Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

March 31, 2013

Alleluia! He Is Risen!

resurrection[1].jpg



I've seen a life that was empty
I've seen a heart growing cold
Changed by a wonder that happened long ago
There is a transforming power
There is a power that saves
Life came, reaching out from an empty grave

Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Up from the dead
With the power to give
Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Jesus lives

Some say the body was stolen
Some say He never did die
I know He rose from the dead
And I'll tell you why

Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Up from the dead
With the power to give
Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Jesus lives

I've felt the touch of my Savior
I shared in His victory
I know that He is alive
He lives in me

Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Up from the dead
With the power to give
Up from the dead
The world has a Savior
Jesus lives





|| Greg, 04:33 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 29, 2013

Good Friday

564498_10151496712431108_1357664410_n[1].jpg

Now it was about the sixth hour,
and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
Then the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice,
He said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.”
Having said this,
He breathed His last.
So when the centurion saw what had happened,
he glorified God, saying,
“Certainly this was a righteous Man!”

Luke 23:44-47






|| Greg, 03:00 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 27, 2013

What Would Happen If A White Legislator Wrote Something Like This To A Black Citizen?

Citizen writes legislator a polite email regarding gun control proposals. Here's how the legislator responded.

racistdem.jpg

But since the races are reversed and it is a black legislator sending a racist email to a white constituent, there are likely to be few consequences. Just some pro forma condemnations, but no loss of committee assignments, censure by the body, or other actual punishments will be forthcoming -- and certainly not a forced resignation like you would see if a white Republican sent something like this in response to an email from an African-American.

And the greatest irony of all is that Mitchell is so lacking in self-respect that he is a part of the party that perpetrated slavery and segregation upon his "folk". Just goes to see that his ignorance extends to history as well as well as common decency.





|| Greg, 07:49 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

But What About Second Amendment Rights?

We’ve been hearing this argument about gay marriage recently – this time succinctly put by the person who blogs on behalf of Rachel Maddow.

Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests. Throughout American history, if all contentious decisions over civil rights were left solely to popular will and the political process, progress would have been very slow, indeed. It’s precisely why Americans have turned to their last available option — the courts — as a way of ensuring their rights are protected.

If they really believe this, I’m curious why liberals keep arguing to limit the right to keep and bear arms found in the Second Amendment, using the argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans support such restrictions. I thought “rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests.”

For that matter, what about the religious freedom rights of citizens, business owners, and religious institutions to not be forced to pay for abortions, birth control, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, sex changes and other procedures that violate their religious beliefs? Seems like folks want that right to be subject to popular vote, too.

Oh, I get it – only abortion and gay marriage are rights not up to a vote. The rights actually in the Bill of Rights are subject to popularity contests when liberals don’t like them.





|| Greg, 06:24 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (5) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Wissenswerte und faszinierende Sport Site mit Live Ergebnissen.

Auf dieser packenden Website gibt es neue und mitreißende News rund um das Thema Fussball live. Ebenso gibt es die informierendsten Neuigkeiten zu Bundesliga Live und Fussball Live, Primera Division, Champions League, Ligue 1, jedoch auch zu weiteren sehenswerten Fussball Live Themen. Allerdings das gänzlich Wichtigste der Internetseite: Ergebnisse live und Fussball live. Neben diesen Informationen bieten Reportagen und Background Infos über die Besten Fussballer wie Ferenc Puskas,Johan Cruyff,George Best und Franz Beckenbauer reichlich Unterhaltung. Unter anderem findet man Informationen über livescore, live tv, Ergebnisse live und Fussball Livestream.





|| Greg, 12:14 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 26, 2013

I Really Didn't Want To Write About The Obama Girls' Vacation

Unfortunately, the playing of the race card by Joan Walsh over at WaPo's money-losing vanity press, Salon.com, has forced me to take notice of a story I didn't think should be written about and which I therefore chose not to write about before now.

For those unfamiliar with the Spring Break festivities of the First Daughters', here's the report on the trip that appeared over on Breitbart.com.

Sasha and Malia Obama are quietly vacationing at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, Breitbart News has learned.

A source tipped Breitbart News off to the First Daughters’ spring vacation, which was not publicly announced or reported.

Breitbart subsequently confirmed President Barack Obama’s daughters’ trip with other sources. Both the White House and the Atlantis resort declined to confirm the report or comment, but another guest provided a photograph of Sasha and Malia at the resort.

Social media, including Twitter and Facebook, have also carried reports of the First Daughters' presence at Atlantis. One person who is at the resort wrote: “Rumor confirmed: friends saw the first daughters with a gaggle of friends being escorted to the held elevator.”

Hey, I don't care where 1%-ers like Barack and Michelle Obama let their over-privileged offspring spend a school holiday, even though they have spent the last few years dividing Americans by class and declaring the rich (you know, folks who have enough disposable cash during the worst economic times since the Great Depression to send their teenage daughters on trips to the Caribbean) to be greedy, spoiled and selfish exploiters of the common people who didn't earn what they have and don't pay their fair share in taxes. While it might be fun to write (for the millionth time) about the First Couple's hypocrisy, I really had no desire to expose the girls to any ridicule merely because of the Bad Parenting engaged in by the President and First Lady.

But then came the sound of a white liberal 1%-er journalist slapping down the race card because of the article -- and that merits some commentary on the column and therefore the original story.

Here's the beginning of Walsh's screed.

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything disrespectful of the girls in the article in question. After all, the article itself goes on to note that the vacation location of Sasha and Malia was disclosed by fellow vacationers on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. The girls were not stalked and they were not harassed -- Matthew Boyle wrote about what was clearly public knowledge based upon it being made available to the world at large on public forums that are commonly accessed by people around the world. That's not racist -- that's journalism, albeit of the People Magazine/Entertainment Weekly variety

No, what has Joan Walsh's panties in a knot is the fact that Boyle then went a bit further and made a connection between the trip and the budget battles going on between the girls' father (and his Democrat allies) and the GOP. That, you see, is just beyond the pale.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

So you see, there is an issue here. Barack Obama told tens of thousands of American taxpayers that because of the sequester there is just not enough money to allow them to visit the White House on their vacations -- ostensibly because of the cost of the Secret Service portion of the budget. But now the girls are vacationing in a foreign country with what is probably between $150,000 and $250,000 in Secret Service protection for the duration of the trip. Indeed, the cost of Secret Service protection alone could have allowed two or three weeks of additional White House tours for the 99% that the President professes to be for -- but clearly he is unwilling to be for the American people if it means he doesn't get to indulge his daughters' desire for a tropical vacation! Call it "belt tightening for thee, but not for me!" And that is something that the American people ought to be aware of if they are to reasonably and responsibly evaluate the President's stewardship of our nation's financial resources. And like it or not, Boyle engaged in journalism, not racism, by making the facts available to the American people and allowing them to draw their own conclusions about their relevance.

So what evidence does Walsh bring to bear in order to impute a racism as the motive for reporting this story? Not anything that Boyle said -- something that was said in the comments on the story! That is one of the standard tactics of hack bloggers on the left -- if you don't like what someone is saying but can't find anything truly wrong with it, instead tar the writer or speaker with what presumably like-minded people have to say about their story (even if that means posting racist/sexist/homophobic comments yourself just to ensure they are there for you to use). It is guilt by association -- a left-wing McCarthyism designed to indelibly tar one's opponent without going to the trouble of actually finding evidence that the opponent is actually guilty.

So no, it isn't racist to report that the US government has enough money in the budget to provide Secret Service protection for the First Daughters' Spring Break but not for the American people to visit the White House. It isn't racist to call the President out on his claims that armed guards in school make children unsafe while his daughters each have a heavily armed security detail (and, might I add, appropriately so). It isn't racist to criticize Barack Obama for cancelling a voucher program that allowed poor black kids from the District of Columbia to escape the city's failing schools while making it clear that those same schools were not good enough for his kids by sending them to an elite private academy for the children of the rich and powerful. Those are legitimate criticisms of a man who says one thing about policy for the rest of us but does something different -- often on the taxpayer's dime -- when it comes to his own family. Indeed, the racism is that demonstrated by liberals in the media and the political class who seek to treat Barack Obama as The Black President rather than as the 44th President of the United States who, incidentally, happens to be an African-American.





|| Greg, 08:08 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (4) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 25, 2013

A Response To Mayor Bloomberg On Infringing Upon Freedom

Well, at last the tinhorn dictator in New York City admits what his agenda is and has been all along – the limitation of the freedom of the American people.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Sunday: Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

Got that? The government knows best when it comes to freedom, and so folks like Michael Bloomberg have every right to step in and take your freedom away from you. Not all at once, of course – Americans would never stand for that. So bit by bit, drip by drip, they will strip us all of our liberties until we have none at left.

This is, of course, anathema to those who believe that it is the place of government to protect our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness – and yet, as Jefferson notes, we are often willing to put up with the inconveniences of such restrictions rather than take action to end them, and we tend towards the acceptance of government grown incrementally more oppressive rather than change that with which we are comfortable. But at some point it all becomes too much, and we will decide to throw off the yoke of government interference with our inalienable rights. That is the point at which folks like Bloomberg with find themselves facing imprisonment, exile, or execution.

Because after all, the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants – and there are certain times when we the people should hang freedom-infringing elected officials and bureaucrats from every streetlight in the land in the interest of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Do I suggest that now is the time? I do not. But then again, who would have thought it the time for these events in the not too distant past?

Mar2012X15CA1945MussoliniPhoto1[1].jpg
MUSSOLINI
deadromaniandictator.jpg
Ceaușescu
saddam_body_graphic_3part[1].jpg
Hussein
gaddafi2_2034999a[1].jpg
Gaddafi

Sic Semper Tyrannis!





|| Greg, 06:01 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Democrat Party Official Orders Students To Stamp On The Name Of Jesus

I’ve been called a bigot and a hatemonger for daring to express my opposition to the teachings of Islam and the violence that is associated with that faith. I’ve had folks question my fitness to teach because I‘ve dared suggest – outside of my classroom, not in it – that Muhammad was a false prophet and that the Quran is not the work of the same deity that I worship as a Christian. Indeed, the words of this blog – selectively edited for maximum distortion – were used to tar the GOP in the area as an extremist group because i am a lowly precinct chair.

So why is there no national outrage when a Democrat official takes to his classroom and directs his students to trample the name of the Son of God?

In the olden days, universities taught how to think. Now they teach what to think. Educators make it easy for students by helping them swallow pre-formed opinions — coercively if necessary, as recently demonstrated in Deandre Poole’s Intercultural Communications class at Florida Atlantic University. From CBS Miami:

Ryan Rotella, a junior from Coral Springs, said the incident began when his professor, Dr. Deandre Poole, asked students in the class to write the word “Jesus” on a piece of paper, fold it up, and step on it.

Rotella, a deeply religious Mormon, told CBS12 that he was offended and refused to participate in the exercise.

After Rotella told Dr Poole’s supervisor about this outrageous assignment, the situation was resolved — Rotella was suspended from the class.

Wow.

And I do mean WOW!

Burn a Quran and you’ll have national and international media condemning you and the President of the United States declaring your actions to be contrary to American values. Muslims will riot around the world over it. But if you do this you’ll be defended by your university, ignored by the media and our political leaders, and there will be not a single act of violence in protest.

Oh, yeah – and you’ll get to keep your position as the vice-chairman of the palm Beach Democrat Party. After all, Christians who actually believe and take their faith seriously are an easy and acceptable target today.

And if you dare to complain about such things, you will face a host of charges before a Kampus Kangaroo Kourt that will potentially end your entire academic career.





|| Greg, 04:58 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Libs Prove They Consider All Dissent From Their Policies To Be Based On Bigotry

One can’t disagree with Barack Obama without being a racist. One can’t oppose Michael Bloomberg without being an anti-Semite.

According to Chris Matthews, one cannot raise an issue about White House spending during the worst economic times since the Depression unless your real complaint is “Barack Obama is a n*gger!”

Chris Matthews’ week of hateful speech concluded on March 23 with the liberal MSNBC host going after Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann. 

Speaking on Friday, Matthews disgustingly, albeit all too predictably asserted that Bachmann’s criticism of President Obama was motivated by racist beliefs

And, of course, objecting to Michael Bloomberg’s gun ban proposals and other nanny-state policies is really just another way of calling the man a k*ke, according to Al Sharpton.

Monday's "Morning Joe" on MSNBC opened up a brand new line of attack on American's trying to retain their 2nd amendment rights. We've already grown accustomed to being called "racist" for opposing the president on gun control, tax and spend, big government, Obamacare, you name it... but now we learn, thanks to the NBC News morning show, that Americans criticizing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his virulent opposition to individual gun ownership is rooted in, wait for it: Anti-Semitism!

Never mind that there are principled reasons for objecting to the high costs associated with maintaining the First Family in a style that effete European royalty and third world dictators are accustomed to as our country lurches from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis – the default position of the left is that any criticism of Obama from the right is based upon a not-so-latent racism on the part of the critic. And never mind that there are legitimate reasons to object to gun control – objecting to Bloomberg’s efforts to impose gun control on the nation even though the Constitution says otherwise is really just another way of urging that Jews be sent back to the concentration camps. In other words, it is illegitimate for mere American citizens to criticize our betters who hold high public office, and is based upon hate.





|| Greg, 03:45 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

Here are this week’s full results.

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!





|| Greg, 03:34 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 22, 2013

This Would Have Made Johnson-Goldwater And Reagan-Mondale Look Like Close Races

I don’t think even I could have brought myself to vote for this pair if they had somehow pulled it off.

It’s one of the great untold stories of the 2012 presidential campaign, a tale of ego and intrigue that nearly upended the Republican primary contest and might even have produced a different nominee: As Mitt Romney struggled in the weeks leading up to the Michigan primary, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum nearly agreed to form a joint “Unity Ticket” to consolidate conservative support and topple Romney. “We were close,” former Representative Bob Walker, a Gingrich ally, says. “Everybody thought there was an opportunity.” “It would have sent shock waves through the establishment and the Romney campaign,” says John Brabender, Santorum’s chief strategist.

But the negotiations collapsed in acrimony because Gingrich and Santorum could not agree on who would get to be president. “In the end,” Gingrich says, “it was just too hard to negotiate.”

I respect some of Gingrich’s ideas – but not the man. I respect Rick Santorum as a man – but don’t see him as presidential material. The pair of them together would have been more than I could have stomached. I cannot imagine having voted for Obama instead, but (just as I did in one race this year) I might have cast a protest vote for a third party rather than vote for a GOP candidate I did not believe deserved the office they were running for.





|| Greg, 03:16 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 21, 2013

This Sums It Up Nicely

“Illegal immigrants are to immigration what shoplifters are to shopping.”

H/T Instapundit





|| Greg, 02:32 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Child Protection Agency And Cops Attempt Warrantless Raid Of Home Over Family Picture Showing Exercise Of Constitutional Right

You know, of course, which of the rights found in the Bill of Rights was being exercised.

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”

Moore was not arrested or charged.

A Dept. of Children and Families spokesperson told me they could not confirm or deny an investigation or raid had taken place due to government regulations.
“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline,” spokesperson Kristen Brown said. “We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry.”

I’ve got no problem with the agency following up on an allegation – I’ve had to call such agencies a number of times over the years in my professional capacity and fully expect them to investigate the reports I’ve made. What I don’t expect, however, is for them to send armed police officers demanding to perform warrantless searches based upon a photo of a kid with a rifle when neither the photo nor the conduct depicted in it constitutes criminal activity or abuse/neglect of a child.

Of particular concern is this part of the incident.

The family’s trouble started Saturday night when Moore received an urgent text message from his wife. The Carneys Point Police Dept. and the New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families had raided their home.

Moore immediately called Nappen and rushed home to find officers demanding to check his guns and his gun safe.

Instead, he handed the cell phone to one of the officers – so they could speak with Nappen.

“If you have a warrant, you’re coming in,” Nappen told the officers. “If you don’t, then you’re not. That’s what privacy is all about.”

With his attorney on speaker phone, Moore instructed the officers to leave his home.

“I was told I was being unreasonable and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe,” Moore wrote on the Delaware Open Carry website. “They told me they were going to get a search warrant. I told them to go ahead.”

The Fourth Amendment requires that government agents get search warrants before barging into homes and searching them. There has to be probable cause to get a warrant – and if officers do not have a warrant, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to refuse to permit a search. What’s more, refusal to voluntarily consent to a search can never rise to the level of probable cause that permits a search. As such, the officers in question were engaged in nothing short of intimidation of a law-abiding citizen.

By the way, why was there even a picture of the son with a rifle? Because the boy had just completed a hunter safety course and the proud father chose to memorialize the event with the photo he shared on Facebook. The rifle in question was a low caliber one – but even if it had been an AK-47 there would have been no legal grounds for doing more than making a basic inquiry because the gun is legal and the child holding it properly and safely under parental supervision is certainly legal.

On elast note – this incident shows one of the flaws in our laws on reporting abuse and neglect – the fact that reports can never lead to criminal or civil liability for the reporter. I understand the rationale for such immunity, but surely that immunity should not apply when the report is so clearly without merit as to bring into question the good faith of the reporter.





|| Greg, 02:31 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 19, 2013

California Courts Recommend Obama-esque Public Records Policy

At a time when the president who promised to have the "most transparent administration in history" has run an administration that is as opaque as mud on the windshield, why should we be surprised that the Democrat-controlled courts in the state of California are now proposing to close off access to public records for those who can't or won't "pay to play".

A proposal by the state’s judicial branch to charge $10 to view a public file at the Santa Rosa courthouse is being criticized by those who say it would limit access to public information.

A spokesman for the Judicial Council, the policy-making body of the courts, told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat the search fee would generate $6 million annually.

But open government advocates and some journalists say it will create an unfair financial barrier to public documents.

That isn't a fee for copies of public records or extensive research by public employees -- that is even to look at a public record down at the courthouse. And once the precedent is set for judicial records, how long until the practice becomes standard for access to other governmental records? How on earth can we have open government -- and public participation -- if there is a fee for even gaining access to records and documents that are needed to be fully informed? Apparently the powerful in California think that government is their private property, and that "we the people" should be made to pay for the privilege of gaining access to what is rightfully ours as citizens.





|| Greg, 06:19 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Democrat Declares Americans Not Paying Enough For Gas

So he wants to raise the gas tax at a time when gas prices are at a level that is making it difficult for Americans to fill their tanks.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) on Tuesday said Congress needs to pass legislation increasing the federal gasoline tax in order to pay for increased and ongoing demands on U.S. infrastructure.

DeFazio warned on the House floor that the federal highway trust fund will fall to zero by next year, and said the government is spending billions less on infrastructure each year, which is hurting job creation. He said a recent report from the American Society of Civil Engineers shows that the U.S. is falling behind on maintaining its infrastructure compared with other countries.

"We're going to have to talk about revenues, it's the only way to solve that problem," he said. "We can get a 100 percent rate of return. It's pretty simple. We would just index the existing gas tax — which hasn't changed since 1993."

DeFazio also complains that government isn’t getting its fair share of gasoline profits, which are currently going to the companies that, you know, actually make gasoline instead of the government which, you know, makes nothing except for regulatory burdens on business and increased tax burdens upon the American people.

UPDATE: Interesting that this information would come out at the same time Rep. DeFazio declares the government is not getting enough tax money from the oil companies -- three of the top 10 corporate taxpayers are oil companies!

H/T Hot Air





|| Greg, 02:56 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Real War on Women In Omaha

But you are unlikely to hear about it, because the target is a Republican woman and the perps are part of the Democrat coalition.

Jean Stothert, a Republican candidate with the potential to become Omaha's first female mayor, endured two assaults on her gender in the past week that one national observer said were among the most “disgusting” sexist attacks she had ever seen leveled at a woman politician.

One assault came in the form of a T-shirt that depicted Stothert as a stripper on a pole. It came with a crude word pun that revolved around the words: “private sector.”

A grinning Democratic City Councilman Chris Jerram was pictured holding the T-shirt in a snapshot that was making the Facebook rounds Monday. Jerram has since apologized to Stothert and to the “women of our community.”

The other alleged attack came from an anonymous Twitter account that used language needing a public disclaimer. If you don't want to be offended, stop reading now. The offensive Tweet included a reference to Stothert's vagina, blood and “a weekend on phrat row.”

Remember – it is only a big deal if such attacks make Republicans look bad. Attacks on Republican women – Condi Rice, Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman, -- are perfectly acceptable because they are so Republican, which makes them worthy of any sexist attack directed against them. Jean Strothert is simply one more victim of the double standard.





|| Greg, 02:50 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Race Card Demagoguery By Dems

Because opposing an Obama nominee on the merits is absolutely racist.

Democrats are defending President Barack Obama’s provocative March 18 pick to head the Department of Labor, Tom Perez, by highlighting his Hispanic heritage.

“This morning: RNC autopsy warned GOP to improve Hispanic outreach. This afternoon: Senate Rs fight Hispanic nominee,” said a tweet from Sen. Harry Reid’s digital media advisor, Faiz Shakir.

Brad Woodhouse, the spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, broadcast a tweet from teachers’ union leader, saying “This is why GOP does so poorly with Latinos. Perez deserves better.”

Perez is a man who is documented to not believe in equal protection of the law for all Americans. He is documented to have misled Congress, if not outright lied, regarding the decision to dismiss charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who intimidated voters during the 2008 election. He has been non-responsive to members of Congress who have made inquiries regarding the operation of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. As such, there are plenty of valid reasons for opposition to this nominee. To turn this into a racial kerfluffle is not frankly obscene.





|| Greg, 02:41 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (4) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 18, 2013

Not Everyone Needs A Degree

This year has been an interesting experience – for the first time I’ve been teaching some senior classes, including economics. A couple of weeks ago we were talking about unemployment and finding a job in today’s economy. I mentioned that the oil industry is begging for workers today – and that there are good paying jobs for folks who don’t have a college degree down in the Oil Patch and up in the Dakotas. Several of my students were outraged – because they thought I was encouraging them to not go to college. I wasn’t, of course – I was simply commenting on the fact that not every good job requires a college degree.

Which leads me to Marco Rubio and his observation this weekend.

Not everyone needs a four-year degree to be successful, said Republican Sen. Marco Rubio at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. “We still need plumbers.” At 41, he just finished paying off his student debt from college and law school — and he had to write a book to do it.

Let’s face it – not all of our students want to go to college. Not all of them need to go to college to reach their career goals. And most importantly, not all of them have the aptitude to do well in a traditional college program. It is foolish for us to pretend otherwise – and we need to quit trying make them fit.





|| Greg, 06:16 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (6) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Whiff Of Fascism In Philly

When the government decides it is going to investigate publications for politically incorrect contents, you know there is a serious First Amendment issue.

Mayor Nutter issued a scathing letter Friday calling Philadelphia Magazine's controversial "Being White in Philly" cover story a "pathetic, uninformed essay," and asking the city Human Relations Commission to consider a rebuke of the magazine and the article's author.

Tom McGrath, the magazine's editor, fired back, accusing Nutter of "sophomoric statements" that suggested he is "more interested in scoring political points than having a serious conversation about race."

Rue Landau, the commission's executive director, replied to Nutter: "The commissioners and I share the concerns of the mayor regarding the racial insensitivity and perpetuation of harmful stereotypes portrayed in the Philadelphia Magazine piece."

The mayor suggests that the magazine be officially “rebuked”. Seems to me that it is Nutter who needs to be rebuked – by those who believe in a free press.

Interesting comments over at Volokh Conspiracy.





|| Greg, 06:15 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

OK, here we go with this  week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!





|| Greg, 06:12 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 14, 2013

Many Shocked To Find Out Pope Francis Is, In Fact, Catholic

Yes, the new pontiff is a simple man. Yes, he has great compassion for the poor and a different way of expressing it than may have been seen in the past. And yes, he is likely to be a reformer when it comes to the workings of the Vatican bureaucracy and so many other things -- but that does not presage a wholesale change in doctrine and dogma to embrace that which the Church has rejected but the world embraces, no matter (indeed, because of) how pastoral his approach is, much to the dismay of certain theological and political types..

Known as a compassionate Argentine archbishop who eschewed the trappings of his role to live amid his flock and who focused on the poor, Pope Francis will likely keep to Catholic teachings that reject abortion and same-sex marriage, experts said Wednesday.

Francis washed the feet of 12 AIDS victims living at a hospice in 2001, an action filled with symbolism in the Roman Catholic Church since it was reminiscent of Holy Thursday and the washing of the apostles’ feet by Jesus.

But in 2010, while Argentina was debating same-sex marriage legislation, he was quoted as calling the bill that ultimately passed “a plan to destroy God’s plan,” and said it was a “move by the father of lies to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

He has also said gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt, according to Bernard Schlaeger of the Pacific School of Religion.

“The pope will be Catholic,” Professor Christopher J. Ruddy, an expert in church theology at the Catholic University of America, said of how he expected Francis to respond to some of the controversial social issues. “He speaks and he teaches what the Catholic church teaches on these issues.”

Nonetheless, gay and lesbian advocacy groups called on Francis to embrace LGBT people and their families.

“For decades the Catholic hierarchy has been in need of desperate reform. In his life, Jesus condemned gays zero times. In Pope Benedict’s short time in the papacy, he made a priority of condemning gay people routinely,” the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in a statement.

What we have here is the fulfillment of what we read of in 2 Timothy 4:3 -- For there will be a time when people will not tolerate the teaching of sound doctrine. Instead they will follow their own desires and seek after those who will teach that which they are itching to hear.

The New York Times at least gets it -- a simplicity of style and a concern for the poor and downtrodden does not necessitate a rejection of the traditional teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Pastoral concern for sinners does not mean telling them that their sins are not sins, but instead in calling them to repentance in a spirit of love. Those whose want to hear sin called virtue and evil called good will need to look elsewhere for someone to scratch those itching ears..

H/T Sister Toldjah





|| Greg, 08:36 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (7) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Cuccinelli Won't Sign ATR Pledge

Given the way that Grover Norquist has been engaging in attacks on conservatives in recent weeks and months, I'm glad to see the candidate tell him to take his pledge and shove it.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will not sign the famed Americans for Tax Reform pledge against raising taxes, his campaign told POLITICO – a surprise move for a gubernatorial candidate known for his down-the-line conservatism.

The presumptive Republican nominee for governor indicated in a private meeting with business leaders in Tuesday that he is not inclined to take the no-tax oath, sources said.

Cuccinelli’s campaign confirmed he will not sign the ATR pledge and explained Cuccinelli has settled on a blanket no-pledge policy for the campaign: he will not sign make any similar commitments to other special interest groups.

A Cuccinelli spokesman said the decision not to adopt the ATR pledge – which is closely associated with the group’s president, Grover Norquist – shouldn’t be taken as a sign he plans to raise taxes.

“Ken Cuccinelli agrees with the principles of Americans for Tax Reform and keeping taxes low. However, it’s our policy to not sign campaign pledges,” said Jahan Wilcox, communications director for the Cuccinelli campaign.

I like the "no pledges" stand taken by Cuccinelli -- and given that Norquist has turned his group's pledge into a perpetual blood oath, it is absurd to sign that one in particular. And as noted elsewhere in the article, the presumptive Virginia GOP gubernatorial nominee is planning on taking on tax reform if elected, which means that some taxes may be raised even as some are lowered -- and perhaps as new ones are created. Who knows how Norquist and his supporters might twist the pledge in such a case -- or how Cuccinelli's opponents might do so in the future.





|| Greg, 12:44 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 13, 2013

Gee, I'm Getting A Lot Of Hits On An Old Post

Care to guess who this post from April of 2005 is about and why I started getting bunches of hits on it about 8:30 PM Rome time?

And does anyone know what came of this incident involving a certain Argentinian Cardinal who just took a new position at the Vatican?

Bergoglio





|| Greg, 02:38 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

New Pope Combines Three Firsts

It is rare to say that there is anything truly new in an institution like the Catholic Church and the papacy that is two thousand years old. Instead, we often speak in terms of the first time something has happened in several centuries.

That is not the case today.

The newly elected Bishop of Rome is a man who in one instant made history in three ways.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the first pontiff to take the name Francis.

As an Argentinian, he becomes the first pope from the New World.

He is also is also the first Jesuit to hold the position of Vicar of Christ.

Given these firsts, as well what we have seen in the first hours of his papacy, I would expect that Pope Francis will be something of a departure from his immediate predecessor -- perhaps from his two immediate predecessors. He may be something akin to Pope John XXIII in terms of being a pastoral caretaker pope who turns out to be something more -- or perhaps we are seeing in him what the beloved, short-lived Pope John Paul I would have been had he not died after a pontificate of only 33 days.

We shall see.





|| Greg, 02:11 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Pope Francis I

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
Habemus Papam;
Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum Georgium Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem Bergoglio,
Qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum.

CROP-SS-163612376[1].jpg

I announce to you a great joy:
We have a Pope!
The most eminent and most reverend Lord,
Lord Jorge Mario] Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church Bergoglio,
Who takes for himself the name of Francis.





|| Greg, 01:42 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

HABEMUS PAPAM -- But Who?

r-WHITE-SMOKE-NEW-POPE-huge[1].jpg

White smoke over the Sistine Chapel -- but we do not know yet who the new pope is.





|| Greg, 12:11 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Reminder Of Why Lawyers Have A Bad Name Among Good People

Are we really getting this argument in a sexual assault case in 2013? Frankly, it is enough to make me wish that the defendant AND his attorney could get the needle.

This is the Steubenville high school football player rape case, in which a group of young men had their way sexually with a girl who was so unresponsive that they labeled her as dead and shouted that sh was "so raped" -- and then posted video about it on the internet, showing them carrying her into a bedroom. So how does the lawyer for one of the accused defend his client? By blaming the victim!

So how does Walter Madison, the attorney of one of the alleged perpetrators respond?
"She didn't affirmatively say no."
"The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that's because there was consent," he said.
He claims that the sex was consensual...even though the girl is involved is underage and has no memory of what occurred. She and her parents only found out what happened after the cell phone videos surfaced on the internet some months later.
Because of the time lag between the crime and its discovery, there's also no way of knowing whether the victim was excessively drunk or whether her drink was spiked with Rohypnol, GHB or some of the other substances used for the purpose of rendering someone defenseless for this kind of assault.Nor does it matter, really.

Got that? "She didn't affirmatively say no"

May I point out that she also didn't affirmatively consent, either -- and that the evidence is pretty clear that she was incapable of doing either. Apparently Walter Madison, a member of the bar in Ohio, holds to some antiquated notions of what constitutes sexual assault - notions that are more in keeping with notions of sharia jurisprudence than with the laws of the United States.

Actually, that isn't fair. Madison and his client clearly operate on the basis of a much older code as to what is acceptable in terms of male and female sexuality.

Caveman-Drags-Woman-Social-Natural[1].jpg





|| Greg, 11:38 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

In Re. Food Stamps

For those struck by the statistics I quoted yesterday regarding Food Stamp dependency, let's look at the numbers a bit differently -- the percentage of Americans relying on this government program to provide their basic sustenance.

130312-foodstamps[1].gif

Can we really claim that the economy is recovering if the only reason people are eating is because the government is providing for them instead of them being able to provide for themselves?

Please note -- I stated in the earlier post that Food Stamp dependency was at 15%, while this chart shows it near 20%. I used the entire population as the starting point for my calculation, while this chart shows percentage of the non-institutionalized civilian population. Each statistic is correct -- this chart simply shows that when one excludes members of the armed forces and those in prisons, the problem is even more acute.





|| Greg, 10:32 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Non Habemus Papam -- Day II, Morning Edition

To the surprise of no one except, it would appear, the New York Times, black smoke rose above the Sistine Chapel this morning, signalling that the College of Cardinals has not yet elected a new Pope.

VATICAN CITY — Black smoke billowed from a makeshift copper chimney atop the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday, signaling that the 115 cardinals of the Catholic Church eligible to vote for a new pope had again failed to muster majority support for a successor to Benedict XVI and that balloting would continue until they do.

A first vote ended inconclusively on Tuesday, and the inky black smoke a day later indicated continuing divisions in two subsequent ballots on Wednesday among the cardinals over what kind of pope they want to confront the pressing, sometimes conflicting, demands for change after years of scandal.

Of course, no pope has been elected so early since Pope Pius XII on the eve of World War II -- and then only because he entered the conclave as the virtually unquestioned successor of his predecessor. And while two recent popes -- John Paul I and Benedict XVI -- have been elected on the fourth ballot, even that is somewhat early by historical standards. It is, of course, possible that we will see a new pope as early as this afternoon, but it seems much more likely to me that the next Bishop of Rome will not be chosen until tomorrow at the earliest, unless the balloting this morning left one cardinal within a handful of votes. Indeed, it would not surprise me to see this conclave drag out through Friday, given the number of potential candidates mentioned in the days leading up to the conclave and the seemingly fractured views of the cardinal electors as to what would be needed in a new Pope following Benedict's resignation.





|| Greg, 09:48 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 12, 2013

Congratulations To Big Jolly Politics

Just a couple miles north of me is the home of another fine blog -- Big Jolly Politics. Dave Jennings and his crew are much more focused on state and local politics than I have been, and have made quite a reputation for themselves.I offer my congratulations to them that they have been declared to be one of the best political blogs in the state by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post -- the only conservative blog among the four Texas blogs listed.





|| Greg, 02:06 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Non Habemus Papam -- Conclave Day I

Not that anyone truly expected the first day to produce a new pontiff.

Black smoke has poured from the Sistine Chapel chimney, signaling that cardinals have failed to elect a pope on their first try.

The cardinals held the first day of the conclave Tuesday deeply divided over the problems of the church and who best among them could fix them following the stunning resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. The Vatican made clear it didn't expect a winner on the first ballot.

The cardinals now return to the Vatican's Santa Marta hotel for the night. They return to the Apostolic Palace for Mass Wednesday morning and a new round of voting.

I don't know how "deeply divided" the cardinals truly are, but they went into the conclave with no hands-down favorite. It is going to take a couple of days for these 115 princes of the church to be guided by the Holy Spirit into selecting the next occupant of the Chair of St. Peter.

Here's a list of favorites -- a long one. As many as are on the list, I suspect that it contains the next Bishop of Rome. My personal favorites among them are Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Brazilian Cardinal Odilio Scherer and American Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley.

My ultimate prediction is that we will not see a European elected this time around, that we will see someone with an attractive personality more on the order of Pope John Paul the Great than Benedict XVI, and that the name chose will be either Leo XIV or Gregory XVII. I think it is unlikely that we will see the new pope take the names John Paul III, John XXIV, or Paul VII, given the connections to recent popes, nor do I think that Pius XIII is likely because of the connection to the ultraconservative Pius X and to Pius XII, whose reputation has long been unfairly attacked by some. In the event that Ghanan Cardinal Peter Turkson is elected, I suspect that we might see him take the name Gelasius III, given that St. Gelasius I was the last African pope.





|| Greg, 01:27 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Gun & Ammo Sin Taxes?

Seems unconstitutional to me.

At the federal level, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., proposed a bill that would impose a 10 percent tax on “any concealable” firearm. The revenue would be used to help fund a national gun buyback program. The bill is still in committee.

At the state level in California, Democratic state Rep. Roger Dickinson last month introduced a bill to impose a 5-cent tax on every bullet. …

Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky is pushing a 25 percent sales tax on ammunition and firearms. Maryland state Rep. Jon Cardin has introduced a bill imposing a 50 percent tax on ammo, and an annual $25 gun registration fee.

And according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Assembly Majority Leader William Horne is pushing a draft bill that would include a $25 per gun sales tax, in addition to a 2-cent tax for every round of ammunition.

Which leads to the question of whether or not one may tax the exercise of a constitutional right, or the materials necessary to exercise said right, for the purpose of discouraging the exercise of said constitutional right.

After all, the Supreme Court did deal with a similar issue thirty years ago, in Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (46- US 575). If the state may not impose a special tax upon the ink and paper used to publish newspapers due to the substantial burden it creates for the exercise of First Amendment rights, surely a special tax designed to discourage the purchase of guns and ammunition constitutes an impermissible burden upon Second Amendment rights.

H/T Hot Air





|| Greg, 08:47 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Not A Good Sign For A "Recovering" Economy

Food Stamp use reaches all-time high.

On Friday, the United States Department of Agriculture quietly released new statistics related to the food stamps program, officially known as SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The numbers reveal, in 2012, the food stamps program was the biggest it’s ever been, with an average of 46,609,072 people on the program every month of last year. 47,791,996 people were on the program in the month of December 2012.

I'm not going to attack the Food Stamp program, even though there are plenty of things about it to criticize. Instead I'm going to point out what this means -- some 15% of the American public is receiving its daily sustenance courtesy of this one government program. Is it really possible to claim that we are in an economic recovery when the number of people dependent upon such programs is increasing?





|| Greg, 08:21 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Nun Pleads Guilty To Double Voting

I'm sure that we will soon hear left-wing activists complaining that Republicans are disenfranchising dead nuns.

Sister Marguerite Kloos, a nun charged with voter fraud for casting an absentee ballot belonging to a sister nun who had died before Election Day.

An Ohio nun was charged with voter fraud for casting an absentee ballot in the 2012 presidential election that belonging to a fellow sister who had died, authorities have said.

Sister Marguerite Kloos, 54, allegedly voted both under her own name and under the name of Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had passed away a more than a month before last November's poll.


L
est one thinks this is someone who wouldn't know any better, please know that sister resigned her job in response to the charges and her planned guilty verdict -- she was dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at Cincinnati’s College of Mount St. Joseph.





|| Greg, 07:45 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 11, 2013

NYT: Obama First President To Order Killing Of American Citizen Without Trial Since Civil War

Yes, the New York Times.

It was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, intense deliberation by lawyers working for President Obama and turf fights between the Pentagon and the C.I.A., whose parallel drone wars converged on the killing grounds of Yemen. For what was apparently the first time since the Civil War, the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial.

Now some might want to say "But Bush..." -- but Bush didn't order or carry out the killing of American citizens without trial.

And one might want to say "But Lincoln..." -- but Confederates killed during the Civil War were actively engaged in combat operations when they were killed.

Was Obama right to target Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan? I think the argument for taking out al-Awlaki was overwhelming, and Khan was apparently collateral damage in the same strike.

On the other hand, what of Abdulrahaman al-Awlaki, who was seemingly killed for no reason other than he was his father's son. A White House spokesman said at the time, the American teen should have chosen a more responsible father -- but given that the son's death came two weeks after the father's, is that even a justification? And what of the fact that the son -- who was apparently eating at an outdoor cafe -- could not have been constitutionally subjected to the death penalty if he had, in fact, been captured and put on trial for some offense?





|| Greg, 12:40 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Blogger Contemplating Challenge To Lindsey Graham In Senate Primary?

I may not agree with Bruce Carroll -- founder of the blog Gay Patriot -- on everything, but I have to say that I'd prefer him as a US Senator over the incumbent.

It is with mixed feelings that I announce my resignation this morning from the gay conservative group GOProud that I helped found in 2009. I was recently elected Vice Chairman of the organization in order to concentrate on expanding GOProud’s chapters and grassroots strength nationwide.

Last week, speculation grew in South Carolina and on social media outlets about my interest in challenging incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham who has been in Congress for 18 years.

In the spirit of transparency and honesty, I informed my fellow GOProud board members that I could not dedicate the time to the organization while I seriously considered the effort it will take to challenge Senator Graham in the 2014 Primary.

* * *

Over the next few weeks, I will be studying the resources, time and effort it would take to do my part in holding Lindsey Graham accountable for his voting record and his attitude toward the voters in South Carolina.

This is important: I do not make major decisions hastily; I will take adequate time to realistically look at all of the evidence (pro and con) and consult with a diverse group of people that I trust and that also have the best interests of South Carolina at heart as I do.

If I believe I could provide a serious alternative to Senator Graham for the voters of South Carolina, and I can find the financial and moral support to join me in that effort, then I will take those next formal steps needed to do so.

As followers of this blog know, I have long been an admirer of Bruce and the other bloggers over at Gay Patriot (including Dan, my fellow Watcher's Council member). I've always found Bruce to be an honest and forthright conservative voice on issues -- and even when we have disagreed on things, I have to acknowledge that he has come to his positions from a conservative direction. I certainly hope that Bruce decides to enter the race, as he will provide a more conservative choice for conservatives in South Carolina.





|| Greg, 12:18 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!





|| Greg, 02:56 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 08, 2013

Is It Time To Expel John McCain From The Senate GOP Caucus?

A group of courageous Senators took to the floor of the Senate to get clarification from the Obama Administration as to when American citizens may be killed on the orders of the President of the United States on American soil. John McCain objects – and insults them.

Elder Sen. John McCain, who this week engaged in friendly fire when he launched his "maverick" missiles at fellow Republicans seeking clarification on the administration's drone policies, has upped the ante, deriding Tea Party-backed GOP lawmakers as "wacko birds."

McCain, who hit the Senate floor Thursday to belittle Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster, which succeeded in getting an answer from President Obama that drones won't be used to kill Americans on U.S. soil, even suggested that the Kentucky senator and his allies, like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, don't represent the GOP mainstream.

"It's always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone," McCain told Huffington Post's Jon Ward in a story titled "John McCain: Getting Back To Maverick, With An Eye On Retirement."

McCain has declared that the new blood in the Senate do not represent the mainstream of the party? Fine – let’s have the GOP caucus take a vote. They can either expel Paul, Cruz and Amash, or they can expel McCain and his lackey Lindsey Graham. Then we will know where the mainstream of the GOP truly is – and whether the GOP brand is worth saving.

By the way -- McCain has now doubled-down on his attack on the constitutionalist wing of the GOP in this interview.

After I came home from Vietnam, our military had deteriorated to the point where the chief of staff of the Army came before Congress and said we had a “hollow Army.” We’re doing that in the form of sequestration, and along came Ronald Reagan who restored our military, restored our strength, won the Cold War without firing a shot. That’s the wing of the party that I’m part of and will remain part of, and the part I believe will be the future of the Republican Party. You can go back to post World War I, prior to World War II Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, post-World War II, the Taft-wing of the party. There’s always been that element, but the really winning part of our party is that that believes as Ronald Reagan did, in peace through strength and that’s the best way to avoid conflicts, including what we’re seeing now in the world, where the world believes America is weak can and withdrawing and they’re making the kind of conclusions that I think will endanger America’s future.

Let's see -- he just compared Rand Paul and those who agree with him to anti-Semites and racists, and claimed that they are seeking to weaken America because they want to abide by our Constitution. That is intolerable. But I will note that comparing Rand Paul to Robert Taft is certainly a compliment -- remember, he was the single contemporary Senator included in JFK's great book, Profiles in Courage -- for having the integrity to ask whether the Nuremberg trials violated fundamental American values regarding ex post facto laws. One may or may not agree with Rand Paul's position on drone attacks on Americna citizens on American soil and elsewhere, but one cannot help but recognize that he is operating in the finest tradition of Americanism, Constitutionalism, and conservatism.





|| Greg, 05:01 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

I Like This Precedent

I don’t know what John Brennan’s religious beliefs are, and I don’t really care. I’m not even disturbed that he broke with tradition and didn’t use a Bible or other holy book for his swearing in as CIA director. Indeed, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of this.

"Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution, dating from 1787, which has George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it," according to the White House. He does not appear to have placed his hand on a Bible, a Torah, a Koran, or other sacred religious text as he said the oath.

Imagine that – swearing one’s oath of office upon the Constitution, the document to which one swears fidelity.

On the other hand, the blogger over at Empty Wheel did point out this little detail.

That means, when Brennan vowed to protect and defend the Constitution, he was swearing on one that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments — or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.

I really don’t mean to be an asshole about this. But these vows always carry a great deal of symbolism. And whether he meant to invoke this symbolism or not, the moment at which Brennan took over the CIA happened to exclude (in symbolic form, though presumably not legally) the key limits on governmental power that protect American citizens.





|| Greg, 04:32 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Tax Increase I Actually Could Support

Capping Social Security taxes has always struck me as unreasonable. It is time to lift the cap to help make the program solvent.

Congressional liberals aren't done taxing wealthy Americans. On Thursday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the "Keeping Social Security Promises Act," which asks the wealthiest Americans to "pay their fair share into the fund."

"The people on top are doing phenomenally well," Sanders told a news conference on Thursday. "It is time to ask them to help us, in this case with making sure Social Security is there for our kids and grandchildren."

The bill would require those with yearly incomes of $250,000 or more to pay the same 6.2 percent payroll tax that is currently assessed on those who earn up to $113,700 a year.

Social Security has never truly operated as the individual account program we were all told it was when we were kids. Let’s just concede that we have been lied to since Roosevelt and tax for it like we do other programs.





|| Greg, 04:27 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

North Korea Resumes Korean War Hostilities

Since they are renouncing the armistice that ended the Korean War, perhaps the time has come to get rid of the rancid Kim regime for the good of the people of North Korea and the stability of the region.

North Korea says it is scrapping all non-aggression pacts with South Korea, closing its hotline with Seoul and shutting their shared border point. The announcement follows a fresh round of UN sanctions punishing Pyongyang for its nuclear test last month.

Earlier, Pyongyang said it had a right to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike and was pulling out of the armistice that ended the Korean War.

Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Bomb-Bomb-Pyongyang!






|| Greg, 04:25 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A DOMA Question For Bill Clinton

By now you have probably heard that Bill Clinton has called for the overturning of DOMA.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.

But I do have two questions for the former president.

1) Are you admitting that you were so incompetent as president that you signed legislation that is “incompatible with our Constitution”?

2) Are you arguing that the meaning of our Constitution has changed since 1997, despite the fact that there has been no change to the text of the document?

If the answer to the first question is “YES”, why should we give any credence to the words of a man whose judgment is so poor?

If the latter, do we really have a Constitution at all, or have we entered the world of Professor Louis Seidman?

Not that I can imagine a man with the personal and political history of Bill Clinton having anything of value to say about marriage anyway.





|| Greg, 04:19 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dow 36,000?

In 1999, James K Glassman and Kevin Hassett published the book Dow 36,000, predicting major growth in the value of stocks. Glassman argues that the recent recovery of stock prices indicates that target is within site.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average set a record this week, but it’s still far from the mark that economist Kevin Hassett and I forecast in our 1999 book, “Dow 36,000.”

We wrote in the introduction that “it is impossible to predict how long it will take” to get to 36,000. Then, in the same paragraph, we rashly made a guess anyway: “between three and five years.”

Today, the far edge of that time frame is clearly in reach. From its low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009, the Dow has risen 117 percent. Another 117 percent in four years would put it at 31,022, just 16 percentage points shy of the magic number.

Of course, all this begs the real question – do the stock prices truly reflect the underlying value of the companies? Or would DJIA of 36,000 represent a bubble that was bound to burst because the value of the stocks was artificially inflated? Indeed, do the prices of stock today truly represent what the companies in question are really worth, or are we riding the next Wall Street bubble that is preparing to burst?





|| Greg, 04:07 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 07, 2013

Racist SOB Calls Obama Lazy

Van Jones says it is racist to call Obama "lazy".

According to a new biography of Roger Ailes, the Fox News chief reportedly believes Newt Gingrich is a “prick,” VP Joe Biden is “dumb as an ashtray,” and President Obama is “lazy.” CNN panelist Van Jones took issue with the latter revelation, calling the comment “disgusting” and possibly a “racial charge.”

The biography, by Zev Chafets, quotes Ailes as saying that Obama “never worked a day in his life” and “never earned a penny that wasn’t public money.” He chided the president for playing golf and basketball so often while having to deal with important issues.

“He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that,” Ailes reportedly told the biographer.

On CNN, progressive commentator Jones reacted as such: “There’s a racial charge that some people find offensive.”

Of course, we know Ailes got that assessment from somewhere -- and I've got the tape.

This racist miscreant needs to be driven from public life for his racist declaration that the black man in the White House is lazy.





|| Greg, 08:43 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 06, 2013

Here’s Where To Sequester

Do we really need a quarter of a million dollars in White House calligraphers?

With the White House closing its doors to public tour groups in order to save money for the sequester, it's worth remembering some of the other costs the White House incurs annually.

Like the "Chief Calligrapher," Patricia A. Blair, who has an annual salary of $96,725, and her two deputies, Debra S. Brown, who gets paid $85,953 per year, and Richard T. Muffler, who gets paid $94,372 every year.

While calligraphy is a neat craft, do we really need to spend this money in tight budgetary times – especially since a computer printer can do the calligraphy as long as there is a single secretary to type in the text?





|| Greg, 04:51 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Nanny Bloomberg’s Latest Crusade

Earbuds.

Mayor Bloomberg — who has already cracked down on smoking, junk food, trans fats, salt and super-sized drinks — is embarking on a new crusade: preventing New Yorkers from going deaf.

Hizzoner’s health officials are planning a social-media campaign to warn young people about the risk of losing their hearing from listening to music at high volume on personal MP3 players, The Post has learned.

“With public and private support, a public-education campaign is being developed to raise awareness about safe use of personal music players . . . and risks of loud and long listening,” said Nancy Clark, the city Health Department’s assistant commissioner of environmental-disease prevention.

Frankly, this is a surprise. No government coercion at all. I would have figured that Bloomberg was going to mandate a decibel limit on earbuds – meaning that they would be unavailable due to the fact that the product is standard around the nation. Imagine the blackmarket on noncompliant headphones!





|| Greg, 04:45 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama Polling Freefall

The president’s approval rating is sinking.

Less than two months into his second term, President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped and Americans blame him and his fellow Democrats almost as much as his Republican opponents for a fiscal mess.

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Wednesday showed 43 percent of people approve of Obama’s handling of his job, down 7 percentage points from February 19.

Most of that steep drop came in the week to February 26 when it was becoming clear that Washington was going to be unable to put aside partisan differences and agree to halt automatic budget cuts which started last Friday.

Confounding the White House’s efforts to blame Republicans for the cuts, most respondents in the online survey hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible.

Americans are already suffering from buyers remorse – but I have no sympathy, given that Obama voters should have known what they were getting when they reelected him. We tried to warn them, but they didn’t care.





|| Greg, 04:33 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Offensively Stupid Liberal Compares Anonymous Speakers To KKK

Because an anonymous comment on a website is exactly the same as lynching, or something.

During a panel discussion on Tuesday's NBC Today about whether websites should prevent people from commenting anonymously in order to reduce offensive rhetoric, attorney Star Jones made an over-the-top comparison: "I equate it a little bit to what the KKK used to do, in terms of being under the mask....Well, the mask of the web is giving anonymity to these kinds of people, and it's time to take the hoods off."

Fellow pundit Donny Deutsch proclaimed: "I actually think any media outlet that allows that [anonymous comments] is being irresponsible."

Actually, any media outlet that allows Star Jones on the air is being irresponsible or Donny Deutsch on the air is being irresponsible.





|| Greg, 04:29 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Offensively Stupid Democrat Rape Comments

What planet do these people – these liberal Democrat WOMEN – live on?

First, we have this gem from a Democrat strategist.

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday night, Democratic Strategist Zerlina Maxwell argued that preventing rape should start by simply “telling men not to rape women.” She was arguing against women using guns as a means of self-defense when she made the questionable remarks.

Host Sean Hannity began by slamming the “ignorant politicians” in Colorado for trying to remove a woman’s right to use a firearm to defend herself against an attacker via gun control legislation.

“I don’t think that we should be telling women anything,” Maxwell said. “I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.”

Somebody ought to tell Ms. Maxwell that we already do tell men not to rape – there are these little things called laws that do that and even impose a penalty for violating said prohibition. That doesn’t stop some vile individuals from doing it anyway – just as some individuals violate the laws against robbery and murder, too. Maxwell’s argument is therefore offensively stupid.

And then there is the stupidly offensive comment from another Democrat, this one an elected official.

A Democratic lawmaker in Colorado is drawing criticism after telling a rape victim that the attack against her would have been worse if she had been carrying a gun at the time. State Sen. Evie Hudak told Amanda Collins “statistics are not on your side even if you had had a gun.” Hudak argued at a hearing Monday that if Collins was carrying a gun, the much larger male attacker could have taken it from her and shot her.

Collins responded by saying, “Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying [a concealed weapon], he wouldn’t have known that I had my weapon. I know without a doubt in my mind, at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.”

Collins was raped at gunpoint in a University of Nevada-Reno parking garage in Oct. 2007. Nevada law prohibited her from carrying a gun on the campus, but her attacker had one.

Because, of course, legislators know much better than victims what the circumstances of their attacks are and what the best way for them to deal with their attackers are or would have been. If this were a Republican we'd be hearing the "War on Women" meme.

But then again, this just illustrates a basic truth about liberals, guns, and victims of sexual assault.

GUN_CONTROL[1].jpg





|| Greg, 04:26 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 05, 2013

Cosby's Stalinist Bill-shit

Back in the old Soviet Union, dictator Josef Stalin used to receive long and enthusiastic standing ovations from assembled party and government officials. The reason was quite obvious -- their lives depended on it.

Yes, that's right -- one was not permitted to stop the applause until given permission.

So Bill Cosby's recent comments on those who failed to enthusiastically applaud Barack Obama at his recent State of the Union address certainly do have precedent.

Host Soledad O’Brien was leading a panel discussion about the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across Selma, Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, the anniversary of which was marked by about 10,000 marchers this weekend, and she remembered a symbolic example of the contrast between progress and repression. “I read about you, at the same time the fight for rights in the South was going on,” she said, to Cosby, “you were on the verge of winning an Emmy award. First black man – in 1966 you would win an Emmy award. And the show, I Spy, was banned in the South.”

“Just a couple of stations,” Cosby replied, then turned to Congressman Mack, who had said something inaudible. “What did you say?

“It’s just hard to believe,” Rep. Connie Mack, joined by wife and fellow former Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), said. “It’s unbelievable.”

“I don’t think so,” Cosby shot back. “Not when you look at the President’s speech recently.”

Referring to President Obama‘s State of the Union Address, Cosby continued, “To see people sitting down when there are others standing and cheering. I think we have people sitting there who are as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation. And then in place of a better America, they want their own sick feelings put across, and it’s — it isn’t — it isn’t a good time, but I think, also on our part as professors and presidents of colleges all over, and in public schools, we need to get the education of the correct history that happened so people can say, ‘Yes, this really did happen.’”

Sorry, Comrade Cosby -- this is America, and no American is required to give vigorous and enthusiastic applause

Face it, Bill -- some of us do not like Obama and his policies. For most of us, his race is at most a peripheral issue. We didn't like Clinton or Carter, either -- and Obama is, in our eyes, less competent and pushing less acceptable policies than did either of those two Democrat predecessors. Sorry we don;'t feel a need to enthusiastically applaud him -- and will not do so even if you and his supporters implement a gulag system similar to that maintained by Stalin and his minions. So cut the Bill-shit about failing to enthusiastically embrace a man whose policies we despise being a sign of racism.





|| Greg, 03:03 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

District Of Columbia Bans FREEDOM

Seriously.

The word “FREEDOM” is among the list of banned vanity license plate slogans for Washington D.C., according to a government file obtained by a Freedom of Information Request filed by the transparency website GovernmentAttic.org.

I can understand banning license plates that are clearly tied to a political candidate or such -- but the word "freedom"? Really? Especially since the government of the District of Columbia already forces its citizens to carry an explicitly political slogan on their license plates.

The real irony is that FREEDOM is banned but FKOBMA is not, despite the fact it really should be. Look and see some of the truly outrageous -- and truly innocuous (for example, ANITA) combinations that are banned.





|| Greg, 01:44 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Republicans Sponsor Legislation To Enforce First Amendment In Face Of ObamaCare Regs

Because free exercise of religion is a right -- no matter what the Obama Regime says.

House Representatives Diane Black (R-TN), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and John Fleming, M.D. (R-LA) will hold a press conference tomorrow, Tuesday, March 5th at 10am EST in Rayburn House Office Building Room B-318 regarding the introduction of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (HCCRA) that would protect Americans’ First Amendment rights and would stop the Obama Administration’s assault on religious freedom. HCCRA offers reprieve from ongoing violations of our First Amendment, including full exemption from the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate and conscience protection for individuals and health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for, or refer patients to abortion providers because of their deeply-held, reasoned beliefs.

Under the health care coverage mandate issued on August 3, 2011, widely known as the HHS mandate, organizations and their managers are now facing potentially ruinous financial penalties for exercising their First Amendment rights, as protected by law. Hobby Lobby, a family business that was denied injunctive relief from the mandate and faces fines of up to $1.3 million dollars a day, unless its owners agree to fund potentially abortion-inducing drugs. If Hobby Lobby is forced to close its doors, some 25,000 jobs nationwide may disappear. The Obama Administration’s HHS mandate exemption only includes houses of worship and does not account for the thousands of religious and non-religious affiliated employers that find it a moral hazard to cover sterilization, contraception and potentially abortion-inducing drugs on their employer-based health insurance. Ultimately, the so-called “accommodation” does not protect anyone’s religious rights, because all companies and organizations will still be forced to provide insurance coverage that includes services which conflict with their religious convictions. The HCCRA would address this violation of our First Amendment rights by providing a full exemption for all those whose religious beliefs run counter to the Administration’s HHS mandate.

Free exercise of religion, if it means anything, has to extend beyond the doors of a house of worship. That has been the understanding in this country for over two centuries -- until the anti-freedom crowd took over. Let's hope that liberty wins out over tyranny.

H/T Hot Air





|| Greg, 01:28 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama White House Comes Out In Support Of Freedom For Once

After College Republicans and others embarrass him into it.

In January, the Library of Congress made unlocking a violation of a little-known provision of copyright law. Anyone who tried to do so could face criminal and civil penalties.

The decision quickly sparked an outcry from online activists. Taking to social media, blogs and the White House’s own protest forum, they collected over 114,000 signatures in just a few weeks.

In response, the Obama administration said it would support legislation to overturn the decision by the Library of Congress, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. The White House also called on the Federal Communications Commission to intervene.

“It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs,” David Edelman, President Obama’s senior Internet adviser, wrote in a blog.

I find it interesting that the Obama regime has any interest in consumer choice that meets consumer needs. After all, the entire ObamaCare program is about limiting choice, limiting freedom, and violating the rights of American citizens to make their own healthcare choices free from government interference.





|| Greg, 01:23 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 03, 2013

What The Obama Administration REALLY Thinks Of Women

Wish this veteran inside-the-Beltway journalist would go on the record on this one -- or that the female journalist would come forward with the emails and identify the perpetrators.

“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c--t, a--hole.” He complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”

Apparently the President's men operate on the philosophy of "know your place, bitch!" -- and the President's lapdog media operates in cover-up mode for him. You can bet we would have heard about this instantly if it had happened under a Republican president.





|| Greg, 05:51 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

What The Real Question Is In The Voting Rights Act Case

I made a point of not writing about the Supreme Court arguments on the Voting Rights Act case earlier this week. Why? because I made my points when Section 5 was reenacted as to why it was a particularly wrong-headed thing to do. But law professor and blogger Ann Althouse points to liberal Justice Stephen Breyer summarizing the issue quite clearly and fairly, and so I want folks to see it here.

If you draw a red line around the States that are in, at least some of those States have a better record than some of the States that are out. So in 1965, well, we have history. We have 200 years or perhaps of slavery. We have 80 years or so of legal segregation. We have had 41 years of this statute. And this statute has helped, a lot. So therefore Congress in 2005 looks back and says don't change horses in the middle of the stream, because we still have a ways to go.

Now the question is, is it rational to do that? And people could differ on that. And one thing to say is, of course this is aimed at States. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some States differently than others. And at some point that historical and practical sunset/no sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. And the question, I think, is has it run out now?

And now you tell me when does it run out? What is the standard for when it runs out? Never? That's something you have heard people worried about. Does it never run out? Or does it run out, but not yet?

Or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now?

Now let's break that one down for you.

Here's the first paragraph.

If you draw a red line around the States that are in, at least some of those States have a better record than some of the States that are out. So in 1965, well, we have history. We have 200 years or perhaps of slavery. We have 80 years or so of legal segregation. We have had 41 years of this statute. And this statute has helped, a lot. So therefore Congress in 2005 looks back and says don't change horses in the middle of the stream, because we still have a ways to go.

Remember -- inclusion was based upon a jurisdiction having less than 50% of eligible voters registered or less than 50% of eligible voters voting in any of the three presidential elections that took place in 1964, 1086, and 1972 (as well as having had certain discriminatory electoral practices defined in the VRA). Congress maintained that standard in the most recent renewal of the preclearance requirement. But remember -- not every state that had slavery or Jim Crow laws was included under the standard, and as Breyer points out, there are many covered jurisdictions today that have better registration and turnout statistics than do many jurisdictions that are not covered by the preclearance requirement. As I noted back when the preclearance requirement was renewed, the decision not to "change horses in the middle of the stream" by updating the elections used to determine coverage means that we will continue using data from an election held when I was a year old until I am nearly 70 years old. And remember -- "changing horses in the middle of the stream" meant using recent elections or applying preclearance to all 50 states rather than using data from elections that brought us Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon as presidents.

Which brings us to that second paragraph.

Now the question is, is it rational to do that? And people could differ on that. And one thing to say is, of course this is aimed at States. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some States differently than others. And at some point that historical and practical sunset/no sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. And the question, I think, is has it run out now?

Is it rational to solve the problem of racism and voter discrimination? You bet it is, and I fully support that effort. But that isn't what Breyer is asking, nor is it what the jurisdiction in this case is arguing. The question is at what point it ceases to be rational to employ data from elections between that took place in the 1960s and 1970s to solve the problem of voter discrimination. That was the question I asked repeatedly back when the renewal took place. That changing the data set to contemporary elections or expanding the preclearance requirement to all 50 states were deemed killer amendments shows just how irrational the embrace of the current standard (using data that is four to five decades old) really is.

And now you tell me when does it run out? What is the standard for when it runs out? Never? That's something you have heard people worried about. Does it never run out? Or does it run out, but not yet?

Or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now?

Breyer's conclusion really frames this one nicely. When does the justification for using data from 1964, 1968, and 1972 run out? And I would add to his question one that is more important -- how can using decades-old data be rationally said to address today's issues? That's why I believe Congress ought to strike down the most recent renewal as irrational and (as it has many times before) invite Congress to try again to draft a statute that meets constitutional muster.





|| Greg, 04:50 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (114) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Robert Reich's Left-Wing MarCarthyism

There's a plot by enemies of America to infiltrate the American government and bring it down!

Democrats and the media have accused Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of “McCarthyism” merely for posing tough questions to and about Chuck Hagel during the latter’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense. Yet a recent column by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich reveals who the real McCarthyites are in U.S. politics today, as Reich likens the Tea Party to a conspiracy “to undermine the government of the United States.”

Reich, who has steadfastly supported President Barack Obama’s big-government, tax-and-spend agenda, wrote that the Tea Party had “infiltrated” the government at every level, and had used the budget cuts in the sequester to begin “dismantling pieces of it.” He outlined the rest of his conspiracy theory at the left-wing Salon.com:

Imagine a plot to undermine the government of the United States, to destroy much of its capacity to do the public’s business, and to sow distrust among the population.

Imagine further that the plotters infiltrate Congress and state governments, reshape their districts to give them disproportionate influence in Washington, and use the media to spread big lies about the government.

Finally, imagine they not only paralyze the government but are on the verge of dismantling pieces of it.

Far-fetched?  Perhaps. But take a look at what’s been happening in Washington and many state capitals since Tea Party fanatics gained effective control of the Republican Party, and you’d be forgiven if you see parallels.

No word yet as to how many names McCarthy Reich has on the list in his pocket...





|| Greg, 03:31 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Why Do Liberals Measure Obama By What They Believe To Be The Lowest Available Standard?

One of my guilty pleasures is reading stuff off the Huffington Post. While a lot of their in-house stuff is awful, they do bring together a lot of interesting articles from a variety of sources on topics of interest to me -- especially religion. Reading this interesting article on African/black popes (and I encourage you to read it), I came upon this particularly inappropriate comment from an individual who was clearly trolling.

they'll probably learn from the obama failure. electing someone because of the color of their skin usually isn't a good thing.

Frankly, someone should have flagged it as inappropriate -- such a comment really didn't belong on the article. Instead, someone decided to respond to it.

What "obama failure"? Have you compared how this country is doing compared with 2008? Obama's been a roaring success in comparison. Speaking of voting based on skin color, I wonder how many white folks voted against Obama because of his skin color.

This isn't the first time I've seen this standard used to declare Obama a success -- "He's better than Bush!" But consider what this is really saying. The Left considers Bush to be a nutter failure -- the worst president ever, or at least the worst in the better part of a century (probably not an accurate assessment, but that's irrelevant to what follows). So Obama is a success, they claim, because he is better than what they deem to be utter failure. How low a standard can you set?

If the Left had any respect for Barack Obama and considered him to be a successful president, they wouldn't make George W. Bush the standard. They would instead take the measure of the man by a standard that they consider to be successful -- Bill Clinton, if they want someone recent, FDR if they wanted to use the man deemed to be the most successful Democrat to hold the office. Why not choose one of those presidents? The answer is obvious -- they know Barack Obama doesn't measure up to either of those two Democrat heroes, and any comparison will show him to be (as the original commenter asserts) an utter failure as president. But if they measure Obama against the man they deem to be a failure, they can argue (albeit I'd say not successfully) that Barack Obama has somehow been a success.

So the next time you run into a liberal who wants to telly you that Obama isn't a failure because he has somehow not been as bad as George W. Bush, ask that individual why their standard is so low, and why they don't use a successful president as their yardstick. I'm sure you'll set them stuttering -- until they call you a racist.





|| Greg, 11:43 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

Here are this week’s full results.

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!





|| Greg, 08:43 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

March 01, 2013

Prepare For Mischaracterization Of NRA President Quote

It really isn’t that outrageous, when you look at the context, those soon-to-be controversial words of NRA president David Keene.

Speaking at a rally of about 7,000 people protesting New York gun laws in Albany, Keene promised that the NRA would “soon have five million members” because of a surge of interest after lawmakers passed laws in response to the shooting of 20 elementary school children in Connecticut. “Because of the fact that we, as believers in the Second Amendment, are willing to do something that most people in this country are not willing to do, which is not just to stand up for our rights, but to support those people who stand with us and work to get rid of those in public office who do not,” the NRA president told the crowd.

“So we’re with you,” Keene added. “We’ll help you defeat the politicians that would deprive you of your rights. We’ll help you overcome these statutes in court. We’ll do whatever’s necessary to make certain the Second Amendment rights that we have had passed down to us are going to be passed down to future generations.”

So what part of that quote gets highlighted by liberal sites? Consider the headline from Raw Story.

NRA president: Gun owners will do ‘whatever’s necessary’ to ‘get rid of’ anti-gun lawmakers

Notice how a perfectly sane and rational statement of intent to work through the political process and the courts to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of America is immediately cast as an threat of violence? Expect this effort to deceive Americans to continue – and work to make sure that it does not succeed.





|| Greg, 04:35 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Secretary Of State John Kerry Scolds Turkish PM For Zionism Remarks

Interestingly enough, expressing those same views would be deemed a qualification to be Secretary of Defense in the Obama Administration.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry scolded Turkey’s leader Friday for likening Zionism to a “crime against humanity.”

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s comment worsened his country’s rift with Israel and further complicated the U.S. relationship with Turkey, a key Muslim ally straddling the Middle East and Europe.


Have you noticed that nobody has accused Kerry of McCarthyism for criticizing those remarks? That's probably because he is a white Democrat rather than a Hispanic Republican like Ted Cruz.





|| Greg, 04:33 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Hysterical Homosexuals At University Of New Mexico

I don’t believe that being gay is a mental illness, but clearly there are some mentally ill gay students at the university’s flagship campus in Albuquerque.

A group of liberal students at the University of New Mexico tried their best to get Chick-fil-A kicked off campus because they claimed the eatery made them feel “unsafe.” The students even took to theatrics, such as crying and hyperventilating, before a vote was held on whether the restaurant could stay or not- despite a majority of students having no problem with them on campus. Gay students claimed that they even felt threatened by the mere sight of students and faculty carrying bags with the Chick-fil-A logo on them.

“Chick-fil-A landed on the hot plate last week after a student group voted to kick the restaurant off campus claiming its very presence made gay students feel unsafe.

* * *

"'Please look at this from a moral standpoint,' said Brittany Arneson, a student against having Chick-fil-A on campus. 'Look at the kids that are here that are telling you, 'I do not feel safe on this campus anymore.'"

Crying and hyperventilating over the presence of a fast food restaurant on the campus – all due to the religious beliefs and political activity of the owner of the company? Claiming that they don’t feel safe on campus because they might spy a student or faculty member carrying a bag or eating a sandwich? What next – a claim that they fear that the chicken chain’s bovine mascots are going to engage in gay-bashing attacks on the campus quad? Such emotional instability simply is not psychologically normal.

But let’s suppose that this measure had passed – what would it have changed? Would it have forbidden someone from bringing the forbidden food on to the campus? Would it have prevented the wearing of apparel with the logo on it? No, it would not – so the irrational fears would not have been dissipated.

And beyond that, consider what would be necessary next had the board caved into this silliness. Fairness and equality would have required, for example, that the school ban McDonalds from the campus at the request of quivering and quaking Christians offended by the chain’s regular financial contributions to Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortionist? Or what about the demands of Jewish students who feel threatened by the religious and political beliefs of a Muslim franchisee operating on campus? And let’s not forget the concerns of conservative students who feel unsafe because of the express advocacy of liberal politics by their professors in their classroom?

Face it – maturity requires that you accept that there are those who disagree with you, and who perhaps don’t even like you. If these psychologically unstable students cannot handle that reality, perhaps it is they who need to be removed from campus for the safety of others.

H/T College Insurrection





|| Greg, 04:16 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Abortion (posts: 2)
Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1571)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 109)
Politics (posts: 5271)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Alleluia! He Is Risen!
Good Friday
What Would Happen If A White Legislator Wrote Something Like This To A Black Citizen?
But What About Second Amendment Rights?
Wissenswerte und faszinierende Sport Site mit Live Ergebnissen.
I Really Didn't Want To Write About The Obama Girls' Vacation
A Response To Mayor Bloomberg On Infringing Upon Freedom
Democrat Party Official Orders Students To Stamp On The Name Of Jesus
Libs Prove They Consider All Dissent From Their Policies To Be Based On Bigotry
Watcher's Council Results

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs