Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

[+] Read More...

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Book of Obama

Nothing good can come from letting an author hang out at the White House. Authors are rarely part of the team. They tend to see the good AND the bad, and the bad is what most White Houses can’t tolerate. Enter Ron Suskind and his new book: “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President.” Suskind’s book confirms so much that we already knew and Obama is none too happy about it.

Suskind interviewed 200 people, including many of Obama’s current and former aides, and Obama himself. Here are some of his most interesting conclusions:
● Obama is a second-guessing, conflicted, “sometimes wavering” leader. You don’t say? You mean like how it took him HOURS to give the Seal Team the go-ahead to do what was really the only option available to him?

● Obama “often felt . . . performance pressure,” tried to hide his “uncertainty,” and said appearing to be in command is “a heavy burden.” Yeah, that’s what happens when you’re faking.

● Former White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who gained fame as Harvard’s President for suggesting that women aren’t good at math and science, said, “There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”

● Former communications director Anita Dunn, who became famous for being a fan of mass murderer Mao, complained that the White House created a hostile workplace for women: “[T]his place would be in court for a hostile workplace … Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” and "There isn't a single woman in this administration."

● Stimulus Babe Christina Romer, former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said: "I felt like a piece of meat," and was often ignored at meetings.
None of this is good for Obama or his team. Indeed the entire generation of Democratic underlings has been embarrassed here. Not only are they shown to be arrogant, but they are shown to be clueless, backbiters, and sexist. So naturally, they are all denying everything in the book, pretending they have been misquoted, and attacking the author. Interestingly, they are picking on “errors” in the book, like the use of a slightly wrong title for one person, the misspelling of a name, and the use of an incorrect date. That’s pretty much an admission that the substance of the book is solid.

What’s just as interesting as the above, is that Obama also shows in the book that he really doesn’t understand why he’s such a failure. First, Obama says that what has upset people has not been his policies, it’s been his failure to communicate effectively:
● “The area in my presidency where I think my management and understanding of the presidency evolved most, and where I think we made the most mistakes, was less on the policy front and more on the communications front.”
Sure. People aren’t upset that you’ve given them 9% unemployment, that you’ve tried to destroy the health care system, that you’ve sold the government to Goldman Sachs and GE, that you’ve used our military randomly, that you’ve decided the American people are the real terrorists, that you’ve decided to ignore natural disasters in areas that didn’t vote for you, that you’ve stuck your thumb into everything Americans believe. . . no, we’re just upset you didn’t explain it to us retards well enough.

Secondly, Obama really doesn’t understand his own defects.
● “I think one of the criticisms that is absolutely legitimate about my first two years was that I was very comfortable with a technocratic approach to government.”

● “Carter, Clinton and I all have sort of the disease of being policy wonks. … I think that if you get too consumed with that you lose sight of the larger issue.”

● “But I have very much internalized the fact that my job is not legislator in chief.”
You've got to be kidding me Pile! Obama doesn’t do details. . . he’s too stupid. The first bill he ever presented to Congress was the horrific jobs bill the Democrats are running away from. Everything else was handled with Obama spouting some vague goal and then refusing to get involved. Can he really believe he was too wrapped up in the details to focus on being a leader? Maybe of his golf game, but that’s about it.

Finally, don’t expect Obama to realize why people don’t like him. Here's the official White House response to the book:
● “The truth is simple and well known: President Obama and his economic team walked into office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and took bold, decisive action that prevented the collapse of the financial system, saving millions of jobs and putting the economy back in a place where it is creating jobs and growing again. The President made very tough decisions in the most difficult of circumstances and his team executed those decisions faithfully and tirelessly.”
Not a word of that is true.

And just to prove to you that he doesn't get it, Obama's new "$3 trillion" deficit reduction plan is to raise $1.5 trillion in taxes along with a supposed $1.5 trillion in cuts. Those cuts are $580 billion in magic cuts from unidentified savings in Medicare and $1 trillion savings from not going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan again. Nice plan, President AAAhole. In other words, there are no actual cuts. . . and no actual President.

[+] Read More...

Even CNN Has Its Moments

As further proof that the former Democratic hegemony is in serious trouble, cornpone pundit James Carville provided a little excitement on CNN by announcing that it is time for His Majesty Obama to panic. After two major losses in special House elections, Carville mused "What should the White House do now? Panic." This came after the Democrats lost a New York seat it has held since 1923 and a Nevada loss by an unexpectedly big margin.

The New York loss was a big hint that Democrats in general and Obama in particular are in trouble. The Nevada loss appears to indicate that the general dissatisfaction with both political parties is working more against the Democrats than against the Republicans. Carville is a tried and true Democratic stalwart, but even he has decided that the real problem is Obama, not the Democratic Party. Fellow Democratic pundit Cornell Belcher said that even with his terrible poll numbers, Obama gets higher ratings than Congress. Carville shot back: "But they keep electing Republicans."

Belcher, still basking in the glow of the 2008 Obama victory, attempted to defend his beloved President. He called Obama's woes a messaging problem. The President still walks on water, but his staff is not helping him to get his message out. Carville snarled: "Then fire the communications staff. Communications people are a dime a dozen." Carville went on to point out that Obama is hesitant to fire anyone (including avowed communists like Van Jones). "Bill Clinton fired many people in 1994 (after the Republicans took the House in a landslide) and took a lot of heat for it."

"Reagan fired most of his campaign staff in 1980. Republicans historically fired their own speaker, Newt Gingrich, Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess?" Carville is big on firing, apparently. He was probably partially responsible for the Clinton firings he referred to. Keep the baby, throw out the bathwater. Not a bad suggestion, but it's unlikely that the bland, not-very-executive Chief Executive will follow it.

Carville cited the Solyndra scandal, the seemingly-permanent unemployment numbers, and the two special elections as proof that the President is "surrounded by morons." There are those who think the reason for that is that a dullard is always likely to surround himself with morons so he can be the smartest guy in the gang. Carville didn't go quite that far, but he got close. And this was before leaks began to get out about administration officials attempting to alter the testimony of a four-star general who says that a broadband scheme put together by Obama loyalists would endanger national security.

The lizard-like Carville can be annoying, but his homespun cracker practicality can also be amusing. It seems likely to me that he thinks that his choice, Hillary Clinton, would not have allowed herself to get into this position. And even if she had, she would have had her husband's record of firings to guide her.

Carville is no conservative by any means, but he does seem incapable of understanding Obama's true nature. Bill Clinton was a liberal, but practical politician. Obama sees practicality as selling out his doctrinaire leftist beliefs. Clinton could see when his wishes were not going to be achieved, so he maneuvered to get what he could. Obama has no sense of his own inability to get his agenda passed in toto, so he blames his predecessor and the Republicans for stalemate.

Clinton got rid of his deadwood. Obama believes he is incapable of error, and that includes his choice of staff. He is a doctrinaire social welfare egalitarian, so it's no surprise that he's not about to fire those who are in total agreement with him. In fact, he sees them as his "Immortals" who will help him march to another victory in 2012 against those pesky Republican Spartans and their Greek allies. Carville is right about firing most of Obama's staff. But he's wrong in believing that a muddle-headed pseudo-academic leftist President like Obama can make that decision or go it alone. Obama is helpless without his acolytes.
[+] Read More...

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Fishy Environmentalism At The High Court

The Pacific Legal Foundation has prepared its pleadings asking the United States Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Delta Smelt v. Human Reality. That's not the real title of the case, but it gets the point across. Calling it Environmentalism Gone Mad v. The Economy, Human Beings, Agriculture, et al seemed too melodramatic.

You can bring yourself back up to speed by reviewing my original article on the subject here: The Fish That Conquered California. When I wrote the original piece, I was still living in San Francisco. Since that time, I've been living right in the heart of the agricultural wasteland (and former agricultural Eden) that is the result of crazed environmentalism.

As part of the ongoing battle, hearings were recently held at the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power attempting to determine how to curb the power of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and EPA officials. The subcommittee was specifically addressing the issue of bureucratic-created droughts. No natural disaster has caused the greatest farmland in the world to dry up. It took green weenies, their government tools, a lot of addled politicians, and one useless fish to do that.

"Jobs President" Barack Obama has entirely ignored this cancer on the job market. California's unemployment rate is now officially at 12%+, making it the second worst in the nation. In farming towns in the formerly lush Central Valley, unemployment rates are more like 35% to a staggering 42%. Farmers have been put out of business, and thousands of workers have been put out of work. When the water restrictions protecting the previously-unheard of and totally environmentally-useless Delta smelt were first put into effect, the members of the Fresno Farm Bureau alone produced $7 billion in food. Today, that figure has shrunk by $2.3 billion.

Federal Judge Oliver Wanger was the trial judge who heard the original lawsuit filed by the local farmers. Wanger, retiring this month, was the former city attorney for the town of Mendota before being appointed to the California Superior Court for Fresno County and ultimately to the federal court by George W. Bush. Mendota's current unemployment rate is 39.5%. Wanger weighed all the facts, considered the law and precedent in a lengthy opinion, and ruled in favor of the farmers and against the green weenies and their lousy fish. The enviro-kooks then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, the most-reversed federal district court of appeals, and got the decision overturned.

Judge Wanger had ruled that federal scientists had completely ignored the balancing test of environmental matters versus human needs required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). "FWS and Reclamation have not complied with the NPA or the public policy underlying NEPA which favors protecting the balance between humans and the environment." In 2005, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service had already done a comprehensive study on the Delta smelt, and determined that it was not endangered by the water transfer facilities and machinery, and if endangered at all, it was a purely natural thing having nothing to do with the movement of water into the aqueducts. Not good enough for the green weenies.

Judge Wanger's opinion went on to say: "Federal defendants completely abdicated their responsibility to consider reasonable alternatives that would not only protect the species, but would minimize the adverse impact on humans and the human environment. The result is an issuance and implementation of a one-sided, single purpose rule that inflicts drastic consequences on California's water users, a situation NEPA prohibits." The Ninth Circuit decided instead that humans are irrelevant when it comes to strict enforcement of EPA regulations and the protection of useless fish.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (agrees to hear the case), there is a substantial chance that at long last, the protection of "endangered species" which play no significant role in the ecosystem may finally have to give way to human needs and even simple reality. If so, the pumps will be started up, the spigots will be opened again for the first time since early 2009, the water fill flow, the Delta smelt will or will not disappear (who cares?), jobs will return, and the American food basket will thrive again.

Author's Note: No Delta smelt were harmed during the preparation of this article--unfortunately.
[+] Read More...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 7

We've already asked about the saddest moment in films, so let's cheer everyone up by asking the opposite:

What is the happiest moment in films?



Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Happy 224th Birthday, You Crazy Document!

Date: September 17, 1787
Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Subject: U.S. Constitution is signed and ready to be ratified
Our founders realized after adopting and implementing our original governing document - the Articles of Confederation - that it just was not right. So they called on the thirteen states to send representatives to meet and discuss adjustments. Beginning on May 14, 1787, fifty-five representatives from twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode Island declined) met in Philadelphia. Men like James Madison of North Carolina, Alexander Hamilton of New York, Ben Franklin of Pennsylvania and 52 others  debated, wrote, argued, and rewrote the Articles of Confederation. After a few weeks they realized that what was really needed was a completely new document. Finally on September 17, 1787, after more debate, more writing, and more arguing, these fifty-five learned men adopted and signed off on four pieces of paper each measuring 28 3/4 inches by 23 5/8 inches and containing in total 4543 words (including signatures) that formed the foundation of our government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified by eleven states by July of 1788. North Carolina took a little longer by signing on November of 1789, with Rhode Island bringing up the rear finally signing on June of 1790.

How did they do it? How did fifty-five men from diverse backgrounds agree on an entire foundation of government in just four months and have complete agreement in three years when today we cannot even agree on what our problems are? Where are our Monroes today? Where are our Franklins, Blounts, Carrolls, Rutledges, and Pickneys today who are Statesmen with a capital "S"? Statesmen who are willing to put what is best for our collective future above what is best for their immediate political futures?

Oh, well, let's celebrate that there once were such visionary Statesmen, and let's pray that we have more somewhere in our DNA.
[+] Read More...

Friday, September 16, 2011

Film Friday: The Caine Mutiny (1954)

The Caine Mutiny is a classic. It’s also one of my favorite films. This movie does everything right, including having a fantastic twist long before twists were cool. It is an acting tour de force. And what makes this movie work, believe it or not, is subtlety.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

When Is A Crime Not A Crime?

When it's jaywalking illegal immigration. After all, jaywalking is an infraction. Sort of a crime, but not really. White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz recently compared the federal crime of illegal immigration to jaywalking. "If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers."

I guess Munoz is telling us that illegal immigrants are unserious criminals. Until now, the usual simile was "it's like spitting on the sidewalk." But many people don't realize whey spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. It was the major cause of the spread of tuberculosis in the early twentieth century. Today, that curse is returning to our urban centers, largely from immigrants who have not been screened for communicable diseases (where's Ellis Island when we need it?).

There's also a sound reason for prosecuting jaywalking. It's dangerous. It gets pedestrians killed, often including children accompanying a jaywalking adult. It also has a tendency to cause traffic collisions as drivers are forced to make dangerous maneuvers to avoid hitting the jaywalkers. Every year, dozens of jaywalkers are killed and thousands injured. So maybe it's not such a small deal after all.

Apparently, Munoz has also never heard of James Q. Wilson's "broken windows syndrome." Mayor Rudy Giuliani did, and by prosecuting violators of the building and safety codes in New York City, he used the minor infraction of neighborhood nuisance to cut the rates of drug-dealing and gang murders dramatically. But comparing illegal immigration to jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, or even broken windows reduces a crime that has long term and vast effects on the essence of American citizenship and national security to a nullity. That's foolish and dangerous.

What is really odd about Munoz's speech is that she is not directly attacking the secure borders/deportation advocates. Her speech was actually in response to the latest amnesty initiative by her own boss. The Obama administration has already put a huge dent in the immigration and deportation process with its recently-instituted policy of suspending deportation proceedings for those not already convicted of serious crimes other than their initial illegal immigration. That action created an instant backlog of over 300,000 cases.

But Obama's action is clearly not enough to satisfy Munoz. She wants to make illegal immigration a slap-on-the wrist, go-and-sin-no-more infraction. Says Munoz: "We have 10 million, 11 million undocumented people in this country and it's abundantly clear to anybody who's paying attention that we're not going to deport that entire population." OK. So that means we should do nothing? The logistics of deporting that many people is indeed well-nigh impossible. But so what? Do we stop prosecuting crimes of all sorts simply because we can't prosecute them all? It's a fake argument.

Munoz will not be satisfied until illegal immigration is rendered legal by whatever means necessary. And she relies on the fact that our immigration laws are truly in need of reform. She just simply wants to eliminate all the enforcement provisions of current and future immigration law in order to establish a de facto open borders policy.

We'll never be able to deport all illegal immigrants. That's a reality. But we can sure deport a whole lot of them. And of course there should be exceptions. Off hand, I certainly support a fast track to citizenship for those illegals who arrived here illegally solely because their parents brought them with them, if they have served honorably in the American armed forces and have a clean criminal record after their arrival in the United States.

Munoz said: "But we also all understand that [the administration's executive action] doesn't solve our immigration problems. In order to do that, we need the Congress of the United States." Munoz is right about that--for all the wrong reasons.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.
● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”
That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

[+] Read More...

The House Tells Boeing Not To Fly Away

If things go as planned, the House of Representatives will vote today on slapping down the National Labor Relations Board for its attempt to curry favor with labor by determining where a company can decide to build its plants. The NLRB took it upon itself to pursue a suit against Boeing Corporation for alleged “unfair labor practices.”

In fact, Boeing merely attempted to expand, and made the mistake of expanding into a right to work state—South Carolina. For background on the original House investigations into the matter this past June, go here: Boeing, Boeing, Boeing. Nothing that the House committee has produced has detoured the NLRB juggernaut. In order for Boeing’s actions to be considered an unfair labor practice, the NLRB would have to prove that Boeing’s expansion plant in South Carolina was retaliation for union strikes in closed-shop Washington State. In addition, it would have to show that as a result of Boeing’s actions, union jobs were lost.

Boeing says that it was making a pure business decision. It needed additional space, and given the unavailability of large tracts of land in Washington necessary for major expansion along with the costs of doing business, South Carolina was an ideal choice. Equally importantly, not a single union job was lost in Washington as a result of the expansion. In fact, since the labor dispute, Boeing has expanded the Washington facilities to the maximum extent allowable, and has hired 2,000 more union laborers. The facts are clear and indisputable. Only the philosophy of unionism and government control of private business are at issue.

The Obama administration and its Congressional allies aren’t doing themselves any favors with this NLRB action. South Carolina is an early primary state, and at least one Republican presidential hopeful has already used the NLRB’s action as a campaign issue. Mitt Romney visited the new Boeing plant, and pronounced the NLRB’s action “political payback from the White House to the unions.” He may be the first, but he won’t be the last Republican to latch onto the issue.

Never daunted, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, who recently declared war on the Republican Party (those sons-of-bitches), said “the National Labor Relations Act prohibits companies from retaliating against workers who exercise union rights by moving their jobs away.” Trumka failed to explain how Boeing’s expansion of the Washington facilities and adding another 2,000 union employees “moved jobs away.”

In attacking the pending House bill, Trumka said: “This is sweeping legislation that would gut the NLRB and result in serious, harmful changes to jobs and workers’ rights across the country.” Well, it would be sweeping, it could potentially gut the NLRB (that’s a bad thing?), and it would damage the cause of forced unionism. How putting people to work is a harmful change remains a mystery to all but the union bosses and the Obama administration.

Trumka adds that if the bill becomes law, “a company could simply close a plant and move to another state if workers complained of unsafe working conditions or discrimination.” Two things immediately occur to me. First, every state, including South Carolina, has rigid laws against unsafe working conditions and discrimination, so what does the union have to do with it? South Carolina also has whistleblower statutes which prevent companies from retaliating against workers filing legitimate complaints about unsafe working conditions or discrimination. Therefore, what Trumka is actually talking about is cushy union work rules, not safety or discrimination.

Second, I turn his own argument back on him. If the NLRB ultimately prevails, Boeing would be within its rights and good business sense to move its offices and plants to some place more business-friendly like, say, Shanghai. If Boeing did indeed commit a labor violation (which I firmly say it did not), the government telling a company where it can locate its facilities is both unwise and unconstitutional.

This is another back-door, end-run around the Constitution and proper delegation of authority. The President exacerbates the problem by claiming to stay above the fray. Says Obama: “I am reluctant to interfere in a case brought by an independent federal agency.” In other words, he wants his dirty work to be done by somebody else so he can pretend his skirts are clean.

I wish the sponsors of this bill the best of luck. It does have a good chance of passage in the House. But that won’t be the end of it. The Senate is still controlled by pro-labor Democrats and the bill will probably not even get a debate in that chamber, given majority leader Harry Reid’s adeptness at parliamentary roadblocks. What is likely is that the legal battle will go on for years, adding to the very uncertainty that is crippling American investment in American business

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Conservative Guide To Movies

Today is more a question than anything. I’m putting together a book: The Conservative Guide To Movies. I think this could be a useful tome to teaching conservatives how to take back Hollywood. So far, I’ve outlined most of the stuff I plan to cover, but I’m curious what you all think such a book should include?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Did The Terrorists Win On 9/11?

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 behind us, it’s time to ask a question that few have been willing to debate openly: did the terrorists win on 9/11? That’s a really difficult question to answer. Let’s see what we can come up with?

If we take this question literally, then the obvious answer is NO. The goal of the terrorists was to intimidate America to the point that Americans would no longer resist Islam. Thus, Islam could conquer country after country until it dominated the world. That didn’t happen and won’t. The American spirit is too strong for terror to succeed, and any attempt to impose Islam in the United States will simply result in a whole bunch of dead and desecrated Muslims.

Unfortunately, there’s more to consider.

Despite ten years of being hunted by the most powerful military in the world, al Qaeda continues to exist. They have killed 6,500 American and Western troops, exhausted Western Europe’s military capability, and continue to pull off daily terrorist operations around the world. The Taliban control large parts of Pakistan and are prepared to return to Afghanistan the minute we leave. Fundamentalist Islamic groups will soon control Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and probably Iraq, and are working on Syria and others. They control Sudan and Somalia, where they have turned pirating into a $538 million a year operation despite the collective efforts of the world’s navies. That’s a lot of success.

So did they win? No. Are they winning? Sort of.

Then there's the flip side to this question: did we lose? Again, literally, the answer is NO. America is still here and no one honestly thinks that's going to change. Indeed, if anything Islam is further from its goal today than ever because now we know what they're up to.

But again, there is more to consider. Our government has spent $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, and that doesn’t count things like TSA or lost productivity. That’s 8.5% of our national debt. By comparison, World War II cost only $2 trillion (in 1990 dollars). So we’ve spent a fortune.

At the same time, we’ve given up a lot of our freedoms so that our politicians can look like they are doing something. Note that I do not say “so we can be safe.” It’s fairly clear that airport fondlings have done nothing to keep us safer. Port security is a joke. The border is porous. Internal security is nonexistent. Essentially, we’ve been lucky that these terrorists just aren’t very bright or motivated.

Moreover, our security operations have become bureaucratic wastelands. We spent a fortune creating the Department of Homeland Security (annual budget $50 billion, funnels another $35 billion in grants), but it has achieved nothing. DHS has made no arrests that I’ve seen despite being given new powers like having the power to do warrantless wiretaps -- every arrest we’ve seen has been made by local cops, vigilant citizens or FBI stings. So what does DHS do with its time? It seizes the web domains of people who are illegally broadcasting NFL games. . . which has what to do with national security? DHS head Janet Napolitano also spends her time lying about the border being secure.

Congress has been shameful in all of this too. They’ve used the supposed security crisis to ram through all kinds of pork boondoggles and special interest legislation. They pander to us like we’re idiots, selling us fences, airport pat-downs, and anti-terror laws that are so broad anyone could be charged for anything. And they’ve put our soldiers -- our fellow Americans -- at risk because they didn’t know how else to look tough.

These are not good things. The terrorists didn’t hurt America or the American people, but our own politicians sure are giving it their best shot!

So what do we do?

First, we set new goals. Rather than fighting a “war” against something as nebulous and never-ending as “terror,” we need realistic goals such as neutralizing certain terrorist groups or replacing certain regimes. Then we come up with rational plans to achieve those goals.

Secondly, we reform our government. Strip away any function from DHS that is not actually related to security. Purge its laws of special interest goodies. Stop letting Congress force programs on the military. Consolidate all of the intelligence agencies.

And frankly, we need to do this for all agencies. Our government controls too much of our lives. It should not be micromanaging the country. We need to eliminate bailouts, czars, corporate handouts, and special interest tax carve outs. It needs to surrender its ownership of banks and car companies. It needs to stop picking economic winners and losers, and propping up things consumers don’t want. It needs to stop keeping us dependent on foreign energy and foreign labor. It needs to get out of education and out of our medical system.

Finally, we need to stop letting politicians use crises to grab power. 9/11 is not a valid reason to throw out the Constitution anymore than the financial crisis was a reason to throw out the Constitution. And we should never trade our freedoms for placebos.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Thoughts On Yet Another Debate

You may not know this, but there was a Republican debate last night -- between plays of the Dolphins-Patriots atrocity. Seriously, who schedules a debate during Monday Night Football? Not to mention, it's only been six days since the last one. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the debate.

Up With (these) People: This group of candidates continues to impress. They mixed it up nicely, they made great points and they defended themselves well. It was a very spirited debate, but only rarely felt negative. There was also an awful lot of conservative philosophy discussed and explained last night. This was good for conservatism all around.

The Hermanator: Herm is on fire! He was strong, credible, and made great points about the need to fundamentally remake our government. His advocacy of fixing Social Security by copying Chile’s model is fantastic. His 9/9/9 plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% sales tax) is also great. I would absolutely choose him for VP at this point (or P).

BullsEye of Newt: Newt was on fire too. He made excellent points all night, exposed a lot of mushy liberal-like thinking, and kept the attack focused on Obama. His best point came when the governors started arguing about who created more jobs. Newt reminded everyone that the government doesn’t create jobs. . . the private sector does.

Insane in the Membrane: Ron Paul continues to raise legitimate issues we should be considering. . . then he veers off into crazytown. For example, last night, he raised the question of whether or not our foreign policy, in particular having troops all over the world and trying to fight ground wars against Islamic terrorism, are working. Those are valid questions that need to be asked. But then he advocated total isolationism on the theory that if we bury our heads in the sand, everyone will leave us alone. Um, no. Paul also killed himself with all but his most devoted followers by saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves and suggesting we bombed civilians in Iraq. In truth, he was making a more subtle point than that -- he was pointing out what al Qaeda itself claims as a motive -- but he picked the wrong time for a subtle discussion on a very emotional issue.

Codename: Secret Liberal: Huntsman speaks in code. Last night he advocated "bringing in more workers" without using the words "open borders" or "immigration." He also took hypocritical cheap shots at other candidates -- like suggesting that Perry’s claim that you can’t really secure the border with a fence (a valid point) was “treasonous” ... even though Huntsman himself is for open borders.

The Wolfman: Wolf Blitzer of CNN did a surprisingly good job moderating the debate. He kept things moving along nicely, got everyone involved, and was amazingly fair -- very few “gotcha” questions. (FYI, the left is attacking CNN for working with the Tea Party... "unethical".)

Candidate For Sale: Perry took a pounding. He generally held up well, but not always. Paul blasted him for the growth of government and taxation in Texas and Perry had no real response. Perry also started well on the Gardasil vaccine issue, but withered under the constant (unfair) attacks. Perry also continues to give unsatisfactory evasions to the crony capitalism issue. For example, his best response to the issue was: “I raised $30 million. If you think I can be bought for $5,000, then I’m insulted.” Ok, what is your price, sir?

Blah Blah Blah: Romney is getting better at answering the RomneyCare issue by listing significant ways it varies from ObamaCare. He’s also starting to take the gloves off, though he still seems like the most tentative guy on stage and he comes across as snide when he attacks. The main problem for Romney continues to be that he’s a technocrat and while his lips move a lot, you can’t remember anything he says.

Illegals: Perry defended granting instate tuition to illegals (good economics, fairness, blah blah) and Huntsman explained granting drivers licenses to illegals (they were special licenses that identified these people as illegals).

On these issues, let me say that I actually think giving drivers licenses makes sense. Why? To protect people. These illegals will be driving whether we like it or not, and it just makes a lot of sense to have them in the system where they can be monitored, tested, taxed and forced to buy insurance. This makes it easier for law enforcement to do its job, and will protect other drivers / pedestrians -- right now, illegals run when they have an accident and that creates real problems for the people they hit.

Granting instate tuition, on the other hand, ticks me off. If you come from another state or legally come from another country, you need to pay out-of-state rates. So why should someone who is here illegally have MORE rights than someone who is here legally?

Got Gas: Bachmann made a point in the first debate about bringing the cost of gas down to $2 per gallon. The MSM scoffed at her claim -- even though the economics is actually on her side. Regardless, there is an ingenious aspect to her point, which is worth noting. People understand the benefits of energy independence in an abstract way, but they can’t personalize it. But everyone understands $2 a gallon gas.

Vaccinating Stupidity: There are valid reasons to criticize Perry for the vaccine issue. Specifically, his conduct raises questions of cronyism and his willingness to overstep his authority. BUT... to turn this into an broader anti-vaccine tirade as Santorum and Bachmann are doing is lunacy. To pretend that it violates people’s rights to force them to be inoculated against communicable diseases like small pox or to inoculate their children against easily-prevented debilitating diseases like polio is unconscionable idiocy.

Vox Tea Populi: For once, the questions from the audience were really good. I guess that’s due to this being a Tea Party crowd and not a bunch of MSM-picked whiny, mindless liberals.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in last night's debate play by play and the “yo’ momma so liberal” contest that broke out.

Oh, one more thing. In the name of equal time, we've agreed to let HypnoBama have a few words with you:


Vote for me puny humans!


[+] Read More...

The Arabs Spring

I was fed up to the neck with the drooling announcements of the "Arab Spring" about thirty seconds after I first heard the expression. Fools in the American government and on the left actually believe the overturning of repressive regimes in the Middle East somehow was the foretaste of western-style democracy. That is nothing short of criminal naivete.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (only worse). As the Arab Spring develops in Egypt with all the happy peace-loving Egyptians skipping down the streets of Cairo, holding hands, and singing kumbaya, something seems slightly amiss. Former strongman president Hosni Mubarak is going on trial for acting like a typical Arab leader, but in one way he was atypical. He maintained peace with his neighbors, most particularly Israel.

The usual Egyptian mob showed up for the weekly freedom (choke) demonstration in Tahrir Square, but as mob mentality took over, the mob decided demonstrating against a government that had already fallen just wasn't enough fun anymore. So last Friday's fun-fest turned into a march on the Israeli embassy in the nearby Giza district. Things aren't working out so well in Egypt. Tourism is down dramatically. The "free elections" have been kicked down the road. Money is becoming hard to come by for the average Egyptian. All good Arab Muslims know why things are so bad. It's the damned Jews.

The average Egyptian has probably never heard the line "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves." Knowing that Islam is never in error, and that Egyptians are the very salt of the earth, someone has to be behind the troubles that have made Egypt's situation worse rather than better after the fall of Mubarak. We all know what the default position for failure is in Arab nations--Israel did it. Hatred of the West, the United States, democracy, freedom and civilized values in general are thoughts shared among the denizens of Jihadistan. But hatred of Israel is almost genetic and extremely visceral.

So the mob broke through barriers and entered the Israeli embassy. Shades of Saigon and Tehran. The violence in Eqypt was not as widespread, but the pattern was the same. Throw a thousand years of diplomatic rules and sovereign territory out the window and loot. The Egyptian military at first stood idly by as the mob vandalized everything in sight inside the embassy, destroying a peace that had existed between Egypt and Israel since 1979. After the embassy was gutted, and the Israeli diplomats had escaped, the military finally took charge, killing two members of the mob and injuring many others.

The Egyptian provisional government had already proved itself adept at shooting itself in the foot. One of its first acts was to show those Jews what's what by ending its exports of natural-gas to Israel. That instantly took almost $355 million out of the nation's already-staggering economy (incidentally and entirely coincidentally almost the exact same amount taken out of the American economy by Obama's gift to bankrupt Solyndra). Even after trying Mubarak friends in kangaroo courts, 12,000 of them to be exact, the thirst for the blood of those to blame for Egypt's woes was not slaked. Israel must pay.

The Arab Spring in Egypt is beginning to look a lot more like the long, hot summer. The Egyptian Israel-haters have been encouraged by Barack Obama's ongoing public disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama's support for an independent Palestinian state which includes parts of Jerusalem haven't helped much either. But at least some of Obama's diplomatic functionaries recognized that they have been a little too cozy with the new Egyptian bosses, and forced Obama to render assistance to the trapped Israeli diplomats at the embassy.

Unlike the arrogant and self-centered Obama, Netanyahu behaved like a statesman and a gentlemen (both expressions entirely foreign to the amateur President). Netanyahu praised Obama, saying that the American President "used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us--we owe him a special debt of gratitude." Watch your back, Mr. Netanyahu.
[+] Read More...

Monday, September 12, 2011

Green Weenies Headed For Jail?

Last Thursday I did a piece on the failure of green government parasite Solyndra. I didn't expect to be revisiting the subject quite so soon, but it now appears that there was something genuinely rotten in the State of Green Nirvana. The $535 million handed over to Solyndra by the Obama administration may have been something more than misspent.

For the basic background on the subject of crony capitalism green profligacy, go here. After eating up all the federal handouts, and laying off its entire work force of 1100, this "model of green efficiency" filed for bankruptcy protection. The executives of Solyndra blew through the cash faster than you can say "renewable energy." The business plan was fatally-flawed, and now it appears that at least some of the Obamists knew it before, during and after the federal palm-greasing.

ABC News, not normally expected to be a hard investigative organization when it comes to Democratic boondoggles, reports that officials of the Department of Energy regularly sat in on Solyndra board meetings, offering suggestions for phony explanations for why the taxpayers money was being thrown at a scheme that was beyond redemption. The "stimulus" funds for Obama's friends at Solyndra were fast-tracked by the Department of Energy at the request of high-level Obama operatives. Between 2009 and 2011, top executive and Solyndra co-founder George B. Kaiser visited the White House no less than sixteen times.

Kaiser was a big contributor to Obama's presidential campaign, and his reward was to spend large swaths of time at the White House, rivaling the amount of time spent there by Andy Stern of the reprehensible SEIU. As part of the deal for the infusion of taxpayer money, the taxpayers position was subordinated to that of Kaiser in the event of a company failure. Kaiser met with the Deputy Directors of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council at the White House four times in the week preceding the official grant of the $535 million loan.

While Solyndra was putting on a good show without producing anything tangible, it also spent $1 million lobbying the Obama administration and other Washington politicians (mostly Democrats) in the three years leading up to the loan. Just before he paid his back-slapping visit to the Solyndra campus, President Obama received the report of Price Waterhouse Coopers which had audited Solyndra for the Securities and Exchange Commission for most its five year existence. PWC reported: "In the first five years of operation, the company had sustained $558 million in losses and has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

Ignore those annoying little facts. In obtaining search warrants for Solyndra's books, the DOJ is claiming that Solyndra's management "misled the administration" about the company's financial position and ability to produce viable green energy projects. "Shovel-ready" anyone? Federal subsidies for "green energy" have gone up 535% since 2007, with the vast majority occurring from 2009 to the present. Success rates are, to be generous, abysmal.

But gosh, it's such a good cause, the administration decided that the least it could do is cover the company's losses with taxpayer money. The PWC audit came out in March of 2010, but that didn't stop Obama from declaring in May of the same year that "companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." For whom, Mr. President? Yourself? George Kaiser? Certainly not for the taxpayers, the employees of Solyndra, or the real world of genuine energy-production.

It is apparent that Obama and his merry band of Chicago crony-capitalists posing as socialists either knew or should have known of the inevitable failure of the start-up Solyndra. If this isn't malfeasance, it's most assuredly misfeasance. But it's also what one should expect from an administration that couldn't care less about business, knows nothing about business, and is willing to do anything to protect and encourage its largest political donors. George Kaiser remains a billionaire, and will undoubtedly be joining George Soros in funding Obama's presidential reelection bid.

This dead fish smells so bad that the FBI and the Holder Justice Department have been forced into pretending that they actually suspect possible criminal behavior and intend to do something about it. Even if the FBI search warrants produce evidence of fraud or other criminal wrongdoing, what are the odds that the crooked and highly-politicized Justice Department will do anything about it? Another thing to add to the list for the new Attorney General in 2013.
[+] Read More...

Apparently, Our President Is An Idiot

Most of you are probably suffering from “NFL hangover,” so I’ll keep this short. . . no more than 15 pages, I promise. It turns out that our supposed brainiac President and his staff are idiots. I know this will shock you, but get this.

First, recall that our Kenyan overlord made a fool of himself with the timing of his jobs speech. He tried to steal the thunder from the Republican debate and ended up getting rolled by Boehner AND the NFL, and had to explain why such an urgent speech could wait until after he took the missus for a little luxury vacation. He ultimately attracted only 31 million viewers to this latest “most important speech of his Presidency.” That’s about 10% of the population. Apparently, the other 90% had something more important to do. Hence, this whole Winning The Future with jobs thing didn’t get off to a great start.

So, he tried to build momentum for his WTF jobs plan by spamming the media with lists of everyone who supports his plan. But not only were these the usual suspects who would have supported the plan even if it involved selling Americans to Brazilian medical clinics for spare parts, but Obama decided to send these alerts out one. . . e-mail. . . at. . . a. . . time. He sent about 50 in total before the blowback made him stop. Wrote one journalist: “The White House Press Office has vomited all over my inbox.”

Imagine that, a Kenyan spamming someone’s e-mail inbox? Unheard of.

Then, to shift blame to everyone except himself for his lack of urgency, Obama decided to demand that his jobs bill be passed RIGHT NOW!!! In fact, before the speech, he made a point of letting the press know that, for the first time in his administration, he would actually submit a bill to Congress so it could be passed immediately. Then he pounded away during and after the speech with “this bill is ready to be passed” and “pass the bill now.” Even his minions, like Valerie Jarrett have been going on MSNBC to say things like: “Congress should pass this bill right now.”

But there’s a problem. There's no bill. Team Obama hasn’t finished writing it yet. Hence, he’s an idiot.

And, this wasn’t the first time. Idiot boy has been running around the country whining that the Republican Congress hasn’t pass the free trade deals with Korean and a couple others. He even mentioned this in his jobs speech. The problem is, he has yet to submit those to Congress for approval.

This explains so much about the last couple years, doesn’t it? Our President is an idiot.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Anniversary Memorial

On this tenth anniversary of the cowardly sneak attack on America, I have so much that I feel and so little time and space to express it. I still feel immense sadness, a sense of renewed purpose, and yes, a lingering anger. Rather than write a lengthy piece, I will instead defer to our readers and allow you to express your thoughts, your feelings, and what you wish for America as we move on from this date which will live in infamy.
Original artwork and photo courtesy of our friend, Jimmy Arone [+] Read More...

Film Friday: World Trade Center (2006)

This article is also posted at Big Hollywood (LINK).

Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center was wildly disappointing. This film could have been the defining film of our times, but it ended up being nothing more than a generic disaster film. It's a missed opportunity, which I think was brought about because Oliver Stone lost his nerve.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Saturday, September 10, 2011

District 9 (in NY) - The Aliens Will Be Landing

There are is a very important special election on Tuesday in New York for Congressional District 9. No, not THAT District 9, but just as alien. This District 9 is comprised of parts of Brooklyn and Queens (see map), and is from where the now disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner's privates were exposed. At first the local Democratic Political Machine thought this would be a slam dunk for them. I mean, why not? The election is in an overwhelmingly Dem district in an overwhelmingly Dem city in an overwhelmingly Dem state. The Democratic leadership thought all they had to do was to nominate any loyal Machine Democrat and there would be nothing left to do but wait until September 13. So without much adieu, they nominated their go-to guy for New York City - David Weprin. The Machine had already successfully nominated Weprin and won in slam dunk elections for New York City Counsel and state Assembly, so, by all accounts there should have been no problem. What they didn't count on was the mounting frustration with President Obama, the embarrassment caused by disgraced Anthony Weiner, and a surprisingly good Republican opponent - Bob Turner. It's being called a "perfect storm".

So who is this alien being? Robert "Bob" Turner is a 70 year old, retired TV executive whose claim to fame is as CEO of the entertainment division that oversaw the very lucrative productions of The Phil Donahue Show, The Sally Jesse Raphael Show, and The Jerry Springer Show and also established a successful television motion picture company. So already on his face, he's media savvy. He ran against Anthony Weiner in 2010, but gained only 40% of the vote. Even though he lost, Turner already had exposure going into this special election and was well versed in policy. On substance, Turner is a fiscally conservative former business owner who has studied the issues and understands our economic climate.

It all started to fall apart for Weprin at an early press conference. When the candidates were asked questions about policy, it was clear who had done his homework. When asked about the amount of the deficit, Weprin confidently responded "I think it's about $4 trillion", a question that Turner had no problem answering correctly ($14 trillion and counting). It's been downhill from there. Major missteps by Weprin have further damaged his campaign. Things like when he failed to show up for a well-publicized local debate citing it was just too difficult in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. Embarrassingly for Weprin, Turner arrived on time and prepared even though he had to evacuate from his home. And last week, Weprin's campaign had to pull a controversial TV ad with images of a plane flying over a city skyline. The image was supposed to paint Turner as an out of touch rich guy who regularly uses those evil private jets and hates Senior citizens and wants to take away their Social Security and Medicare. However, it ended up being a highly offensive image to use on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. But the real nail in Weprin's campaign coffin was reported this week by the New York Post - Dave Weprin doesn't even live in District 9 and has no intention of moving there if he wins the election!

There are even some local Democrats who are using Weprin's campaign to voice their frustration with Obama. Former Mayor Ed Koch, a prominent long time Democrat, threw his full-throated support to Turner very early on in protest against Obama's Israel policy with others following close behind. And good for Republicans, Turner has turned out to be a very savvy, likable, and knowledgeable conservative candidate. As a matter of fact, his only noticeable drawback to many local liberals is his stand on the Park51 mosque project for which he adamantly opposes. Even the very liberal New York Daily News found this a minor issue when they endorsed Turner today.

The Democratics are now in a full scale panic. This special election is seen as referendum on Obama and his policies, so Dem party money has been pouring in. The DNC has kicked in at least $500 million to fund a blitz of TV ads and other boots-on-the-ground strategies. But, no matter how much money the DNC has committed, nothing seems to be working. Just three weeks ago, Weprin was leading by an uncomfortably close 6 points in the polls. As of this Friday, a Sienna poll announced that Turner is now leading Weprin by 6 points. So, come Wednesday morning, if Turner wins, this could indicate that we may be just that much closer to an Obama-free world.

One caveat: This may be a short-lived victory because New York lost two congressional districts as of the 2010 Census. The state Legislature has to decide which districts to get rid of and District 9 may be one of them. Ultimately it may not matter because the damage will already be done.
[+] Read More...

Friday, September 9, 2011

The Great (film) Debates vol. 6

Today's film review will be moved to Sunday morning to coincide with 9/11. In the meantime, let's focus on history for our Great (Film) Debates series:

What historical event do you think needs a movie?


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...