-populated voter registration applications from the group and review the eligibility of all Virginians who have registered in the past two months.
"This is the only way for voters and other interested parties to regain confidence in the voter registration and electoral process that has been abused by the Voter Participation Center," the letter says.
I know that Romney's request sounds harsh, and that my suggestion that it be a nationwide investigation in each of the fifty states (I have no confidence in the Obama Regime's Department of Just-Us under Attorney Private Eric Holder, given its repeated efforts to ensure dirty elections) sounds rather extreme. But we know that this effort to register the ineligible, the deceased, the non-human and the non-existent has been ongoing for some time. And this post of mine documents how my wife and I received THREE voter registration forms for fictitious names that my wife uses to subscribe to magazines -- forms so official looking that we initially believed they came from the state of Texas itself until a commenter pointed out differently .
Frankly, I'm surprised that we didn't get forms in the names of our three dogs -- two living, one recently deceased (a two-fer for the VPC) in addition to these three forms. But even without getting forms for the dogs, the fact that three fictitious individuals received registration forms from this group leads me to wonder how many other such forms ended up in the hands of Texas residents -- and how many unscrupulous folks sent them in to the Secretary of State in the postage-paid envelope. Then multiply that times 50 states and the District of Columbia, and you can see how this could influence the outcome of the election -- both in the national vote total and the all-important electoral vote if enough fraudulent swing-state registrations can be converted into fraudulent votes.
Now some folks may be taken aback by my vehemence on this subject, but you have to understand my background. I've been a precinct official in two states at different points over the last twenty-five years, and have seen how many registrations for the dead and the gone remain on the voter rolls for years after their departure from this life or the precinct where they are registered -- a recipe for fraud for the unscrupulous. Plus, I used to live in the Chicago area, and know what shenanigans are documented as happening there. Is it any wonder that this year, with a president playing Chicago-style politics, that I'm worried about fraud.
“I refuse to live in a country like this,” he concluded, “[but] I’m not leaving.”
So since he won't live in a country with laws and a Constitution like we have, and since he refuses to leave, he must plan on imposing his will on America.
I just have to wonder, though -- why do we care what Jabba the Filmmaker has to say?
Then we would have a more accurate description of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of being a Senate dictator.
McConnell made the charge during an interview with Sean Hannity on Monday. He said Reid doesn’t allow Republicans to offer amendments to legislation.
"The way he's been operating is he doesn't let the minority have any amendments. He's already turned the senate majority leader's office into an office for a dictator and now he wants to get rid of, what we call, the motion to proceed," McConnell said. "As a practical matter, he wants to make it easy to get on bills so he can employ a device that gets us from offering any amendments at all."
With a little luck, he'll go back to being "minority leader" come January -- and Joe Biden will be heading off to retirement.
I can't believe this came out of a presidential campaign.
"[Romney] needs the support of the white community in order to continue to bring positive change to our community," Romney spokeswoman Clo Ewing said.
Shocking -- utterly shocking -- that a candidate for the highest office in the land would use such a racist appeal. It is clear evidence of that candidate's unfitness for any office in this land.
But it did not come out of the Romney campaign. I changed three words in the quote from a story in the Washington Examiner. Here's the actual quote.
"[Obama] needs the support of the African-American community in order to continue to bring positive change to our community," Obama spokeswoman Clo Ewing said.
If the modified quote I put at the start of this story is racist and disqualifying, so is the actual quote -- because what's sauce for the Caucasian goose is sauce for the African-American gander.
I think all of them have been cowed by a handful of advocates who think that the right to bear arms allows you to go out and kill people at random. And that's not overstating it very much.
Really? The man(?) had the audacity to make that statement?
Maybe he needs to talk to Dr. Suzanna Hupp.
Dr. Hupp knows a thing or two about mass shootings like the one in Colorado. You see, she survived one -- but unfortunately, her parents did not. They were two of the 23 killed by a gunman here in Texas -- her father while he made an unarmed charge to try to stop the shooter, and her mother as she sat cradling the head of her dying husband.
“I don’t blame guns. I’m not mad at the guy that killed 23 people, including my parents, at the Killeen Luby’s years ago. How can I be mad at a rabid dog? I blame politicians that legislated away my right to carry a gun to protect myself & my family. I made the most stupid decision of my life when I decided, several months before the Luby’s shooting, to stop carrying a revolver in my purse in the event I would be caught & lose my chiropractor’s license. That decision left me unarmed at the time when I most needed a gun.”
Dr. Hupp is one of those folks defamed by Mayor Bloomberg. Is he man enough to repeat that blood libel to her face? I'm sure that a meeting between the two could be arranged at the cemetery where Al and Ursula Gratia are buried, in the hope that Bloomberg would learn what the real consequences of gun control are -- and about the legitimate reasons that Americans own, possess, and carry firearms every day.
The penalties imposed are"
Late summer seems like the wrong time to be doing this, but given the mess that our primary was this year, here we are starting early voting today for the July 31 runoff. So without further ado, here are my endorsements in the runoff.
US Senate -- Ted Cruz. Even if I had not bee a Cruz fan before, the dirty campaign run by David Dewhurst would have been sufficient to turn me to his opponent. Cruz is a superb lawyer, a constitutional scholar, and a real conservative. David Dewhurst, on the other hand. . . well, his smears of Cruz show him to be a dishonorable liar willing to do or say anything to advance his political career.
CD 36 -- Stephen Takach. This runoff is what happens when a heavily favored candidate takes his frontrunner status for granted. The race was Mike Jackson's to lose, and he did -- leaving us with businessman Takach or former Congressman Steve Stockman. When in doubt, pick the conservative businessman, not the conspiracy theorist with few legislative accomplishments who keeps trying to find a district that will elect him.
RR Commissioner -- Warren Chisum.
RR Commissioner -- Barry Smitherman.
Supreme Court, Place 4 -- John Devine. I still do not see how anyone can support the reelection of Justice David Medina, given the questions that continue surround he and his wife over the fire that destroyed their home.
129th District Court -- Michael Landrum.
152nd District Court -- Don Self.
County Sheriff -- Carl Pittman.
Those red light cameras might not be as accurate as they tell us they are.
Proponents of photo enforcement frequently assert the camera never lies, but newly released evidence suggests the technology can often be wrong. In St. Petersburg, Florida, cameras belonging to the private vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) have accused vehicle owners of doing the impossible. If the camera is to be believed, on December 13, 2011 at 3:29pm, a woman blasted through the intersection of 66th Street and 38th Avenue at 215 MPH.
At that velocity, her car would have been traveling the distance of an entire football field every second. Reaching such a velocity requires use of vehicles with million-dollar pricetags such as the Bugatti Veyron or Pagani Huayra or the $400,000 Lamborghini Aventador. The reading was not an isolated error. At the same location on January 8, 2012, another woman was said to have blasted through the intersection at 170 MPH. At 4th Street and 22nd Avenue, a woman allegedly hurtled through the intersection at 157 MPH on December 29, 2011.
It is a good thing Houston got rid of them -- now it is time for every other city to do likewise.
Here are this week’s full results.
See you next week!
One of the great things about our cell phones is that we can personalize them in so many different ways. From wallpaper to apps, we can make our phones uniquely ours. That can, of course, result in some embarrassing moments -- one of the assistant principals at my school a couple of years back was subjected to a couple of days ridicule after getting a call from his girlfriend -- he had set a personalized ringtone for her, a clip from Right Said Fred's "I'm Too Sexy". Most of us are, however, a bit more circumspect in what we set.
And with the advent of the iPhone, there are even more options. The iPhone comes with dozens of quality ringtones included as a part of the software package, but you can also create your own ringtones for iPhone from virtually any song using ringtone apps. Once you've got your desired ringtone, setting it up is really easy to do. But first, you need to get yourself the ringtone you want.
Now you can also get access to a whole host of ringtones by getting an app that connects to a collection of premade ringtones. If you decide to buy these collections, you have a near infinite selection to choose from -- say half a million different ringtones to add to your phone, either as a general ringtone or a ringtone personalized for each of your regular callers. It rather boggles the mind to think about the number of choices you might have, especially as they expand their database to include even more options for you to select from. All you have to do is search the collection by category or title and you'll surely find what you want. And if you are interested in how to make iPhone ringtones, you can even trim the music you have already downloaded on your phone and trim it up to make the perfect customized ringtone!
I know that I've got some old favorite songs that I'd love to do that with -- old album cuts from my younger days, songs that were never hits but certainly hold a place in my heart, or songs from those minor bands that played the college circuit a quarter century ago or that were hot on the local club scene when I was younger. It is good to know that there is an app for that, that let's me make my own personalized ringtones from the old songs I love.
Â« All done with "Ringtones For iPhones"?
What else do you call it when the exercise of your First Amendment rights is declared to be the basis for government preventing you from doing business?
I'm referring, of course, to these comments by the mayor of Boston in response to the head of Chick-Fil-A stating that his company operates on Christian principles, and that it is openly supportive of the preservation of traditional marriage.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.
* * *
If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.
Of course, Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate against anyone. The company does not discriminate in hiring, and it does not discriminate in providing services. Its leaders do, however, support certain social and political causes that are offensive to liberals, and therefore deemed illegitimate and cause for the government to punish the company for perfectly legal, constitutionally protected speech and conduct.
My question is this -- will the United States Justice Department take action here to ensure that the city of Boston does not discriminate against religious citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights in ways that the liberal mayor dislikes? Or will that be overlooked while they continue to hide documents from Congress and seek to overturn constitutionally valid voter ID laws?
The Government Accountability Institute conducted an analysis of how much time President Barack Obama has spent in economic meetings of any kind, as recorded the White House official calendar and Politico’s comprehensive calendar. They covered the president’s first 1,257 days in office.
Key findings include:
• President Obama has spent less than 4 percent of his total time in economic meetings or briefings of any kind (assuming a six day, 10-hour workweek)
• President Obama has spent 412 hours (or forty-one 10-hour workdays) in economic meetings or briefings of any kind
• There were 773 days (72 percent), excluding Sundays, in which the President no economic meetings
• Throughout his presidency, President Obama has spent an average of 138 minutes a week in economic meetings
• In 2012, President Obama has spent 24 total hours in economic meetings kind
At least ten are dead and twenty wounded in a shooting at midnight showing of the new Batman movie near Denver
Up to ten people are reported to have been killed after a man opened fire at a Dark Knight Rises film premiere near Denver, Colorado.
The midnight showing was taking place at the Century 16 Theatre in Aurora.
Brenda Stuart of 850 KOA Radio told Sky News that the audience initially: "Thought the gunshots were part of the movie."
Tear gas was also used in the attack, she said, and a bomb squad are reportedly searching for a further explosive device in the car park. Witnesses say a man wearing a gas mask was seen during the attack.
One report has as many as 40 victims of the shooting, including at least 4 kids.
It is unclear who is responsible for this attack, which could certainly be classified as a terrorist incident.
UPDATE -- 3:10 AM Mountain Time: One report has bullets tearing through the wall from the neighboring theater.
Another notes that there may have been a bomb blast in the parking lot.
One is in custody at this time (3:10 AM Mountain Time), but there is the possibility that another assailant is in the theater or the connected shopping mall.
UPDATE 2 -- 3:15 AM Mountain Time: Business Insider provides the following information.
Reuters reports that a figure in a gas mask opened fire on the crowd outside a mall theatre in the Denver suburb. The perpetrator also set off a smoke or tear gas bomb.
ABCNews is reporting live on the air that 250 police are on the scene, including senior FBI officials from the Denver office.
UPDATE 3 -- 3:25 AM Mountain Time: Latest reports indicate only one gunman -- weapon has been recovered and will be sent for testing.
Already the discussion as to need for more security at movie theaters and other public places/events.
Updated death toll is currently 14 according to live press conference by Aurora police chief. Gunman released a canister that emitted hissing sound, opened fire. Shooter had rifle, handgun, and gas mask when arrested outside theater.
UPDATE 4 -- 3:30 AM Mountain Time: Gunman claimed to have additional explosives at his residence when arrested -- apartment building evacuated in response.
UPDATE 5 -- 3:40 AM Mountain Time: Explosives found in gunman's apartment according to Denver CBS affiliate.
UPDATE 6 -- 4:40 AM Mountain Time: New reports indicate shooter kicked in an emergency exit door, tossed the smoke/tear gas grenade and opened fire on moviegoers.
UPDATE 7 -- 5:00 AM Mountain Time: Shooter had THREE guns -- rifle, handgun, and unknown other gun stashed in theater. Also wearing bullet-proof vest in addition to gas mask. Shooter described as white male in his 20s.
UPDATE 8 -- 9:00 AM Mountain Time: Current casualty rate is 12 dead, 38 wounded. Youngest victim is 3 months old -- fortunately the baby will survive. No explanation or the revision of the number of dead downward. Apartment is booby trapped.
Tell me then, friend, how much more would you have them pay in income taxes, considering what they do pay?
And before you start asking about those negative percentages, realize that some 40% of Americans get back more in refundable tax credits than they paid in to begin with. That's right -- 40% of Americans get back more than they had withheld to begin with!
Have the percentages no doubt shifted somewhat? Yeah -- but I'm willing to bet these numbers are within a percentage point or two of what was paid in 2011.
And before you complain about the statistics -- they come from the Congressional Budget Office, based upon statistics from the Obama Treasury Department. Read the report here.
Here's the opening paragraph about how Americans view the direction the country is moving.
The number of Americans satisfied with the country’s direction is at its highest level in two years, according to a new Gallup Poll.
Is it true? Yeah, I'll concede it is.
But does it provide an accurate picture of how Americans feel?
Not really -- because "the number of Americans satisfied with the country’s direction" is 28%. And the percentage dissatisfied? Well, that would be 69% -- granted, it is the first time that this has dropped so low since Obama's first summer in office, but that is still 7-in-10 Americans saying that the country is headed the wrong direction. That ought to be the news, not that only a bit more than a quarter of Americans are satisfied.
Of course, that would mean reporting negatively about Obama -- and as we've been told for the last few years, that's racist.
"We do what we can to protect the president of the United States."
Today, however, Harry Reid had the audacity to criticize the Republicans for doing the same thing.
"[T]hey’re obviously defending their presidential nominee..."
So let's get some clarity here -- is it acceptable to manipulate the legislative process to help out your party's nominee or not? Or is it only OK when you are trying to prevent "angry old white men" from defeating the incompetent middle-aged black man your party foisted on the nation four years ago?
Of course, that would let Obama increase the number of food stamp and unemployment collecting Americans.
A new study conducted by Ernst and Young proves conclusively that the President’s tax increase would be devastating to the economy and jobs.
The study finds that, if Congress misguidedly adopted President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on job creators by allowing the Bush-era tax policies to expire for incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for married filers), the economy and jobs would suffer terribly:
- Output in the long run would fall by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, in today’s economy;
- Employment in the long run would fall by 0.5 percent or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today’s economy;
- Capital stock and investment in the long run would fall by 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively; and
- Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8 percent.
There are almost 13 million Americans out of work today. President Obama’s tax increase would needlessly add almost three-quarters of a million people to that already much too large number. Even those with jobs wouldn’t escape the pain of President Obama’s tax increase, as they would see their wages suffer.
Need any more reason to vote against he man with no plan to revive the economy?
Over the weekend, I noted that Connecticut Democrat Governor Dan Malloy had declared congressional Republicans to be unpatriotic for daring to use the legislative process to help defeat Barack Obama and elect Mitt Romney. What does he have to say about this from Harry Reid?
We do what we can to protect the president of the United States.
So, Gov. Malloy -- patriotic or unpatriotic? The whole world is waiting to see if you are willing to condemn your own party for doing the same thing you condemn the Republicans for.
After all, he's had fundraising to do -- and work on the Skittle-shitting unicorns he promised in 2008 takes up a lot of time. How can we possibly expect him to meet with the Jobs Council?
President Barack Obama has not met for six months with the CEOs and others on his Jobs Council in part because he’s simply been too busy, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.
Now a man of honor and decency -- a statesman -- who found that seeking reelection was taking too much of his focus away from doing good for the country would do what is best for the country and drop the reelection bid. Obama has, instead, chosen to put reelection ahead of the economic health of the nation. Doesn't that tell us everything we need to know?
Because you know, bringing that stuff up is, like, totally racist or something, according to NBCNews.Com host Lawrence O'Donnell.
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: In the spotlight tonight, Republican campaign strategist Rush Limbaugh. Rush thinks Mitt is doing a terrible job of fighting back against the team Obama attack on Mitt as a pioneer of outsourcing. But Rush thinks he knows why Mitt isn't hitting back hard enough.
(BEGIN EDITED VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Romney knows how to do this. He did it to Newt and he did it to Santorum. He knows full well how he has to do this. But I know what they think they're up against. They got the first black president, independents...It's easy to go after Newt or Romney, because they're conservatives and everybody hates conservatives anyway...But we can't go after poor old Barack that way, because he's a minority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: And so Rush decided to teach Mitt how to go after a minority. Rush thinks Mitt should be hitting Barack Obama as a lazy, drug-taking beneficiary of affirmative action. Rush didn't use the word "shiftless," but Rush threw in every racist stereotype he could in his advice to Mitt.
* * *
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIMBAUGH: “Okay so Mr. Limbaugh, since you have the answer to everything, then what would you suggest that Romney do, if he do?” Okay, fine! “Look, pal, when I was out creating jobs, investing in businesses and growing this economy, you were at Columbia smoking weed and snorting coke. You write about it in your book, you talk about how you got into Columbia, the Harvard Law Review, and you didn't have to do anything. That was what’s great about it. You loved getting into Columbia because all you had to do was go to class, get your grades, and smoke a little weed while I was out building the country when you were doing that.”
Now where did Limbaugh get all this allegedly racist stuff? Easy -- from Barack Obama's own books in which he talks about being a pothead, doing coke, and being a lazy student. Is it really the contention of this employee of a news organization that actually talking about material that is in the public record about the President of the United States -- stuff that he put there himself -- is somehow racist? If it is, then we have officially defined the word "racism" down to the degree that it no longer means anything because it means everything negative that is said against someone who is a racial minority. And that, my friends, is a large steaming pile of crap.
But let's give O'Donnell some credit -- he did catch Limbaugh in an error. The tales of drug-addled escapades that Obama regaled us with were about his high school days at his elite prep school, not during his college years. I guess we are just supposed to assume that Barry quit toking and snorting once he hit Occidental and Columbia -- because we know that nobody does drugs at elite institutions of higher education.
Barack Obama has managed to make Americans poorer than our neighbors to the north -- for the first time in the history of the Republic.
For the first time in recent history, the average Canadian is richer than the average American, according to a report cited in Toronto's Globe and Mail.
And not just by a little. Currently, the average Canadian household is more than $40,000 richer than the average American household. The net worth of the average Canadian household in 2011 was $363,202, compared to around $320,000 for Americans.
* * *
To add insult to injury, not only are Canadians comparatively better-off than Americans, they're also more likely to be employed. The unemployment rate is 7.2 percent—and dropping—in Canada, while the U.S. is stuck with a stubbornly high rate of 8.2 percent.
Want things to improve here in America? Then vote out Barack Obama.
But you know, it is all Israel's fault -- this wouldn't happen if the Israelis would make more concessions to the Palestinians, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Iran...
An explosion ripped through a bus carrying Israeli holiday-makers in Bulgaria and killed at least six people on Wednesday in an attack the government in Israel blamed on arch foe Iran.
More than 30 people were wounded in the attack against tourists headed for Bulgarian Black Sea resorts that also left two nearby buses in flames.
Witnesses described how panicked passengers jumped from bus windows and bodies lay strewn on the ground with their clothes torn off as ambulance sirens wailed and black smoke rose over Sarafovo airport in Burgas.
Hopefully friends of the blog know that my lead comment was intended in the most sarcastic of tones. But when one considers that Israel keeps giving and the terrorist attacks keep coming, perhaps the day has come for Israel to not only stop giving concessions, but to begin taking territory back -- and expanding its borders to include territory currently held by those who sponsor terrorist attacks like the one today, or which give shelter to the terrorists.
I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.
Well, let's look at that, why don't we.
Schumer is correct when he notes you cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and claim First Amendment protection. However, that is not about speech so much as it is about protecting individuals from immediate physical danger -- speech which cannot be said to have any societal value. Similarly, laws against libel and slander are about allowing individuals a remedy against false statements that damage them -- again, speech that cannot be seen as having any value. But other than some time place and manner restrictions, anti-pornography laws are generally not constitutionally valid except insofar as they restrict obscenity -- which the courts have defined as being without redeeming social value.
But Schumer doesn't want to limit speech that the courts have recognized as being without value. What Schumer wants to do is limit speech that the courts have held has the most value in our society -- indeed, the sort of speech that the First Amendment is most designed to protect -- speech of a political nature designed to advance political participation and points of view.
But let's take Schumer's claim that unfettered political speech can destroy equality because some have the financial wherewithal to participate more and more more loudly. The First Amendment does not mandate speech equality. More to the point, even if one were to concede that the ability of some to use money to make their voices heard more often and more forcefully warps the system and should be banned legislated against, that still does not solve the problem.
For example, current and former officeholders have the ability to make their views known out of proportion to their status as single individuals in society -- and that undermines Schumer's cherished notion that democracy is damaged by speech inequality. The same is true of celebrities -- is my voice truly equal to Angelina Jolie -- and if not, do we need to remedy that inequality by limiting her freedom to speak? And let's not get into folks lie Oprah -- doesn't there need to be a law silencing her on all political matters altogether, lest she do damage to the political equality of all Americans with a single sentence?
Of course, that isn't what the legislation that Schumer is advocating for, the DISCLOSE Act -- is all about. As has been stated many times, it is about coercing the silence of the rich and of business -- voices that quite often are advocates on the side of conservatives and Republicans. The law as it no exists carves out exceptions for liberal constituency groups and special interests that the Democrats favor -- and which spend their money to support Democrats.
Of course, this is the very sort of thing that the First Amendment was designed to prevent. Congress -- indeed, the government generally -- has no legitimate interest in silencing political speech. Especially when that effort is designed (as it always is) to tilt the playing field in favor of those who currently hold the reins of government and against those who dare to speak out in opposition. As such, this legislation is unconstitutional -- and unAmerican.
Don't get me wrong -- I love living down here in the Houston area. That said, I sometimes find that our "little town" (America's 4th largest city) has more in common with places like Khartoum and Pyongyang than it does with other metropolitan areas that spring to mind when you hear the term "world class city". That particularly is the case when it comes to infrastructure accommodating individuals with mobility issues that require the use of wheelchairs and scooters. This is even true of parts of town that are supposed to attract visitors.
Now Rice Village has been a destination for shopping in the city since the 1930s. Sadly, it often seems like infrastructure has not been modernized since that time. My wife and I went to the village for a show at Main Street Theater the other evening, and found the area so handicapped unfriendly as to be unable to attend the production. After all, the experience of getting her and her wheelchair the single block to the theater caused such jarring and jostling as to make it physically impossible for her to sit through the performance.
We were lucky -- we were able to find a handicapped spot with a ramp a mere one block from the theater at the corner of Kelvin and Times. We were up the ramp and making good time -- until we suddenly found a physical obstacle.
Yeah, that's right -- no ramp down from the sidewalk across the parking lot a half block away at Times and Village Parkway. We might have ventured into the street to cross, except for the fact that the pavement and gutter were mismatched by enough that getting my wife across would have most likely involved dumping her from her chair and onto the pavement. So it was back to the ramp we started at, in the hope of crossing the street.
Well, it seemed like a good plan. Only there was no ramp on the other side of the street -- we had to go a couple of yards on to reach an uneven driveway to get her into the parking lot of the store across the street. It was a rough journey from there -- punctuated by crumbling sidewalks, uneven surfaces, and a couple of restaurants with tables set out -- thank goodness that the folks eating and drinking were kind enough to move to let us through.
By the time we made it to the door to the theater -- having spent some ten to fifteen minutes taking my wife on what felt to her like an off-road ride in a four-wheel drive with no shocks -- she was in excruciating pain and asked me to leave her outside the theater so that I could bring the car to pick her up and take her home. I did so -- a much-anticipated night of fun instead turning into a painful disappointment.
By the way, I did make a point of stepping into Main Street Theater to let them know that we would not be staying because of the problem. I had hopes that they might offer to accommodate us on another evening. Instead, all I got was a pointed comment from the guy at the box office that the bad parking and inaccessible walkways were beyond their control and that I should complain to the mayor --but not so much as an "I'm sorry to hear that". The message was clear -- as was mine when I pointedly stated "we won't be back."
Houston claims it wants to be seen as a world class city? Maybe Mayor Parker and the City Council might consider reaching that goal by making what is supposed to be one of the jewels of the city compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act and other laws related to handicapped accessibility.
I've been politically active since I first volunteered with the Reagan campaign as a 17 year old in 1980. In my entire life, I've never seen a candidate run as dirty a campaign as David Dewhurst.
Contra the headline at CNN.com, David Dewhurst actually raised less money than Ted Cruz. Dewhurst had to pump over $4 million into his campaign to save face and win the media spin that he outpaced Cruz. In fact, Cruz has raised $1.7 million and Dewhurst raised $1.5 million.
So now Dewhurst’s campaign team is accusing Ted Cruz of supporting pedophiles, going so far as to try to tie him to Jerry Sandusky.
Not. Kidding.The scurrilous charge stems from Ted Cruz’s law firm taking on the appeal of a developer in Pennsylvania who had a dispute with an insurance company and had lost in district court. Ted Cruz got the case.
Yeah, represented a guy in a lawsuit against an insurance company. In a case that was tangentially related, the guy entered a guilty plea on a tax case involving a judge accepting bribes. Cruz wasn't involved in that other case. But even if he had been, that would prove nothing about Cruz other than that he was a professional doing his job -- just as nobody could reasonably claim that Jeffrey Dahmer's defense attorney was pro-cannibalism for giving the man a vigorous defense in court.
Apparently David Dewhurst has a problem with people who may or may not have done bad things being allowed to have lawyers -- which puts Dewhurst at odds with the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution (and a couple provisions of the Texas Constitution), which guarantees parties to court proceedings the assistance of legal counsel. Do we really want a Senator who is contemptuous of the Bill of Rights?
I've been a supporter of Ted Cruz for a long time -- but if I had ever supported Dewhurst, his remudslinging would be sufficient to drive me away. I encourage all Republicans to make the true conservative choice and back Ted Cruz for US Senate
I'm not going to get into the question of whether Rush Limbaugh's statement that Obama hates America is right or wrong -- because it is not relevant to the rest of this post. Instead, i want to focus on the reaction of David Axelrod to the comment.
Wonder if Mitt will go on all five networks to denounce this depravity?politi.co/NwSGFB— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) July 16, 2012
Now a few days ago, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter had this to say about Mitt Romney.
“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony. Or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.”
As FactCheck.org and many others have since noted, that is an out-and-out falsehood.
''No, we will not apologize."
Indeed, Cutter herself has refused to apologize and stated that Romney's complaint about being falsely labeled a felon constitutes "whining".
But now Axelrod wants Mitt Romney to apologize because of what Rush Limbaugh -- who is not a part of the Romney campaign -- had to say about the president?
“I think it can now be said, without equivocation — without equivocation — that this man hates this country,” the conservative radio host said. “He is trying, Barack Obama is trying, to dismantle, brick-by-brick, the American dream. There’s no other way to put this. There’s no other way to explain this.”
You know what? From my point of view, that is a whole lot milder statement than an accusation that someone is a criminal. And since Limbaugh is a private citizen speaking his own opinion, it would be beyond the pale for Romney to denounce the man for speaking his opinion about the President of the United States. After all, Romney has no control over what Limbaugh says on his show -- while Obama does have control over what his own campaign staff says about Romney, over whether thee will be an apology over a slanderous accusation of criminal conduct, and over the words that come out of his own mouth. Given all that, for Axelrod to seek some sort of contrition from Romney therefore busts the hypocrisy meter.
Some of my buddies from the Watcher's Council offered different perspectives about how to deal with Barack Obama's negative campaigning -- which is really all the man has, since there is very little positive for him to point to over the last 3 1/2 years. I didn't participate in this week's forum, but I have had something floating around my brain about one particular charge that the Obamunists have made and their weaselly way of responding to having been called out on it.
In particular, I want to talk about the despicable hinting that there is something criminal about how Mitt Romney took a leave from Bain Capital to run the 2002 Winter Olympics in the wake of a major scandal, followed by his decision to permanently depart from that venture capital firm and seek the office of Governor of Massachusetts.
The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as CEO of Bain Capital after leaving the firm was picked apart Sunday, with Republicans decrying the remark as the worst type of divisive politics and Obama's team urging its rivals to "stop whining."
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, originally made the claim Thursday on a conference call.
"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," Cutter said, responding to a newspaper report that Romney was listed as Bain Capital's CEO after 1999, when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm.
Of course, everybody knows what happened there. In late 1998, it was disclosed that the bid for the 2002 Winter Olympics may have been tainted by bribes from organizers to members of the International Olympic Committee, followed by the discovery that the organizing committee for the games was some $379 million in the red. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the games from collapse, and he organized and carried off an event that was universally praised and which ended up with a surplus. The success of the Salt Lake Winter games made Romney a household name, and led to his decision to run for governor of Massachusetts, which required him to cut his ties with Bain Capital. Prior to that time, he had expected to return to Bain, and so had remained a shareholder and CEO -- though it was clear that he was on a leave of absence due to his Olympic work. That Obama, his staff, or his surrogates would attempt to make that well-documented series of events into a scandal -- and charge Romney with criminality -- is contemptible.
Needless to say, Romney and his campaign have called for Barack Obama and his reelection campaign to renounce the Cutter remarks and apologize for besmirching his name. To date the president and his campaign have refused to do the honorable thing. Indeed, they are now doubling down on the charge.
Romney needs to use this charge against him to deliver a killing blow to Barack Obama and his campaign. Having been accused by the President and his surrogates of felonious activities in a naked partisan effort to secure Obama's reelection, he needs to make a single demand of Obama and the Justice Department -- PUT UP OR SHUT UP! He needs to demand thatObama direct Attorney General Eric Holder to subpoena all the material used by the Obama campaign as the basis for raising the specter of felonious conduct, and that Holder further convene a grand jury to examine the evidence and either indict him or clear him -- and that this be done immediately.
That puts the ball clearly in the court of Barack Obama, his administration, and his campaign. Obama will have three choices.
Now I'm proposing a rather extreme measure here -- one that is, as far as I know, unprecedented in American political history. But then again, I am unaware of any incumbent candidate or his campaign making the claim that his opponent is a criminal. And my suggestion is the strongest action that can be taken in contemporary society -- though in an earlier age there was always this option.
A couple weeks ago I asked -- is the Obama campaign tapping illegal foreign money with an Independence Day fundraiser in Paris?
Yeah, you saw that right -- last week Barack Obama's campaign held a fundraiser in the People's Republic of China, a repressive communist dictatorship where dissent is not tolerated, religious freedom is not tolerated, and abortion is government policy. In other words, the sort of place that Obama has been trying to turn the United States into.
Here's the RSVP/donation form.
Imagine if there were an active fascist dictatorship anywhere in the world today -- what would be the response if a Republican candidate were to hold a fundraiser there? So why not the same response to a fundraising event in a repressive communist state?
And I'm still wondering about the same issue I raised in my earlier post -- is the Obama campaign being scrupulous to make sure that only Americans are buying tickets or making donations? Is he making sure that the donation decisions are not being made by foreign citizens? You know, since taking money from foreigners would be incredibly illegal.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
I wonder -- is the campaign checking to make sure that it is in compliance with American law on this matter? Especially since we now know that Barack Obama receives 1/3 of his annual personal income from foreign sources -- more than double his presidential salary.
Remember when we were told that opposing the policies of the President was dissent, and that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? Remember when questioning someone's patriotism because they dissented was deemed unAmerican? Sure you do -- it was only a decade ago, and it came out of the mouths of liberals who were bound and determined to make George W. Bush a one term president from the day he was inaugurated.
Well, those days are gone, according to Gov. Dan Malloy, a Connecticut Democrat.
Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, questioned the patriotism of Republicans on Friday, saying their sole mission is to defeat President Barack Obama instead of passing meaningful legislation.
* * *
"In other times taking those positions would be described as unpatriotic, but our politics have become so distorted that to be against a jobs bill is a good thing, and to be against health reform is a good thing," he said.
Now the interesting thing is that nobody on the Left has condemned Dan Malloy as unAmerican for questioning the patriotism of those who dissent from Obama's policies. And that doesn't even get into the fact that we know that the last stimulus package labeled as a "jobs bill" failed to produce jobs and that a majority of Americans are against the president's healthcare tax increase on all Americans. And we won't get into the many substantive proposals put forward by Republicans that are rejected out of hand by Obama and his congressional minions.
Frankly, Malloy's words were shameful. But they also illustrate a truth that I and other bloggers on the right have noted for a very long time -- dissent is only patriotic when the president is a Republican; the rest of the time it is unpatriotic, treasonous, or racist (or some combination of the three).
Here are this week’s full results:
See you next week!
This would be funny if it were not outrageous.
(CBS News) Casting himself as a savior to the middle class, President Obama in his weekly address called on Republicans and Democrats to "at least agree to do what we all agree on" and extend the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for American families making less than $250,000 a year.
"That's what compromise is all about," Mr. Obama said, making a nearly four-minute case for his tax plan over the GOP's "trickle down" approach that, he said, operates from the belief that "if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthy, it'll somehow create jobs."
Suggesting "the only place [Republicans and Democrats] disagree is whether we keep giving tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans," the president said his path, by requiring the top two percent to pay "a little more" in income taxes exceeding the $250,000 threshold, would spare 98 percent of families from seeing any spike in income taxes.
Now here's the thing -- Obama is arguing that what he is calling for is a "compromise". The only problem with that argument is that where most of us grew up, "compromise" means that both sides give up something to get a part of what they want. Not in Obama's world -- there "compromise" means something along the lines of "I want A and you want A +B -- so let's compromise by you giving in and giving me exactly what I'm demanding, even though a majority of Americans agree with you!"
Apparently he has confused the word "compromise" with the word "capitulate" -- sort of like he confused paralegal and paramedic at a recent campaign event.
Opposing Obama? Racists!
A majority of Americans want the Bush tax cuts extended for everyone, despite a strong push by President Barack Obama to eliminate them on higher incomes, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, while 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshold. Those getting something for nothing know that there has to be more money rolling in to keep the freebies coming -- and those currently paying know who will eventually have to come up with the money to pay for the freebies.
All of the tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. Republicans want to extend them all. Obama wants to continue only those on income below $250,000 annually, and he vows to veto any move by Congress that would continue the higher-end tax cuts.
Interestingly enough, the numbers are quite similar to the percentages of those who pay income taxes under the Bush rates (53%) and those who pay no income taxes (or get refunds greater than the amount of tax withheld from their paychecks) under the Bush rates (47%). That seems more than coincidental to me.
Seems like the right choice – what a pity that SCOTUS has taken both appropriate sentences off the table.
HOUSTON – A 16-year-old girl has been certified to stand trial as an adult for her participation in a series of robberies and the murder of a homeless man in April.
Victoria Correa and three other teens -- Carlos Fernandez, 18; Marilyn Villarreal, 18 and Michael Correa, 17 -- were charged with capital murder in the shooting death of Pedro Miguel Rosales Ramos.
Houston police said the teens robbed and shot Ramos, a 32-year-old homeless man, in a parking lot in the 11700 block of Hempstead Highway on April 4, 2012. They were reportedly cruising the area, looking for prostitutes to rob when they honed in on Ramos.
A witness said he heard Ramos arguing with someone in the parking lot around 10:30 p.m. and, moments later, shots rang out.
Ramos suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and died at the scene.
Investigators said they initially believed the suspects killed Ramos over a bicycle or some chicken, but later determined that the motive was the $1 in cash that Ramos was carrying.
Murdering a homeless man over a buck – the death penalty seems appropriate to me, or at least life in prison with no chance of parole. Unfortunately, a handful of Supreme Court justices evolved the Eighth Amendment to say something it doesn’t and banned those two punishments for little niños and niñas like Victoria Correa and Michael Correa who are fully capable of murdering a homeless man over the price of a can of soda but are somehow not sufficiently responsible to pay the full penalty for their crime.
By the way, this little detail from the story will make your head explode.
Det. Fil Waters described Victoria Correa’s cozy surroundings at the time of her arrest.
"She’s sitting in a queen-size feather bed, watching her 32-inch plasma TV and living in the lap of luxury," Waters said.
I’m thinking of a two word phrase that rhymes with “trucking hitch” – especially since the article notes that none of this gang of murderous thieves has shed a tear for their victim, only for themselves. If we can’t apply one bullet to the back of each of their heads on the courthouse steps on primetime television, then we at least ought to be able to daisy chain them for lethal injection in Huntsville.
Mitt Romney surrogate John H. Sununu said President Obama must be “dumb” for his campaign to insinuate that Romney might have committed a felony when he signed regulatory documents identifying himself as Bain Capital’s CEO and chairman for three years after he said he left the firm.
“Can you imagine how dumb this president is?,” the former New Hampshire governor asked Sean Hannity on Fox News on Thursday night. “Introducing the concept of felony into the discourse, when this president comes out of Chicago politics, where felony and politics are sometimes a synonym?”
All fo that is true – but the reality is that we have seen a really intelligent man (and I’ll concede his intelligence) do dumb things time and again to an extent that makes the last really smart guy who made lots of dumb policy decisions – Jimmy Carter – look like an effective president.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the last GOP running mate, predicted former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would make a “wonderful” vice president for Mitt Romney.
“I think that Condoleezza Rice would be a wonderful vice president, and she certainly has much more experience than our sitting president does today,” Palin said Thursday night on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta van Susteren.”
* * *
“I would certainly prefer a presidential and vice presidential candidate who had that respect for all innocent, precious purposeful human life and showed that respect via being a pro-life candidate,” she said. “We need to remember, though, that it’s not the vice president that would legislate abortion, and that would be Congress’s role. And we’ll keep that in mind.”
In other words, I think Mitt Romney could do better than Condi Rice -- but he could also do a whole lot worse (including Sarah Palin herself).
Henry Waxman, whose flaring nostrils already scare anyone with a lick of common sense (did I just use the words “lick” and “nostrils” in the same dependent clause? ICK!), has made a comment about Mitt Romney that ought to frighten every American who believes that they are entitled to economic privacy.
"Let's not go back to a time - to the years when people acted like they're entitled to keep everything secret, that they're entitled to run the government and the American people are not to be permitted to know what's going on because they know better than the rest of us," Waxman fired. "This is an elitism. It's a sense that they're better than anybody else - they're entitled to all of the money they have and the rest of us should just grin and bear it because they're the ones in charge," he continued.
Oddly enough, what Waxman is ranting about is the fact that Mitt Romney wants to keep confidential tax documents confidential. He believes he is entitled to the financial privacy that each and every American expects. What Mitt Romney – and all the rest of those mysterious “theys” who believe they are “entitled to keep everything secret” – believe is that the mere fact that they run for election to public office (or even win the elections) strips them of the same right to keep their personal financial information secret that every other American has.
Do I think Romney was right to release a single year’s tax returns? Yes, I do – though I would have had no problem with many of the specifics being redacted. Personally, I don’t think we are entitled to any of the financial information on a candidate’s tax forms. As it is, I think we ask for too much financial disclosure on the ethics forms that are required of public officials, and believe that such disclosure forms are one more thing that keep average Americans from running for office. I know I won’t run for office – not even my city council or school board – because I refuse to make available for public inspection information about the balance on my credit cards, my monthly car payment, and how much I still owe on my house. Frankly, it seems to me that we’ve gone far beyond the legitmate public purpose of preventing public corruption and instead gone into the realm of “gotcha politics”.
By the way – it is interesting to note that the same henry Waxman who demands confidential information from Romney on the basis that the American people have a right to know confidential personal information used the same interview to defend Barack Obama hiding Fast & Furious documents and other information about the public’s business from the American people – stating that President Obama has a right to keep that information from the American people but "Governor Romney does not have executive privilege to keep his tax information from the ability of the American people to learn how he's made so much money over the years." And that illustrates the problem – the reality is that in a properly ordered society it should be precisely the opposite.
Given the freak-out his campaign has had over Mitt Romney having a diversified banking and investment portfolio that includes foreign banks and companies, I think we have to ask the same question about Obama's foreign sources of income.
[I]n the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.
The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.
From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill. The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 when they had both general and passive foreign income.
In other words, in every year of Barack Obama's presidency he has earned more income from foreign sources -- at least twice as much each year -- than he did from his salary as president of the United States. Not only that, he has paid foreign taxes -- in an amount higher than the average income of an American worker -- and used that to reduce the taxes he pays to the United States government. Do we want to talk about who isn't paying his "fair share"?
Only a fraction of Mitt Romney's income comes from outside the United States, and only a fraction of it is invested or banked outside the United States. Why are we more worried about that than the fact that a sitting president is drawing a 1/3 of his income from foreign sources -- while getting only 1/8 of his income from the American taxpayer. Whose loyalty -- and whose patriotism -- should be questioned based upon the standards applied by the Obama campaign to Mitt Romney?
I wrote about it one month ago today -- three voter registration documents for non-existent individuals arrived in my mailbox from a liberal group.
Looks like I'm not alone.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The voter registration form arrived in the mail last month with some key information already filled in: Rosie Charlston's name was complete, as was her Seattle address.
Problem is, Rosie was a black lab who died in 1998.
A group called the Voter Participation Center has touted the distribution of some 5 million registration forms in recent weeks, targeting Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as unmarried women, blacks, Latinos and young adults.
But residents and election administrators around the country also have reported a series of bizarre and questionable mailings addressed to animals, dead people, noncitizens and people already registered to vote.
Brenda Charlston wasn't the only person to get documents for her pet: A Virginia man said similar documents arrived for his dead dog, Mozart, while a woman in the state got forms for her cat, Scampers.
"On a serious note, I think it's tampering with our voting system," Charlston said. "They're fishing for votes: That's how I view it."
What's shocking is that one state official -- from New Mexico -- admits that fraudulent registrations will make it onto the rolls. Officials in other states aren't so honest about the matter.
It's enough to make you wonder why Eric Holder is opposed to voter ID laws -- or maybe it is more accurate to say it helps you understand why the Obama Regime is so desperate to make sure that every illegal vote gets cast and counted.
Especially when it involves exposing falsehoods emanating from the Obama campaign regarding Mitt Romney.
Take this exchange between NBC’s Savannah Guthrie and Romney campaign advisor Ed Gillespie.
GUTHRIE: Ed, I want to get to a new ad that your campaign is putting out today, that responds to President Obama's campaign's allegations that Bain Capital – which Romney of course headed up for many, many years – outsourced jobs. Here's a portion of the ad from the Romney campaign today.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN [ROMNEY AD NARRATOR]: When a president doesn't tell the truth, how can we trust him to lead? The Obama outsourcing attacks, "misleading, unfair and untrue." There was "no evidence" that Mitt Romney shipped jobs overseas.
GUTHRIE: Ed, before we get into the specifics of the charge, let's just ask you point-blank, is – are you calling the President a liar?
GILLESPIE: What we're saying, Savannah, is that this ad that has been running saying that Governor Romney as CEO of Bain Capital moved American jobs overseas is a lie. If you look at – that's based on numerous independent fact-checking – independent fact-checking organizations. Just three yesterday came out and said there's no evidence to support the charges in this campaign. There's another ad running in northern Virginia by the Obama campaign which completely misrepresents Governor Romney's views on the issue of life.
We have an obligation as a campaign to make sure that when voters vote, they vote based on true information, that they have accurate information on which to base their vote, and right now these – the Obama campaign ads have been shown to be demonstrably false and that's a – you know, those – that's another way of saying a lie, obviously.
Frankly, I find the answer given to be way too complicated – and think the response to a follow-up question is even worse.
The proper answer should have been “Yes, I am accusing the President and/or his campaign staff of lying – and every independent fact-checking organization has found that to be the case. So unless President Obama is such a weak and incompetent leader that he can’t keep his campaign from recycling charges that are demonstrably false, then the only conclusion we can make is that he is willing to give approval to lies in a desperate effort to be reelected.”
Of course, that would immediately elicit charges of racism – but given that Democrats have so debased that word by labeling all disagreement with and opposition to Barack Obama as racist, who cares?
By the way -- here's the ad that is the basis for the conversation above.
And it is pretty clear that the proffered excuse is a lie.
Convention organizers said the president’s office cited a “scheduling conflict” as the reason he couldn’t attend. (Obama spent today in Washington D.C., and has no major public events.)
In my opinion, it means one of two things -- either Obama takes the votes of African-Americans for granted, or he is afraid to be around black people.
Then again, maybe that assessment is not fair -- perhaps that should have been "Obama takes the votes of African-Americans for granted AND he is afraid to be around black people."
Blowhard liberal Bob Beckel went off on Allen West on The Five today,
“Everybody has a right to speak even if it’s stupid things that they say… When I said he was a blowhard I know where that comes from because I am too. I don’t know what he ever did. I went down and registered blacks in the south. Did he ever do that? I got beat up by a bunch of rednecks in the south. Did he ever do it? I went and demonstrated in front of a Denny’s because they wouldn’t serve black people. Did he ever do it?… He called us a racist which is absolutely obscene. It’s OK Allen I forgive you. You’re ignorant and it’s sophomoric.“
So let's get this straight -- Bob Beckel, a white guy (and a Yankee, no less) has the audacity to tell a black man from a southern state what racism is, and to call him ignorant for daring to disagree with his betters. Mind you, the black man is a conservative, a congressman, and a career military officer who put his life on the line in combat so that Beckel can freely spew his ignorant crap on the airwaves of this great country. Seems to me that Beckel is the one who is ignorant and sophomoric, not West.
But then again, maybe Beckel had a point and was right to double-down on his criticism of the Congressman. I mean, Congressman West had the audacity to say that white liberals have a condescending attitude towards black people. Why shouldn't Beckel call out West, an uppity black man who doesn't know his place is supposed to be in the ranks of liberals, following the lead of more enlightened white liberals like Beckel? And after all, Beckel did show himself to be the bigger man -- he even forgave the retired Army Lieutenant Colonel for not knowing his place and criticizing his betters. It is a good thing that America has smart white guys like Beckel to tell dumb black people what they ought to believe.
And who knows -- if Fox News has the integrity to fire Beckel for this second display of racism against West in the last two days, perhaps he go to work for the white billionaire spending tons of money to try to end West's political career.
I raised the question of Barack Obama skipping the NAACP convention in a post several days ago, and applied the same standard to him that would have been applied to Mitt Romney -- referring to Obama as a "racist presidential candidate" for failing to speak to the nation's oldest civil rights group. The title of the post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek -- but it does seem that Obama has a penchant for avoiding African-Americans.
According to the National Newspaper Publishers Association also known as the Black Press of America, President Obama is avoiding Black media outlets.
This past June, the NNPA held its annual convention in Atlanta. One discussion panel, “Get Out the Vote,” became a venue of criticism over how the president and his administration deal with black owned media outlets.
The Chicago Crusader, a member paper of the NNPA reports that, “African-American newspaper publishers expressed strong displeasure over what they deemed the failure of the President Obama’s Administration to accommodate the needs of the Black Press.”
The Crusader goes on to highlight the discussion as it unfolded.
“We don’t think the president has ever spoken to us. He’s spoken to the Latino community… This is the first president since Franklin Roosevelt that has not invited the Black Press to the White House (for an interview).” –Robert W. Bogle, Publisher of the Philadelphia Tribune and former NNPA President
“I have made several requests that we be allowed to have an interview. All 200 of us cannot get an interview with the president, that’s unreasonable…But for a national organization such as NNPA to not be allowed to interview the president, that’s unacceptable.” –Dorothy Leavell, former NNPA President
But, it isn’t only President Obama that is avoiding the Black Press. The Crusader also reports that other African-American media outlets have experienced difficulties when it comes to getting interviews with the first lady. “Heart & Soul magazine, a health and fitness magazine for women of color, offered to place Michelle Obama on the cover but they, too, were denied an interview…”
And when a group of black pastors sought to meet with him regarding gay marriage? They were unwelcome.
And as I pointed out in that earlier post, Obama has sent surrogates to speak at predominantly black groups during this year's campaign rather than go himself -- including the NAACP convention.
One has to wonder -- is Barack Obama afraid of black people? Or does he just think he can ignore them because he has their votes all locked up?
Let's be honest -- Mitt Romney could not have expected to receive overwhelming support yesterday when he spoke to the NAACP national convention in Houston. After all, African-Americans are a reliably Democrat voting bloc, and with a black president in the White House, it was unlikely that a white challenger would get much support from the audience. As it was, the reception was about as warm as might have been expected.
"I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president," he said. "I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color -- and families of any color -- more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president."
His audience greeted him with respectful, if not enthusiastic applause, and applauded occasionally at points throughout the speech –- until he said he would eliminate ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago. The audience responded with thundering boos. His listeners also booed a few minutes later when he said he would be a more responsive president to the African-American community than the current occupant of the White House.
Frankly, it showed a certain amount of courage for Romney to walk into that hall and speak to that audience. And I'll note that it took a level of courage that we will never see from Barack Obama. The President, you see, is noted for not speaking to audiences that are likely to be hostile -- indeed, he goes out of his way to make sure that his speaking events are either filled with supporters or include those whose polite reception he can coerce. You will never, for example, see Obama stand up before an audience of Tea Party activists -- a group that would be as likely to support him as the NAACP is likely to back Romney -- and make the case for his policies. That would take a level of political courage that the incumbent just does not have.
Here's hoping this demand is rejected.
Lawyers for accused Sept. 11 attacks mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four co-defendants are seeking to postpone their Aug. 8-12 hearing at Guantánamo, noting it falls toward the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
The trial judge, Army Col. James Pohl, set the date for the hearing in May and specifically ruled out an extension on grounds that it coincided with Islam’s fasting month. He noted in his order then that no defense lawyer at that point had raised objection to a hearing that coincided with Ramadan.
But the attorneys do just that in a June 21 filing currently under seal on the Pentagon’s war court website entitled “Joint Defense Motion for the Military Commission to Respect the Religious Observances of Enemy Prisoners under Common Article 3.”
Pohl is hearing motions in another Guantánamo case next week. But that hearing ends by July 19, before Ramadan starts. The 9/11 case pre-trial motions would be heard toward the end of Ramadan.
“The last 10 days of Ramadan commemorate the night God —Allah— revealed the Holy Quran to the Prophet Mohammed,” said James Connell III, the Pentagon-paid defense counsel for Mohammed’s nephew, Ammar al Baluchi. “These 10 days are the most holy period of the Muslim calendar and are typically observed by fasting, prayer, and seclusion.”
This should be rejected for two reasons.
The first is that our courts do not run according to Islamic law -- that would violate the First Amendment.
The second is even more straightforward. We've seen over the last dozen years or so that Islamic terrorists do not stop planning terrorist attacks during Ramadan and do not stop committing terrorist attacks during Ramadan. Why, then, should we refrain from trying Islamic terrorists during Ramadan -- and hopefully executing them during Ramadan as well?
Coming on the heels of a decision to grant illegal aliens an amnesty specifically rejected by Congress and an earlier decision to "defer" deportation procedures against "law abiding" illegal aliens (which is an oxymoron), I'm left uncomfortable by this decision.
The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states, triggering a backlash from local law enforcement, members of Congress and Border Patrol agents themselves.
Critics of the move warn the closures will undercut efforts to intercept drug and human traffickers in well-traveled corridors north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Though the affected stations are scattered throughout northern and central Texas, and three other states, the coverage areas still see plenty of illegal immigrant activity -- one soon-to-be-shuttered station in Amarillo, Texas, is right in the middle of the I-40 corridor; another in Riverside, Calif., is outside Los Angeles.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it's closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.
One does have to wonder precisely how closing these stations is going to make the nation's borders more secure. And in light of earlier decisions -- including adopting policies that require Border Patrol Agents use beanbags instead of bullets to confront violent drug traffickers -- this rings rather hollow.
"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally," CBP spokesman Bill Brooks said in a statement. "By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission."
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems to have adopted a policy of "let 'em in & let 'em stay" for the bulk of those crossing our border illegally (not that any prior administration has done a better job), so I have to question what it means when they claim they are trying to "maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate."
Any time we talk about photo ID laws related to voting, my fellow proponents bring up the need for photo IDs to get on airplanes, cash checks, and a variety of other things. Opponents then point out, correctly, that none of those things are rights. Thus the two sides remain at loggerheads over the issue, each making valid points that talk right past each other.
Well, Eric Holder, head of the Obama Regime's Department of "Just Us" gave another race card playing speech on the topic today at the NAACP convention. I won't bore you with the details, -- suffice it to say he used all the
right left buzzwords -- "racism", "civil rights", "poll tax" -- as he sought to tar supporters of voter ID laws (and opponents of the Obama Regime in general) as advocates of the second coming of slavery and Jim Crow.
But the national media failed to report something about the event that was significant -- and it was left to a local talk show host and the right side of the blogosphere to bring this matter to light. Journalists were required to present a government-issued photo ID in order to cover the Holder speech!
This is a real press release sent out by the real Department of Justice. *** PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTICE OF WHERE IT SAYS NOTE: *** Double standard much? Pags
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER TO DELIVER REMARKS TOMORROW TO
NAACP NATIONAL CONVENTION
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder will deliver remarks at the NAACP National Convention during the plenary session on TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012, at 12:00 p.m. EDT/11:00 a.m. CDT.
WHO: Attorney General Eric Holder
WHAT: Remarks at the NAACP National Convention
WHEN: TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012
12:00 p.m. EDT/
11:00 a.m. CDT
WHERE: George R. Brown Convention Center
1001 Avenida De Las Americas
NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials athttp://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 9:45 a.m. CDT for a 10:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to REDACTED.
Got that -- government issued photo ID was required to cover the speech. But isn't engaging in journalism a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Yep, it is!
Amendment I -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, if requiring photo ID is a poll tax because of the cost of the documents required to get a government issued ID and the fact that one has to travel to get such an ID constitutes a poll tax (part of Holder's argument against voter ID laws), then doesn't the requirement that journalists present a government issued ID constitute a tax upon the exercise of one's First Amendment right to engage in journalism? And doesn't that constitute a violation of one's civil rights? It would certainly appear to be the case.
And let's not forget, entering the headquarters of the Department of Justice in Washington also requires visitors to present a government ID. Doesn't that constitute a tax upon the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by denying them access to the government unless they have first paid the price to acquire that government issued photo ID?
Seems to me that Eric Holder has a problem -- either he believes that there can be a tax required to exercise one's constitutional rights, or he does not. Which is it?
Remember -- it was the "youth vote" that was so important to electing Barack Obama. Seems appropriate that they are getting the full impact of his economic policies.
The Class of 2012 may have few reasons to celebrate this year. Along with the long-term unemployed, experts say their prospects are the bleakest among all job-seekers.
The U.S. economy added a lower-than-expected 80,000 jobs last month, according to data Friday from the Labor Department. Though the overall unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.2%, experts say this year’s 1.8 million college graduates have a rough job search ahead. “Over the last five years, the jobs situation has gotten increasingly intense for each successive graduating class,” says Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit think-tank based in Arlington, Va. “Their concern is now palpable.”
The last half-decade has not been good to graduates. Only a half of those who graduated since 2006 are now employed full time, according to a recent Rutgers University survey. More college graduates are settling for jobs that in years past would have gone to those without degrees, while people in their 30s are now occupying jobs once taken by recent graduates, says Carl Van Horn, professor of public policy and director of Rutgers’ John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.
But if all the young people who’ve already given up looking for jobs are included — the 1.7 million people aged 18-29 who’ve been out of work for more than a year — the latest 8.2% unemployment figure would be closer to 16.8% for that age group, Conway says. That’s the highest unemployment rate for that age group since World War II. “Their story is one of few opportunities, delayed dreams, and stalled careers,” he says.
I wonder -- will they smarten up and help vote Obama out this fall? Or will they double-down on economic ruination by voting for him again?
H/T Gateway Pundit
Give me an "HYP"!
Give me an "OCR"!
Give me an "ISY!"!
What oes it spell?
And that is what any reasonable person will call this comment from Barack Obama.
"What's important, if you are running for president, is that the American people know who you are what you've done and that you're an open book," Obama said. "And that's been true of every presidential candidate dating back to Mr. Romney's father."
Well, not EVERY presidential candidate.
After all, Barack Obama never released his college transcripts.
Obama's college thesis paper on Soviet Nuclear Disarmament.
Obama's passport records.
Obama's medical records.
The client list from Obama's time as a practicing attorney.
And don't forget that Barack Obama's official papers from his time in the Illinois Senate -- which are supposed to be public records -- mysteriously went missing.
Amazing the softballs this reporter tossed at the president; it almost sounds like he’s working for the Democratic National Committee. Wonder why he didn’t follow up by asking the candidate who believes his opponent should be an open book about the “38 instances in which [his] biographer [David Maraniss] convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama’s own story of his life and his family history.”
Seems a guy who believes a presidential candidate should be an “open book” would be forthcoming about misrepresentations in his own memoir.
In other words, the guy who demands that his opponent be "an open book"is clearly not one himself -- and where he has been "an open book" has apparently been been a work of fiction.
Indeed, he'd better be glad we have the Electoral College, otherwise this would spell almost certain defeat for him.
Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
Of course, the distribution of these likely voters is not even across the country as a whole, and so it is likely that those who see Obama's impact as negative are likely clustered together, while those who support him are similarly clustered. I would love to see this done state by state to get a true feel for the mood of the country.
Now I've not commented on the recent reports that Houston City Councilwoman Helena Brown is being investigated regarding the alteration of employee time cards in her office. I've stayed out for two reasons:
Of course, local liberal bloggers have not held back, and I would not expect them to do so -- after all, nobody can legitimately argue that the alleged offenses are not legitimate fodder for comment. But while I think the allegations against Brown are fair game, I would have hoped that the commentary would not degenerate into misogyny.
That was, of course, a vain hope.
And so I give you the comments found on a post at the local cesspool of progressive hatemongering that I have highlighted in the past.
I bring these comments to light here because of a few things that make them particularly notable.
Now I might not have bothered commented on the juvenile sexism of these comments were it not for another recent development. You see, the blogger who writes at BayAreaHatemonger has ascended to new heights in the Texas political firmament.
Senate District 11 delegates to the Democratic state convention met in a caucus last Friday afternoon and chose delegates to represent them in various capacities, including national convention delegates and Senate District Executive Committee (SDEC) representatives.
Those elected were:
* * *
SDEC male - John Cobarruvias
Yep -- the blogger over at BayAreaHatemonger is now a member of the top governing body of the Texas Democratic Party. I'm sure the female SDEC members serving with him will be pleased to know how highly he thinks of women and the sort of refined language he uses towards those women he disagrees with. I just wonder how such comments align with the platform that Texas Democrats adopted the same week that he got selected for this position.
To protect our rights and freedoms, Democrats support: ·∙ action against all forms of discrimination and sexual harassment;
While I would never argue that John's speech should be limited in any way, I'm struck by the way in which the comments on the website are at odds with the spirit of a platform plank that I'm sure he would profess to support.
Then again, what's a little hypocrisy among liberals?
My fellow members of the Watcher's Council and I -- along with some special guests -- offer our views on who Romney will pick, and who he ought to pick.
While not all of us agree, I think it is fair to say that many of us believe that folks should get used to seeing a lot of this couple.
Here are this week’s full results.
See you next week!
"I suspect that most people in Cincinnati would acknowledge that I've tried real hard...
I'm willing to accept -- just for the sake of argument -- that you have "tried real hard. But the end result is that you have failed at the major task that faced you when you became president -- getting the US economy back on an even keel.
The deficit us triple what it was under your predecessor. We long for the debt level under George W. Bush -- a debt level you declared to be unpatriotic. Not one more American has a job today than did when you took office -- despite the fact that there are 7 million or so more Americans today. You sold America a bill of goods with ObamaCare -- and still keep insisting that you didn't raise taxes with the program despite the fact that is manifestly untrue.
Fine, I'll give you an "E" for effort -- but an "F" for results.
And if you don't like the classroom analogy, how about a football one?
In the NFL, every head coach tries real hard -- but at the end of every season (and sometimes sooner) we see coaches fired. Every player tries real hard -- but some of them get cut in training camp, some get cut during the season, and others get cut after the final game is played. Never is it a question of whether or not they are liked or what their race is -- and only rarely is it a question of heart. It comes down to the results they have gotten -- and you have had a loosing season.
In other words, Mr. President, under the most charitable reading of your record, you need to go. Maybe you can find yourself a spot on the roster of the Arena Football League.
After finishing his recitation of the Declaration of Independence during the city of Delray Beach’s Independence Day festivities, Congressman Allen West was verbally accosted in front of a small group of constituents and media. West was just about to speak with a local TV station when he was interrupted by the lone detractor that seemed to have had one too many Miller Lites.
The individual flipped West the bird, and told him that he was a ”bought Mother F*cker.” We stopped the guy and asked him why he had to use foul language in front of women and children.
He then proceeding to try to say that conservatism was the root cause of slavery and women’s suffrage. Towards the end of the impromptu interview, we discovered that he is a ‘Bible Man’, citing the Bible and accusing yours truly of not reading the Bible, all while flipping me the bird. This video is priceless!
There's video of the incident out there, but the national media won't report the incident. Contrast that with the "phantom loogie" allegedly directed at a congressman back during the ObamaCare debate -- that was deemed to be racist and national news, though video showed it to be less a case of intentionally spitting as it was someone getting unintentionally sprayed by a shouter.
I've noted a couple of times that Supreme Court Rule 44 allows the filing of a petition for rehearing by the losing party in any case decided by the Supreme Court. I've highlighted a number of statements by Obama Administration officials an Obama campaign surrogates that called into question the sincerity of the argument made by Obama's Solicitor General that ObamaCare's penalty is really a tax -- the basis used by the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare.
What we have lacked, however, is any statement by President Obama himself affirming that the penalty is not a tax.
President Obama, confronted with the issue of the Supreme Court upholding his health care law by declaring the individual mandate a tax, contradicted the court by saying that the individual mandate “penalize[s]” Americans rather than taxes them.
“You have to take responsibility, and if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized for it, and that’s the right thing to do,” Obama told WDTN-NBC while defending the individual mandate. He also denied that the court’s ruling means that he has raised taxes through Obamacare. “I have consistently kept my promise not to raise taxes on people [making] under $250,000 a year.”
In other words, the President himself has now declared that the law contains no tax (which would be constitutional under the ObamaCare decision), only a penalty (which the decision states is not constitutional).
Obama's comments are indicative that he and his legal team perpetrated a fraud upon the court. That is grounds for rehearing -- provided one of the justices who voted to uphold the law is willing to vote for it. Will Chief Justice Robers, the architect of the Taxation Clause decision, have the integrity to grant a rehearing if a petition is filed? And will those who challenged ObamaCare in the first place step up to plate and file the requisite paperwork -- and pay the princely sum of $300 -- within the next 17 days in order to get the ball rolling on the process of getting this constitutional travesty overturned?
But Barack Obama will likely get the organization's endorsement anyway.
The NAACP will hear Republican candidate Mitt Romney speak at their annual convention in Houston but President Obama is not planning to attend the NAACP event this year. Reporters were informed last week that either the President, the Vice President or the first lady would attend the NAACP’s 103rd convention. Obama 2012 announced last night that Vice President Joe Biden will address the group.
Romney will address the NAACP on Wednesday, July 11. The last time President Obama addressed the NAACP was 2009 in New York. President Obama spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) in Florida a day after Romney on June 22.
President Obama will speak to the National Urban League convention in New Orleans in two weeks in one of his few speeches to a sizeable African American audience this year. First lady Michelle Obama spoke at the African Methodist Episcopal Conference in Nashville last week.
Isn't it troubling that we have a president who can't be bothered to speak to an organization that bills itself as America's premiere civil rights organization -- and who seems intent upon avoiding appearing before black groups, choosing to send surrogates in his place?
Of course, maybe Barack Hussein Obama doesn't want to speak to a group that was founded by Republicans to combat the racist policies of Democrats and their paramilitary terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan.
Or maybe it is just that he doesn't particularly value African-Americans because they are going to roll over and give him their votes despite the devastating impact of ObamaNomics on the African-American community.
Then again, it could be something more prosaic -- like a refusal by the organization to take up all the flatware before Obama address
More people went on disability than there were jobs created last month.
U.S. payrolls expanded by just 80,000 net jobs in June keeping the unemployment rate flat at 8.2 percent, new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows.
The private sector only expanded by some 84,000 positions.
Economists polled by Bloomberg had forecast a gain of 100,000 positions during the month, with private payrolls advancing 106,000.
The disappointing report, which follows several months of weak economic gains, has sent U.S. markets sharply lower.
Millan Mulraine, an economist with TD Securities, attributed the gains to the manufacturing industry, which improved by 11,000 jobs this June. The service sector added 71,000 positions, down from 81,000 a month earlier.
However, Mulraine said the new data continues to emphasize the stagnating labor market recovery.
"The slow pace of jobs growth underscores the weakening economic growth momentum and reinforces the perception that the economy has remain mired in another soft patch," Millan says. "With the labor market recovery appearing to be stalled, the case for further policy accommodation will likely be strengthened, particularly given the benign inflationary background."
Remember – according to the Obama Administration, the stimulus of his first year would have brought unemployment to 5.6% by now. Call that another Obama promise not lived up to be the Failure-in-Chief.
Five million jobs.
That's how many the economy has still failed to recover since the Great Recession officially ended three years ago.
The nation lost nearly 8.8 million jobs between January 2008 and February 2010. Since then, it's regained more than 3.8 million — less than 44 percent.
The economy has added just 137,000 jobs a month since employment hit bottom. At that pace, it would take three more years for employment to return to where it was in January 2008.
Remember—February 2010 is when we supposedly began a “recovery”. After 2 ½ years we’ve recovered less than half of the jobs lost during the recession.
In most cases, the free market works quite well to meet needs. Sometimes, however, there is a need for incentives for businesses to undertake activities that benefit the public but which might not otherwise be profitable. This is clearly one of them.
When all else failed, the promise of corporate profits for pediatric cancer drugs did what cajoling to save children could not.
Legislation by Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, soon to be signed by President Barack Obama, will offer drug companies multimillion-dollar incentives to pioneer medications for rare childhood diseases that afflict too few kids to make a profit.
The legislation is meant to remedy a chronic mismatch in which the FDA has approved dozens of new drugs to combat adult cancers since 1980 - and only one for the treatment of childhood cancer.
"We're giving companies incentives to make money because the free market has failed to develop these medications," says McCaul, a five-term Austin Republican and father of five who founded the 94-member Congressional Childhood Cancer Caucus.
Let’s be honest – childhood cancers are relatively rare. As a result, there really is not an economy of scale that makes it possible for drug companies to develop and manufacture drugs to treat these devastating diseases. At such times, there really can be no objections to government aiding these companies to do what otherwise might never be done.
This is an issue that resonates with me. A friend’s young grandson has been fighting a rare cancer since just after Christmas. The disease is aggressive and the treatments are experimental. It is difficult for a four-year-old and his family -- and the latest round of bad news came this week. If this sort of investment saves the lives of children in the future, it will be worth it.
During today's bus tour, Barack Obama had the following to say.
Pres Obama again tells supporters "the other side" will spend more money than ever and rain ads down on them saying "it's all my fault."— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) July 5, 2012
To that end, the campaign has rolled out this new campaign music.
Lyrics below the fold.Continue to be enlightened while reading "Obama Rolls Out New Campaign Theme Music" Â»
It's Not My Fault
Listen up I got something to say
I wanna say it now, before it's too late
It's important for you to know, just how I feel
I don't need to say
Where I was
or What I said
I don't have to defend myself
I'm not like that
I'm not like that
It's not my fault
So don't blame me
It's not my fault
Saw it on TV
It's not my fault
It was the voices in my head
It's not my fault
They got my full of dread
I got nothing to hide
But I'll say it anyway
No one should even try to blame me
It's important that you know, it wasn't me
I don't need to say
Where I was
or What I said
I don't have to defend myself
I'm not like that
I'm not like that
I can't say who's fault it was
But I'm sure that it's not me
Responsibility's just a word
And it's not my fault
That life's a joke
It's not my fault
Your car is broke
It's not my fault
You're in therapy
It's not my fault
You're a casuality
It's not my fault
I couldn't help myself
It's not my fault
I was afraid for my life!
It's not my fault
She can't find somebody nice
It's not my fault
She wants to struggle inside!
I don't need to say
Where I was
or What I said
I don't have to defend myself
I'm not like that
I'm not like that
I can't say who's fault it was
But I'm sure that it's not me
Responsibility's just a word
Heared it more than frequently
I can find excuses for minut details at the scene
The one thing I know is that
It's not my fault!
Â« All done with "Obama Rolls Out New Campaign Theme Music"?
My favorite Founding Father has long been John Adams. I came across a quote that was new to me today, and want to share it.
The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.
This is from his February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles. What do you think?
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinian president cleared the way Wednesday for a possible autopsy on Yasser Arafat's remains, following a request from his widow after a Swiss lab said it found elevated levels of a lethal radioactive isotope on the longtime Palestinian leader's belongings.
The developments have reignited a storm of speculation over what killed Arafat, who died on Nov. 11, 2004 at the age of 75 at a military hospital outside Paris after decades of fighting with Israel.
Arafat's widow, Suha, who rejected an autopsy at the time of his death, said she wanted one done now in the wake of the lab's findings, first reported by the Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera. In an interview with the station, she did not explain why she waited nearly eight years to have the belongings, including a toothbrush and a fur hat, tested.
I'd be most gratified to find out that either the Israelis or the US took out this terrorist scumbag -- but given the method, I can't help but wonder if it was the Russians or someone working for them. After all, they have a history of using polonium for assassinations.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
The day Alexandra Pennell addressed an anti-hate rally at Central Connecticut State University about the anti-gay messages scrawled on her door, police had begun to question her claims.
Twice the video surveillance system placed in Pennell's room to help police identify the person responsible for scrawling the notes had been disabled, in one case just before a note was slid under Pennell's dorm room door.
Police say only after they set up a second camera in a hall closet — a camera that Pennell did not know about — did they learn the truth: Pennell had been writing the notes herself.
The good news? This is one of those cases where the authorities are actually going to prosecute the faux "victim" of hate. Unfortunately, the charges in question do not include charging her with a hate crime against the groups she explicitly and implicitly blamed for encouraging "hate" against her.
Can't you just feel the love from Bob Beckel?
BECKEL: For me to call somebody fat is a big step. For this guy [Rep. Peter King] to suggest he knows the president of the United States and White House leaked this, he doesn't have a clue. If you say something like that, it's almost treasonous, the idea that Barack Obama would leak that is obscene and to suggest that Michelle Malkin, if I was Juan I'd wake up next to her with a shotgun.
Michelle Malkin dared to show up Juan Williams, so she deserves killing? And criticism of Barry Hussein is treasonous? He qualifies as a stunt double for Joe Biden with that crap.
Time for Fox to dump Beckel.
While attending a gathering that provides all the evidence of why this Republican teacher is right to be a non-union teacher.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told the country’s largest teacher’s union Tuesday that the Republican party, led by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, doesn’t respect them.
“The fact of the matter is, we have a fundamentally different view. [Romney] doesn’t think that you all know much about to educate. His allies characterize you as not caring about students, but caring about yourselves,” Mr. Biden said in a speech at the National Education Association’s annual conference. As the largest labor union in the nation with more than 3 million members, the NEA is a key constituency for Mr. Biden’s and President Obama’s re-election hopes.
Mr. Biden found a friendly audience among NEA members, many of whom wore “Educators for Obama” T-shirts and chanted “four more years” as the vice president finished his remarks.
The speech was a key opportunity for Mr. Biden to rally big labor, which is still reeling from a crushing defeat in last month’s attempt to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The first-term Republican drew the ire of the NEA and other unions after implementing limits to the collective bargaining rights of state workers, including teachers.
Let's look at What Biden had to say -- beyond his mangled syntax in the first sentence.
He is exactly right -- many of us don't think that teachers unions and their officials give a damn about educating students. After all, the union is all about making sure its members get more pay and more job security -- and if that means defending bad teachers and those who have engaged in gross misconduct, then too bad for the kids. I'll never forget a colleague of mine -- a member (and building rep) of the one faculty organization in my district that is unambiguously a union -- stood up and announced that the best reason to join hi s group was that they would make sure the district could never fire you for anything short of touching a kid, and that's why he still had a job.
Sadly, in too many parts of the country teachers have no freedom to choose whether or not to be a member of the NEA or some other teachers organization -- membership is compelled. Again, that is about making sure that the professional organizers live high on the hog. Never mind the interests of those who don't want to be a member -- like the victims of a mafia shakedown, they have the choice of paying up or losing their livelihood. That's what the Scott Walker recall effort was all about -- the ability of the union to extort dues from the unwilling and to coerce unreasonable contracts from the taxpayers.
Do Republicans hate teachers? Hardly -- but we do have a problem with teachers unions.
I'll be honest -- I don't worry much about webhosting for this website, because I'm blessed to have a friend who graciously offered to host my site on his server. That said, I've from time to time thought about registering an additional domain name and having traffic for the site redirected elsewhere. The thing is, I'd need a new webhost -- and I don't want to spend the time seeking out hosting services elsewhere.
Continue to be enlightened while reading "Web Hosting" Â»
But guess what? There is an easier way to deal with that sort of issue. Over at www.webhostingservices.us, you can find an extensive list of web hosts and details about their services and costs. Just think -- you don't need to track down the information, because the folks at this site have done it for you. And best of all, they break things down into different types of web hosting packages, so you can tell who is better for commercial sites, blogs, or whatever your particular needs might be. Just looking around, I found a hosting service that will host me for an incredibly low price, register a domain for me for free, and keep it free for me as long as they host my site. Who knows -- you may see a new address appearing above.
This is a sponsored post.
Â« All done with "Web Hosting"?
Anyone who is surprised that Anderson Cooper is gay has clearly been living under a rock.
The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.
I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues. In a perfect world, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I’m not an activist, but I am a human being and I don't give that up by being a journalist.
Come on -- everyone has known this for years. And to be honest, few people have cared about it for equally as long. He seems to be an nice, intelligent professional guy. As long as he keeps being that, Cooper I don't care. He is a perfect contrast to Don Lemon, who is everything that that Cooper is not -- look at Lemon's thinly disguised activism in his supposedly objective journalism. I'd love to see fewer Lemons and more Coopers.
At first glance, one would think that this might take the issue of Obama raising taxes on Americans through ObamaCare right off the table.
Prominent Dems including White House chief of staff Jack Lew and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly argued in recent days that the fee for not buying insurance under the health care law is in fact a penalty and not a tax.
They got support from an unexpected quarter on Monday: the Romney campaign.
Mitt Romney's senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told Chuck Todd on MSNBC's Daily Rundown that he agrees - the fee is a penalty and not a tax, as the Supreme Court ruled last week.
"The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court," Fehrnstrom said. "He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice [Antonin] Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax."
Of course, that bit about Scalia is the tell here. The Romney camp is signaling that it agrees with Scalia’s assessment that the entire ObamaCare scheme is unconstitutional. I happen to agree with them – which is why I keep calling for a petition for rehearing under SCOTUS Rule 44.
White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew touted the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the president’s healthcare reform bill Sunday and warned Republicans to “move on” and drop efforts to undo the legislation.
“I don’t think the American people want to have this debate again,” said Lew about GOP efforts to repeal the health bill on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t think they want to be pulled back into decades of debate to get to where we are. We now have a law, the law is constitutional, we should implement it.”
Really? Every poll shows Americans oppose ObamaCare.
I don't think we need to "move on".
Indeed, I've got a different suggestion for Lew, his boss, and Congressional Democrats.
Another senior White House official concedes that the tax argument accepted by the Chief Justice was a fraud perpetrated upon the Supreme Court.
Never mind what the Supreme Court said — the White House is doubling down on its insistence that the individual mandate isn’t a tax.
Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said the mandate penalty is not a tax and the Supreme Court ruling didn’t make it so. And in any event, he said, very few people will have to pay it.
“First of all, the law is clear, it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled is that the law is constitutional. Actually, they didn’t call it a tax. They said it was using the power under the constitution that permits it. It was not labeled,” Lew said.
The problem is, of course, that Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Supreme Court held that ObmaCare is valid only because it is a tax on the American people. As Moe Lane points out, failure to accept that the penalty is a tax means conceding that ObamaCare is unconstitutional under the reasoning of the opinion that upheld the law.
When the law was passed, both Democrats in Congress and Barack Obama said it was not a tax -- then they argued in court that it was a tax. That constituted a fraud upon the American people -- and/or a fraud upon the Supreme Court.
Given that they are now back to claiming that it is not a tax, it becomes clear that the Obama Administration lied to the Supreme Court. Not only that, but the same folks now making the claim that it isn't a tax forget that the White House had the Solicitor General argue that ObamaCare was a tax.
As I pointed out the other day, there exists a remedy for Thursday's decision. Under the Supreme Court's Rule 44, a losing party may petition for a rehearing of the case within 25 days of the decision being made.
Rule 44. Rehearing
1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.
Now that the Obama Administration admits that its argument on the taxing power was not valid and that the penalty upheld as a tax is not a tax, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to correct the erroneous decision made last week. All it takes is five justices to grant the rehearing -- a number which must include one of those who was in the original majority. The obvious candidate for that fifth vote would be Chief Justice Roberts, who will undoubtedly wish to uphold the integrity and position of the Supreme Court within the American system of government. To do otherwise would be to inflict the sort of damage to the Court that Roberts apparently sought to avoid by voting to uphold ObamaCare in the first place.
Here are this week’s full results:
See you next week!