China Is A Free Nation (Well, Sort Of)

Doug Bandow at The American Spectator had an interesting take on China last week. Lest anyone think he's a China-propagandist, he starts his article with "Repeat after me: the People's Republic of China is an authoritarian country. Political leaders are not elected. Religious persecution is real. China is not free." But there's a point where China at least appears to be much more open than America. And that's in travel restrictions.

He goes on: "Yet to visit the PRC is to visit a nation that feels free. It's remarkably easy to get a visa. The consular office in Washington, D.C. is always crowded: pay an extra $30 and get same-day service. It's a lotharder for Chinese to get a visa from the U.S. government. Blacklisting presumably occurs, but most bettingmust be perfunctory. Given the time difference, the Washington consulate is handing out visas while the Beijing Foreign Ministry is sleeping. The PRC appears to have decided to err on the side of collecting U.S. dollars."

He goes on to describe his own experience in traveling to China. He cites the lack of an overtly forbidding security presence at Beijing airport. He allows that most Chinese and foreigners are quickly moved through the "nothing to declare" customs line. He actually carried copies of two foreign policy policy books which were somewhat critical of China, and yet was passed right through, and says that it at least appears that nobody is checked for much of anything that wouldn't be openly "subversive."

Once inside the country, travel is rarely restricted. Having arrived with his visa intact, Bandow was allowed to travel to tourist spots which are remarkably free of old communist ways. Western franchise chains such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken are ubiquitous. The stores are filled with merchandise of all kinds, at reasonable prices, and in capitalist-like abundance. Bandow goes on to say: "This is no longer an impoverished regimented society in which everything is limited. In Shenyang I went to dinner with other conferees at a traditional Chinese restaurant where all the waiters and waitresses were wearing Santa caps and (secular) Christmas decorations covered the walls. It could have been any of dozens of U.S. establishments."

Everyone appears to be going on their way unimpeded. Cell phones appear to be attached to nearly every Chinese ear. Automobiles are catching up with bicycles as a major method of getting around. He was able, without difficulty getting onto the internet and English-language sites (although he says that every time he tried a Google search, it came up in German, so he switched to the AOL search engine instead). We all know that the Chinese restrictions on information are some of the tightest in the world, but most information was readily available. Unlike his experience in North Korea, where he felt he was being watched at all times, even in his sleep, Bandow felt free to do or say pretty much anything he wanted, and to find willing Chinese participants in his conversations.

The communists are still very much around, but seem helpless to stop this growth of the free exchange of ideas propelled by the Chinese love of acquiring goodies on the market. That will probably continue to be true, unless China/American relations deteriorate suddenly or the government senses that America has changed its tune and elected a leader of equal importance to their own.

I have never traveled to China (my entire experience with the far east was a couple of trips to Seoul to negotiate the official bribes necessary for a client of mine to open a Malibu Grand Prix racing park franchise). But I do know that Bandow is no blind liberal, and several of my friends have traveled to China and come back with similar stories. The average Chinese citizen (as opposed to the high-echelon autocrats) seems to want very much to compete with America rather than crush an enemy. In the cities and outside of the military, the Chinese both admire and mimic American ways.

Bandow concludes by saying "But some day, whether it comes in two, three, or four decades, the two countries are likely to meet as global equals. That will force the U.S. to operate very differently, especially in Asia. It behooves Washington to prepare for what is coming, and to begin thinking about how it should respond to that day." I see that as a very reasonable way of viewing things.

As the old guard dies out (and I mean old--they all seem to last into their eighties), and newer blood comes in which has grown up with the ever-increasing freedom of choices, America will probably end up treating China the same way it now treats former enemies such as Japan and Germany. And unless something terrible and unforeseen happens, this will have been accomplished without any further shooting wars between the two nations or their surrogates. I won't see it, but maybe my children and their children will.

Now, about Russia . . . .
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Day The Democratic Party Died

Hear that silence? That’s the sound of the last missed-opportunity the Democratic “moderates” are going to get to fix their rotten party. For years now, the leftists in the media have been obsessed with the Republican fringe. They do article after article about how the Republican party is dominated by its fringes and how that makes it unpalatable to the American public. Yet, they ignore the Democrats, the real party dominated by its fringes. The current health care debate is giving “moderate” Democrats one last chance to retake their party. Sadly, they aren’t up to the task.

You may recall my open letter to the Democrats from a week or so ago. In it, I pointed out that they had become a rotten party. They are a party of spite, of anger, of tribalism. They seek to destroy rather than help. They demonize and they hate. That is their activist base; that is their leadership.

But the moderates have always claimed that they are not the same as their leaders. They call themselves “moderates” or “blue dogs” and they make a lot of noise about being something other than what their party has become. But it’s all an illusion. . . or a delusion. No matter what they want to think of themselves, these same “moderates” support leaders who push a hate-filled, destructive agenda on an unwilling population, and they will vote for any hard-left proposal for which they are told to vote. They are at best “useful idiots” or “fellow travelers,” at worst co-conspirators.

So why talk about this now? Because the current environment gives these moderates possibly the last chance they will ever have to rescue their party and bring it back from the brink.

The American public is furious. They oppose every single thing the Democrats are trying to do in overwhelming numbers. In survey after survey, close to 60% of the population opposes (often strongly or angrily) what the Democrats are doing. The public is intent on throwing them out, possibly for a generation.

This is the exact environment these self-described moderates need to reshape the Democratic Party. They need to redefine their principles and then take a stand on those principles. They need to announce to the world, their intent to change their party and their determination to work with the Republicans to frustrate the fringe agenda being foisted upon us.

They need to say something like this:

“We can no longer support the direction the party is taking. It is time that we stop treating the public as an enemy and start listening to the American people. We must put behind us the era of identity politics and race baiting, the era of class warfare, the destructive politics of spite and envy. There can be no room in our party for such beliefs or for those who would be believe them. Liberalism is about helping those who need it, not hurting those we think have too much.”

“We will no longer support irresponsible uncontrolled spending, or spending on pet projects and special interests. We are here to represent the American people, not just some of them. We cannot support a health care bill that does nothing to cut costs or improve the quality of care, that is financed on the backs of retired people, or that relies on fraudulent accounting. We can no longer support midnight votes on secret bills. We must rethink the way our government works.”

“It is time to chart an old course for the Democratic Party, to make it again into the party that Jefferson built, that Roosevelt built, that JFK built. We must stop being a party that listens to Karl Marx and acts like it’s run by Groucho Marx.”

Then they need to follow this up by denying leadership votes to Pelosi et al. They should work with the Republicans to form, basically, a coalition government -- one that tracks mainly center with some liberalism mixed in.

But they won’t because they are afraid of their fringe. Though nothing could be further from the truth, they’ve bought into the idea that they can’t win re-election unless they pander to their fringe. So they cower and they collaborate.

I say “bought into” because the idea that fringes have power is false. The only power the left-fringe has is in refusing to support a candidate. They could run a primary challenge, but that rarely works. . . especially against a popular politician. And in most states and the overwhelming majority of districts, the leftist fringe is too small to matter.

Take Nelson, for example. Nebraska is a largely non-partisan, relatively conservative state. Nelson is(was) a popular politician -- he was known primarily as a governor who cut taxes. So does anyone really believe that he could be unseated in a primary challenge by some wild-eyed, socialist mouth-breather? Not likely. And do you really think he will be better off having voted for this health care seizure and betraying the people of Nebraska than he would have been had he stood up to this loony plan?

If I were to run against Nelson, I would start now (hint hint) and I would put out ads explaining what Nelson has done in the Nelson/Pelosi Health Care Seizure Act. And when 2012 ran around, there would be thousands of signs all over Nebraska asking:

• “Has Pelosi/Nelson improved your health care?”
• “Did you get coverage?”
• “Is your health insurance cheaper?”
• “Did Ben Nelson forget to mention the fines?”
• “Did you get what you’re paying for?”

But the moderates aren’t serious. Rather than band together and rise up, they remain silent. . . or whisper “can I get something to bribe my constituents?” Or they lie. In fact, it’s become a virtual truth holocaust whenever they discuss their agenda. One of my Colorado Senators (they may be the same guy as far as I can tell) has an ad running right now that is nearly 100% false -- the only part that appears to be true is the bastard’s acknowledgement that he’s a United States Senator.

And Nelson? In a most telling moment, “conservative” Democrat Nelson said this regarding the angry response of the people of his state:

“This is all orchestrated. It’s so thinly disguised. . . it’s almost laughable.”

Laughable? The anger of the American people is laughable?

It’s time to face reality. The Democratic Party is dead. And in its place now stands a hard-core, hate-filled socialist, apartheid party. There are no moderates in that party, and those that claim to be moderate are lying.

For those of you who still cling to the idea of a Democratic Party but aren’t ardent socialists or outraged members of some interest group, it’s time to move on.

So why does this matter to me? Shouldn’t I be happy that these daffy fools are about to commit political suicide? Well, yes. But politics works best when you have two vibrant parties competing for ideas. Right now we don’t have that. In place of the second party, we have this collection of lunatics and hate-mongers calling themselves Democrats.

Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can You Hear Me Now? You're Getting Cancer

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has decided that his run for governor is behind him and his mystery trip to Hawaii is now non-news, so he needs to get back into the race to the bottom of the political heap. And how does a good liberal do that? Make a big announcement that he is going to protect us from ourselves. Moderate/conservative writer Debra J. Saunders (yes, there is such a thing) jumped on the Newsom announcement in the San Francisco Chronicle. Cell phones might, maybe, could, sort of, theoretically cause cancer.

In a major long-term study of cell phone usage among rats, it was found that 25% of all rats that use cell phones more than seventy hours a week tend to develop cancer. OK, I made that up. But the genuine studies that have been conducted have demonstrated a very tenuous correlation between cell phone use and certain types of rare cancer, even among humans. A few junk scientists who have tried to contact polar bears on their cell phones received no answer from the bears, and concluded that the poor things had died of cell phone-induced cancer. But that's about it for the "settled science."

As Saunders so aptly put it, "In other cities, mayors usually try to make it easier for local businesses to prosper. But in the Special City, the mayor somehow manages to find ways that, if anything, make it harder for commercial enterprises to compete with out-of-town retailers. In San Francisco, that's not a priority. Newsom wants to require cell phone companies to post warnings for an ostensible cancer threat that has not been established."

The FCC and the ultra-cautious World Health Organization have found no measurable risk of developing cancer from excessive cell phone use. But details like that are not about to stop our crusading mayor. The American Cancer Society has actually turned Newsom's proposed warning on its head. "Patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the control [groups]. In fact, most of the studies show a trend toward a lower risk of brain tumors among cell phone users, for unclear reasons."

But just like Al Gore's direct connection to divine authority, Newsom has apparently received the Holy Word from on high, and isn't going to let mere human scientific studies interfere with his new crusade. Using the European standard of the "Precautionary Principle" (which states that if any abstract, unprovable, unscientific harm could occur in the mind of a zealot, then the activity must be banned or regulated), Newsom wants to require that all cell phone retailers post warnings about the dangers of cancer resulting from cell phone use. The science is settled, the clarion call must go out--"Use a cell phone, die of cancer." It's right up there with cancer caused by living near high-voltage electrical transmission sources. It's just easier to put away your cell phone than to move your house to get away from an imagined danger.

Newsom is therefore in-sync with the nanny Board of Supervisors. They want to protect the good citizens of San Francisco by reducing any conceivable risky behavior into non-existence. Of course that doesn't explain why they aren't just a tad concerned with risk when it comes to having "sex tents" on the streets for the purpose of public sex during the Folsom Street Fair, or how to explain that with two generations of public warnings, The City still has about 900 new cases of HIV each year.

Run, Gavin, run! If you want to be the firstest with the mostest, you're going to have to move fast. Someone else is out to steal your thunder, and on a national level. Representative Andrea Boland (D-Maine) is proposing federal legislation to require such warnings across the entire United States. As for myself, I'm just going to ignore the whole thing and go breathe in some second-hand smoke under a large power transmission tower.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Copenhagen: Let’s Make A (Fake) Deal

Liberals are stupid. And I mean that sincerely. They seem incapable of differentiating between real promises and fake promises, between real deals and mere symbolism or photo ops. They hear “we will agree to agree” as “we have an agreement,” and they wonder why nothing changes thereafter. They’re suckers for fake accords. And nothing is faker than Obama’s Copenhagen deal.

As one might expect, the liberal self-delusion machine is running in high gear trying to sell liberals on the idea that Obama didn’t sell them out again. But he did. I’ve got the receipt to prove it.

“OBAMA SAVES COPENHAGEN, WORLD!” screamed the soothing headlines. Don’t worry my liberal friends, you backed the right messiah. Don’t look behind the curtain, just bask in his glory.

But what did he really agree to? The agreement in question was all of two and a half pages. Here is what is “requires”:

• Signatories will cooperate in reducing emissions “with a view” to keeping temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees F about preindustrial levels.

TRANSLATION FOR LIBERALS: Signatories agree that it would be nice if temperatures stayed low. We might even think about doing something to make that happen.

• Developing nations will report the progress of their voluntary actions every two years.

TRANSLATION FOR LIBERALS: We agreed to nothing, but we’ll act like we’re keeping track of our progress.

• Those reports will be subject to “international consultations and analysis”.

TRANSLATION FOR LIBERALS: You can watch us do nothing.

• Rich nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund clean energy projects in poor countries, with a goal of creating a $100 billion-a-year fund by 2020.

TRANSLATION FOR LIBERALS: Maybe someone in the future will spend money to help poor countries, but don’t count on it. In the meantime, look for existing aid to be redesignated as “environmental aid.”

The key word, for our liberal friends, is the word “voluntary.” I know this is not a word with which you are familiar. But if you look it up in the dictionary you will find that it means taking actions without being forced to or required to take those actions. That’s right, without the government telling you that you have to do it. Yes. Seriously. People do things without being told. Yes, it happens all the time. Look it up.

So what we have here is a deal that requires nothing, but includes some promises to consider doing some stuff, maybe. That's worthless. And if you want proof, my liberal friends, there’s a simple test: ask yourself, are we required to do anything more after the agreement than we were required to do before the agreement? Answer: Nope.

What? Do you need a crayon sketch to figure this out?

Apparently so.

Despite the obvious, David Doniger, the director of gullibility at the leftist Natural Resource Defense Council, hailed this as “a very substantial breakthrough . . . we’re going to have a real effort that involves all the countries. . . making cuts in that pollution.” Oh goodie! And next week we’ll all lose ten pounds.

Tony Kreindler, a spokes-sucker for the leftist Environmental Defense Fund, gushed, “There was no room for failure, and Obama came through and was able to get an agreement. The process is a difficult one, but the president took a risk, was bold and walked away with an agreement.” Can’t you just feel the awe. . . the lust? (Try reading it again and adding a little hard breathing and you’ll see what I mean.) I’ll tell you what Tony, if you send us a bunch of money, we promise to one day consider saying something nice about your pathetic organization. That’s a solid promise in your book, right? Come on Tony, you know you want to. . . it’ll make the polar bears happy.

The New York Times and CNN jumped on board, defending their messiah by calling this agreement “meaningful.”

But not everyone is as stupid. One climate change group broke the code pretty quickly:

“We’ve got a league of carbon foxes to share guard duty over the henhouse. I think the most depressing part is that it will probably play well politically in the US. Progressives worked their heart out for a guy who has gutted one of the most progressive ideas of the last century.”

Who doesn’t love irony? And this group was not alone. Here is a smattering of typical responses:

• Mexico’s President Calderon: “I know this accord is far from what we expected and what the world needs.”

• European something-or-other-irrelevant Jose Manuel Barroso said, “this particular text falls far short of our expectations.” One European diplomat was a little blunter, calling this “a shitty, shitty deal.”

• The African delegation complained that this deal “condemns their continent to a century of devastating temperature rises.”

• Hugo Chaves said that he could still smell sulfur when Obama spoke. Yeah, I get that too when Obama speaks. Chavez then complained that Obama got the Nobel Prize for War and whined about capitalism. . . not keeping his socialist paradise afloat.

The Independent UK described the “‘deal’ as beyond bad” and noted that the requirements were so minimal that the Europeans would actually need to work hard not to meet them:

It's not just that we didn't get to where we needed to be, we've actually ceded huge amounts of ground. There is nothing in this deal – nothing – that would persuade an energy utility that the era of dirty coal is over. And the implications for humanity of that simple fact are profound.

I know we Greens are partial to hyperbole. We use language as a bludgeon to direct attention to the crisis we are facing, and you will hear much more of it in the coming days and weeks. But, really, it is no exaggeration to describe the outcome of Copenhagen as a historic failure that will live in infamy.

What [we] witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived.

By the way, the cost of carbon permits in Europe (where they are sold like derivatives) crashed after the deal.

But the American left is oblivious. Fake agreements! To paraphrase Bob Hoskins from Roger Rabbit, “liberals. . . get’s ‘em every time.”


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libel Tourism Gets Its Passport Checked

At long last, some ground is being gained in the ongoing battle of Islamofascism versus free speech. Our English cousins don't have a First Amendment, but they've built a lot of protections into their basic documents and common law. That wasn't the problem. It was England's very archaic and pro-plaintiff libel laws that were getting attention from the free nations of the West.

Nearly every news article or editorial exposing the facts surrounding militant Islam was immediately targeted for suppression either as libel against Islam or libel against a particular Muslim who was mentioned in the article. That kind of suit went pretty much nowhere in the United States where the First Amendment protects free expression of ideas, and where defamation law makes it a requirement for the plaintiff to show malice, intended or negligent. When it comes to public figures, American law makes it even more difficult by requiring a showing of actual malice (either intentional or so reckless in its disregard for the truth that it rises to the level of malice).

Not so for England, where libel laws haven't changed much since the trial of Oscar Wilde. In a reversal of the common law concept of innocent until proven guilty, libel laws require the defendant to prove his innocence once he has been charged with defaming anyone or anything. And there's no exception made for religious or political speech. The Islamic radicals certainly don't want their agenda exposed, so they have used the lenient English courts to obtain huge judgments and suppression orders to prevent writers and speakers from uttering a single discouraging word about the religion of peace or any of its leading practitioners. Then they trot off with their judgments, demanding they be enforced universally.

The Americans rebelled. Some of the harshest criticism of the worldwide jihad has come from American sources which were printed and broadcast in other parts of the world, including England. When Khalid bin Mahfouz (see below) came to America seeking to enforce his English judgment, we told him to take a hike. First there were the constitutional arguments that such enforcement would "shock the conscience" of a nation with ironclad guarantees of free religious and political speech built on a foundational document called the Constitution. Then came the flurry of proposed federal and state statutes nullifying any English libel judgment against an American that didn't rise to the American standard of defamation. Americans (and their lawyers and judges) of all political and religious stripes (except one) generally rallied together to stop this nonsense in its tracks.

Until America acted, the threat to worldwide reporting of atrocities and terror planning were real and immediate. Major sources of information including American newspapers were on the verge of abandoning distribution in England and installing firewalls to block access to their overseas websites. If you think the National Enquirer is a scandal-sheet, you should read some of the English tabloid press. But there the press goes after minor celebrities and those with little financial backing because the risks are exceeded by the increase in readership. But they don't take on the big boys--like the Saudi-funded Islamic octopus.

The New York Times printed an article about Simon Singh, the author of "Fermat's Enigma" who was sued for libel in England for his efforts to expose the British Chiropractic Association for promoting bogus treatments. Said Singh: "It's quicker and easier and simpler to apologize or settle," which he knows well because he has refused to do so and is spending everything he has to defend himself. That kind of courage is rare.

The first case of its kind to be brought to America for enforcement was that of Rachel Ehrenfeld who accused Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz of channeling money to Al Qaeda in a book written and printed in the United States entitled "Funding Evil." There was certainly enough evidence to lead anybody to the same conclusion, but not enough to satisfy the English demand for absolute proof. The book sold exactly 23 copies in England, but that was enough for the English courts to take jurisdiction. Mahfouz was awarded $225,000 in damages (which he didn't need but could use as a bludgeon to silence Ehrenfeld). Ehrenfeld had refused to submit to English jurisdiction or to participate in the trial.

By the time Mahfouz's lawyers came knocking on Ehrenfelds's door, the state of New York had already passed legislation making the English judgment impossible to enforce. Congress has not yet passed similar legislation (too busy trying to pass socialized medicine and cap 'n tax), but it is in the hopper. Many other states have followed New York's example. If the judgment doesn't rise to the basic constitutional requirements of American jurisprudence, it will not be enforced.

The English law journals abound with examples like this. But apparently not for much longer. These laws have not only been used to promote Islamic libel terrorism, but have affected the standing of English courts over completely unrelated matters as well. A recent case involved a a professor at the University of Iceland who made disparaging remarks about a the competence of an Icelandic businessman. No lawsuit, because Icelandic law allows fair comment (much like ours). So when the professor moved to London five years later, the businessman sued him there. And won, although the judgment was later reversed on procedural grounds of inadequate service of process.

Litigious Americans have not been above using this dirty trick of libel tourism. A British cardiologist criticized a clinical trial of a drug produced by NMT Medical of Boston at a conference in Washington, D.C. The suit would have gone nowhere in either Boston or D.C., so NMT merely waited until the doctor returned to England, and sued him there. The doctor has refused to yield, and at this point the litigation goes on, with the doctor already having spent over 100,000 pounds sterling of his own money rather than cave in to a false charge.

Tired of being an international laughingstock, members of Parliament are finally proposing to bring the English libel laws into conformity with the free speech provisions of other Western nations. It was an Englishman who gave this kind of backdoor suppression of free speech the moniker of libel tourism. Members of Parliament are now proposing to go the whole nine yards and pass legislation which will make libel much more difficult to prove when legitimate (even if ultimately wrong) matters of public interest are discussed openly and in good faith. A mere allegation of defamation followed by a huge award of damages will no longer suffice.

In The Times of India, reporter Sarah Lyall said "Russian oligarchs, Saudi businessmen, multinational corporations and American celebrities all have their way in the courts of London where jurisdiction is easy to obtain and libel laws are heavily weighted in favour of complainants. The justice secretary, Jack Straw, said recently that he was alarmed about 'libel tourism.' And in the House of Commons, a committee has listened to a parade of witnesses denounce the current law as perverse, unfair, prohibitively expensive, contemptuous of free speech and an anachronism in an age when access to articles on foreign websites can be obtained anywhere." As a matter of fact, it looks like Parliament is even considering going one step farther and adopting America's laws forbidding frivolous lawsuits which are filed solely to suppress public opinion (SLAPP suits--strategic lawsuits against public participation). The monetary damages may soon be worn on the other foot.

It looks like libel tourism and suppression of the free exchange of ideas is on its last legs in England, unless their notoriously cowardly ministers are afraid it will offend the emergence of sharia law. For the immediate future, it looks like those who would have their horrible reputations laundered in the courts must look elsewhere.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

New York State of Mind...

Oh the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful
So, if you've no place to go,
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...

-Cahn and Styne (1945)


Yes, we in NYC are being clocked by "climate change". Though I have not consulted with Al Gore, I will be bold and call this "winter weather." Along with this "winter weather" comes frigidly cold temperatures and lots and lots of snow. I admit, it makes me giddy because there's nothing more beautiful than the streets of New York City covered in a beautiful blanket of powdery white snow. It doesn't stay white for long, but for a brief moment it's like being in a giant snow globe. It's so much fun and no shoveling needed.

Local - The New York City Council nixed plans for the redevelopment of the old Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx that would have brought 1000 new construction jobs and 1200 permanent jobs to a borough that desparately needs jobs. The reason - the developers could not guarantee a prohibitively expensive "living wage" demand of $10 an hour and insurance (or $11.50 w/o insurance). Apparently the Council decided that no jobs were better than compromising. And moreover, the city must go into further in the hole for about $1,000,000 in repairs and upkeep on the large, empty space. Merry Christmas, Bronx.

-More presents from our city government! The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced that it is so much in the hole with the upcoming 11% raises for transit workers that it will have to implement it's "Doomsday Plan". This means major cutbacks in subway and bus lines and services, and forcing school children to pay for their fare to schools and to severely cut back on transportation for the disabled. This is after they promised there would be no need to implement this plan when they raised the transit fare earlier this year. Happy Holidays, New York City!

-But our City isn't all bad. Our Health Department is set to lift a decades old ban on beekeeping in New York City after recently determining that honeybees are rarely harmful. According to the Daily News there are about 500 local beekeepers in New York City. Who knew?

-Oh, and so no one's feelings are hurt, the Christmas Tree at Rockefeller Center will now be known as "The Tree at Rockefeller Center". Really, if you insist on calling a "Christmas Tree" we will cry. I am serious...actually this was just a rumor being passed around the internet, but this is just how rumors get started.

State - Governor Patterson announced that the State of New York is broke and he will be withholding payments for schools and transportation [see above]. And now, the Governor and State Legislature can blow more money if they don't meet a January 19th deadline to apply for our cut of Obama's "Race to the Top" money for our schools.

Federal - Gossip....So our two esteemed Senators Charles "Chuck" Schumer and Kirstin "Newbie" Gillibrand were on a shuttle flight from D.C. to New York last week. The flight attendant made a general announcement that all electronic devices should be turned off and stowed away in preparation for the flight. We all know this announcement, right? Well, our dear Sen. Schumer, being a very important person responded by, well, continuing his cellphone conversation. When confronted by a female flight attendant to shut and stow, he told her that he did not have to until the doors were closed. The flight attendant responded that he had to stow when the flight crew said he had to stow. He finally relented, but not until he turned to Sen. Gillibrand and called the flight attendant a "b-word" under his breath. No, really it get's even better! So after the flight, Sen. Gillibrand took it upon herself to defend Sen. Schumer in statement that pretty much preemptively called Schumer a complete gentleman and the flight attendant a liar. What makes this really funny is that at the very same time Sen. Schumer was issuing an apology to the flight attendant for calling her a "b-word". An egg on both your faces, Senators!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Watch Out World!

The Governator has boldly destroyed California's economy with his green/climate change agenda, and now he's heading to Copenhagen to pump up the rest of the world. If you're wondering where all those uninvited guests for the UN Summit on Climate Change came from, they're the California business people and working taxpayers who have exited the state in droves to get away from the oppressive and crippling legislation, rules and regulations foisted upon them by the beefy man-bot.

California is the leader in environmental pseudo-science and mindless legislation which has brought the world's fifth or sixth largest economy to, and perhaps over, the brink of ruin. More than 250,000 jobs were lost in California in one year alone, and today's official unemployment rate is 12.3% and climbing (the real figure is probably even higher when you include workers who have simply given up on the idea that they will ever be able to get a decent job again, run out of their unemployment insurance benefits, and ended up on welfare).

But never fear, he'll be back. And he announced recently that the green jobs creation will produce a whopping 400,000 jobs to replace the nearly million jobs which will have been lost by the end of the current five-year period. Aside from the fact that 400,000 is considerably less than a million, even a robot can be honest enough to admit that it will take ten to twelve years to produce those theoretical jobs.

The Kyoto Accord has nothing on California legislation. Many major nations never signed on to Kyoto, and those that did are not even close to making their goals. California has more control over its citizens than that. It has been three years since Ahnuld enthusiasically signed the job-killer bill also known as AB 32 which mandated that California reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That bill alone is projected to cost the state nearly $72 billion per year, while costing consumers another $149 billion and killing 1.1 million real jobs. And the state government has used all means available to it to collect the taxes and enforce the rules necessary to achieve this lofty goal.

But that projection doesn't stop the determined Governator. When asked by a reporter if Schwarzenegger might consider modification of the legislation or temporary suspension of its harshest provisions during the big recession, the RINO (robot in name only) looked up at Skynet and replied: "I will not suspend regulations that are creating jobs and stimulating the economy." I think there are a few wires crossed in the man-bot's head.

Nothing in the present, real world will dissuade Ahnuld from his course of action. Originally somewhat hesitant about AB 32, he is now an enthusiastic booster of this pie-in-the-sky legislation. He sees things that never were, and never will be, and declares them to be the true facts. Amazing what they can do with computer programming these days, isn't it? He joyfully reports that many of the provisions of the bill won't even go into effect until 2012. That means that they will kick in right near the end of the current five-year downhill slide, making the present restrictions and mandates look like child's play. To any sane person, that means it's going to get worse. But to a humanlike machine it means "By then, the economy will continue to improve ('continue?'), helped by the growth of California's clean tech sector."

Those of us who watched the California Coastal Commission grab huge swaths of California land to "preserve the environment" and prevent development of any real substance thought that was as bad as it could get. We thought drying up the lush Central Valley farms and fields in order to protect a fish that is of no use to anybody was just a temporary disconnect. Yet most of these predations occurred before this sociocrat posing as a conservative Republican came into office. He is making those enviro-nuts look absolutely sane and reasonable in his zeal to turn California into a fictional movie paradise of the future.

"Today Kahleeforneea, Tomorrow the World" is Schwarzenegger's rallying cry as he heads off to the conference of highly-confused Euroweenies, Asian opt-outers, and African handout seekers. Watch out world--resist him not. He keeps coming back, and coming back, and coming back. He will not give up until he has destroyed humanity and replaced them with well-programmed, non-polluting, hydrogen and solar powered machines. The earth will be pristine again, but there won't be anybody there to appreciate it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ObamaCare: All Bets Are Off. . .

By now you’ve all heard that Sen. Ben Nelson did what we all thought he would, he gave up his principles in exchange for a few favors for his constituents. . . the nation’s insurers. This means the rump-Baucus bill will pass the Senate. What does this mean? What happens next? Read on. . .

1. You’ve been tricked by your Senators.

The first thing to realize (and I hope the lousy people of Nebraska and Louisiana and the Democratic parts of Florida are listening) is that the Baucus bill and all of your ill-gotten gains and privileges are now likely worthless. Your Senators have played you for suckers.

How can I say this? Because there are at least 51 Senators who will vote for the final product even if it includes a nuclear strike on your home state. That means the Senate is now irrelevant. . . it will pass whatever comes out of the conference committee, no matter how much your Senator whines that it’s not fair.

The future of your special favors now rests in the hands of the liberal Democrats in the House. That means a likely return of the public option -- and Joe Lieberman can do nothing about it. That also means they can strip out the benefits for which Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Bill Nelson all sold their souls. That means they can ram through funding for abortion, coverage for illegal aliens, and taxes on you and yours. . . and there’s not a damn thing your Senator can do about it.

But they knew that. So when your Senate creature comes back to its home state on bended knee and it tells you through crocodile-tear-stained eyes that it thought it had a deal in place to protect you. . . don’t believe it. It’s lying.

2. What happens next?

What happens next is the bill goes to the conference committee made up of a group of Senators and a group of Representatives appointed by each chamber. They will argue over the final shape of the bill. They usually cannot add anything not already included in either the House or the Senate version (though this can be waived), but that’s not really relevant in this instance as the two bills together already cover everything the liberals in either chamber want.

In other words, even though the Senate stripped out the public option, the House included one. . . thus, the conference committee can put it back into the final bill, and Joe Lieberman can whine about being misled by Harry Reid.

3. Will the final bill pass?

Probably, but we’ll have to wait and see what format the bill ultimately takes. As I said above, don’t expect the Senate to do anything at this point except become a rubber stamp for the House. But the House hasn’t solved its own problems yet. The abortion people are furious on either side and finding a compromise that reconciles their polar opposite positions will be difficult. The immigrant groups are furious about the exclusion of illegal aliens. There is still anger, in both directions, about the inclusion/exclusion of the public option.

And the real winners right now are the insurance companies, which will upset House liberals to no end. Indeed, right now, insurers not only gained freedom from state regulation through this OPM plan, but 30 million more people will be forced to buy their products. Thank you Santa . . . or is it Satan?

In any event, this will be difficult to pass through the House. The House voted 220-215 to pass the bill originally. A loss of three additional votes would kill the bill. With Democrats talking openly about being willing to lose 20-40 seats to get this done, one has to wonder if more “moderate” Democrats won’t decide that their futures lie in opposing this bill? We’ll have to wait and see. . . just how suicidal are these Democrats?

4. What should the Republicans do now?

The Republicans have actually fought an extremely good fight on this. They deserve a ton of credit -- and let me add, the blame for not stopping this lies with the voters who thought they could trust the Democrats with a super-majority.

But now the game is changing. Any Republican who wants to lead the party in the future better start working language into their appearances about repealing this monster. That should become the leading issue in 2010 and 2012.

"Save HealthCare, Repeal PelosiCare"

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Question: Your Favorite Wonder

The world is full of wonders. The Ancient World had only seven, but we've expanded on that. The Great Wall of China, the Mona Lisa, the Eiffel Tower, that ceiling that guy did. . . what's your favorite world wonder? [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can Kool Aid Quench Hate?

As you know, the left is a tad put out by the health care debate. They’re so upset that the health care bill making its way through the Senate does not PUNISH insurance companies and drug makers that they’ve started throwing the greatest hissy-fit since. . . well, since, the last one. And in language getting increasingly more reminiscent of Wiemar days, the left has turned to fratricide and paranoid theories about being stabbed in the back by the dirty insurance companies and their secret agents in the White House and Senate. So how does Obama respond to this unruly mob of paranoid psychotics? Not very well.

Obama seems to have missed the fact that his minions have escaped their cages and are running around foaming at the mouth, looking for traitors in their midsts. He doesn’t seem to get that the left not only looks to destroy current allies (like Lieberman and Nelson) politically, but also personally. He doesn’t seem to get that the leftist blogosphere is starting to spin conspiracy theories in which their Messiah turns out not only to be a false prophet, but an agent of Satan Mutual Insurance.

That’s right, Obama’s not just a liar, he’s a betrayer, an agent of evil. . . capitalist stooge! He didn’t PUNISH the evil insurance/drug companies, he works for them. . . he was created by them. . . he is evil! Oh my.

But Obama missed all of this because he’s tone deaf.

The left wanted to hear this:

POTUS approaches TOTUS. . . My fellow Americans. Health care is the most important right we have. It is more important than any other right within the Constitution. We have tried to pass health care, but we have been betrayed by powerful interests of rich bankers, health care insurance providers and drug makers. This must stop. I have ordered the seizure of the assets of those who would oppose us and I have ordered the Senate to bar the doors until they produce a health care bill that guarantees free health care for everyone, except the rich, and which is premised on the only system that makes sense, with the government being the sole provider of health care. As of this moment, all doctors should consider themselves employees of the federal government.

But, instead, he gave them this: The Senate bill “fits all the criteria that I laid out.” Yeah, and Nancy Pelosi is Mary Poppins. Obama continued:

“It is deficit-neutral. It bends the cost curve. It covers 30 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, and it has extraordinary insurance reforms in there to make sure that we’re preventing abuse.”

What a crock. Not only is none of this true in any real sense of being truthful, but it’s not even true in the leftist sense of meeting their expectations (a greater form of truth in their minds).

Consider these real world untruths:

1. Deficit neutral? Yeah, if you don’t count huge chunks of the cost ($250 billion to doctors) that were excluded from the deficit calculation. . . if you use phony assumptions about cuts that will never happen ($460 billion in Medicare cuts and $25 billion in magical savings). . . if you assume that people will happily pay large amounts of income taxes rather than switching to lower taxed plans or that tens of millions of Americans would rather pay fines than get insurance. Not to mention that the spending is back-loaded and the taxes are front-loaded, which means that the bill will cost more than double the expected amount when you look at the second ten years.

Indeed, take a look at the following chart which shows how the spending increases slowly year after year. This is the only way to keep the cost under a trillion dollars for the first ten years. The second ten years (assuming the cost doesn’t shoot up like all other government programs in history have) will be around $180 billion a year -- that $1.8 trillion in 10 year speak, not the $800 billion advertised.


2. Bends the cost curve? Yeah, upwards. Let’s see, they’re adding 30 million people (I supposed the other 16 million will vanished) to the system without increasing the number of providers, and they’re adding billions in taxes to equipment and drugs and providers. Even Howard Dean, a noted liar, has admitted, this bill does absolutely nothing to reduce costs except promising to convene committees to look into the cost issue.

3. Extraordinary insurance reforms? Name one a~hole. And again, let’s cite Howard Dean on this: “This isn’t health care reform, this isn’t even insurance reform.”

Now consider these leftist-untruths. This bill does nothing to take “unfair” profits from insurers or drug makers. It does not hurt the rich in any meaningful way, nor are they made to pay for everyone else’s health care. It does not seize assets, involve nationalization, or ban private insurance. It doesn’t do anything. Boo hoo.

But will our sliver-tongued devil of a POTUS et. TOTUS be able to calm his followers and keep them from revolting? Apparently not.

After the election, Obama converted his massive e-mail list of 13 million “supporters” into an organization called “Organizing for America.” From time to time, he’s sent out e-mails asking this group to call Congress or volunteer. On Wednesday, Obama sent out another one of these e-mails asking people to call Congress or volunteer for phonebanks. This resulted in only 150,000 calls. Compare that to the more than one million calls they were able to generate in prior efforts.

More interestingly, the e-mail actually resulted in a backlash. Many responded with angry messages and others demanded to be removed from the list. Some sent out listserv e-mails urging activists to “just say no” to the phonebank effort. Here are some quotes collected by The Politico from various leftists:

• “Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers.”

• “I will call my senators, but I will be asking them to vote against the bill without the public option or Medicare buy-in.”

• Obama “is taking for granted that the volunteers who worked so hard for him were going to buy in to whatever strategy he chose to pass his major legislative initiative.”

• “Why should I devote my valuable time (Editor’s note: **chuckles**) to volunteer for a bill that has no teeth left in it? We've sold our souls to four Senators instead of sitting down and convincing them that a public option or at the very least medicare is included in the bill.”

• “Say NO if (OFA staffers) ask you to participate” in the phone banking. “If this bill passes, it will be because Joe Lieberman threw a hissy fit and was allowed to control what went into the bill. That means that in the end, he had more power with President Obama and Senator Reid than we do. If he is rewarded, this tactic will be used over and over again to kill the progressive agenda.”

• Do not donate to the DNC or the Party’s congressional campaign committees.

Team Obama insists everything is ok. But Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, disagrees:

“We heard story after story from current Organizing for America volunteers about how they were getting disillusioned with Obama because he wasn’t fighting for the public option. Obama’s e-mail list may soon become a hollow shell if he does not fight Joe Lieberman and insist that there be a public option.”

Sounds like the Kool Aid needs more sugar.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

Although Market Street is no longer given the full treatment it used to get at Christmas, The City hasn't abandoned Christmas by any means. The picture was taken looking west at The City skyline showing the Christmas colors that are placed on many of The City's landmarks. Since it's a broad picture from the Embarcardero waterfront across most of the downtown area, it's a little hard to make out details if you don't know the town. The tall green spire you see in the mid-right of the picture is the Transamerica Tower, which is lit up in red and green every Christmas season.

Note: Speaking of Christmas presents, our San Francisco public officials and public employees always have much to celebrate. The City is near-bankruptcy, and they know one of the reasons. San Francisco's mayor receives an annual salary of $246,464.00 plus expenses. Had our globe-trotting mayor been elected governor of the state, he would have received a mere $173,987 salary. So he'll find $72,477.00 more under his tree than he would have if he had been tapped to replace Ahnuld.

Our non-prosecuting prosecutor, District Attorney Kamala Harris is running for state attorney general to replace the current non-prosecuting prosecutor Jerry Brown, who is running for governor. The DA who coddles illegal immigrants who murder innocent civilians and refused to ask for the death penalty for a cold-blooded cop-killer currently earns (well, is paid anyway) $227,339.00 annually. She will have to take a $76,212.00 pay cut in order to turn an entire state into a criminal's paradise as she has done in our little town. Says Harris: "That's a significant cut, but if I'm lucky enough to get elected, I'll take it. If I had gone into law to make money, I wouldn't be here in the first place." She failed to explain why she actually is there, but that's a mere detail. And what's $152,000 per year--chopped liver? That's a decent income, even for a San Franciscan.

The attorney general's salary of $151,127.00 is approximately equal to the base salary of a San Francisco Police captain. There is one attorney general for the entire state. There are many SFPD captains to watch the criminal activity on the Streets of San Francisco. They might be worth it if they were actually doing something about crime, but that's probably asking too much. A San Francisco deputy fire chief is paid slightly more than the state superintendent of public instruction, state controller, state treasurer and the state insurance commissioner.

And the final irony is that as of the current state budget cut in legislators' salaries, state assembly members just took a pay cut to $95,291.00 annually while San Francisco Supervisors are paid $96,155.00. Supervisors in a town of less than 800,000 people are paid more to actively undermine all things normal than legislators who merely ignore the will of the people for a state with 36,000,000 people.

Note: Speaking of the Board of Supervisors, last week the gang of eleven voted 8 to 3 to finalize a City ordinance which guarantees the right of underage illegal immigrants to commit crimes in San Francisco without being reported to immigration authorities. In the wake of a horrendous murder of a father and son on our dangerous streets by a minor illegal immigrant with a string of felony arrests, the mayor used his executive power to change the policy. The poor boy had not yet been convicted of his felonies (he was committing crimes while out on bail), and City policy was that illegals could not be reported to the feds unless they had been convicted of a felony. Even our thick-headed mayor saw something wrong with that.

The Supes who are considering setting up sex tents on the City streets have long declared San Francisco a sanctuary city, so they decided to send the mayor a message by enacting legislation reversing his "report the bastards to the feds" policy. Although the mayor expressed genuine anger and shock at the lopsided vote, there is nothing much he can do, since that vote is veto-proof. A Merry Christmas to all you young illegal immigrant felons from the Board of Supervisors.

Note: New police chief George Gascon was addressing the Board of Stupidvisors on his department's activities since he became chief. Slightly off-kilter Supervisor Chris Daly stepped down from the dais, approached the chief, dropped the "f-bomb" on Gascon, then exited the meeting. Gascon lost no cool, and said it was nice to meet Supervisor Daly, and went on with his presentation. Gascon has made The Tenderloin section of The City one of his primary targets for crime-reduction since it is close to the main downtown shopping area and is riddled with gang warfare, drug dealing, and aggressive homeless panhandlers, and it happens to be part of Daly's district. Daly felt that the new chief hadn't done prompt and total obeisance to his highness, nor sought his advice sufficiently.

Rather than make an appointment to speak with the chief, Daly simply ambushed him during the meeting, uttered a few of his favorite obscenities, and stormed out of the room. It was unclear whether the third and fourth f-bombs were aimed at the chief, or at Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, with whom Daly has been conducting a very public feud for some time. Now who says San Francisco public officials don't know the civilized rules of parliamentary procedure? Daly is perhaps the nuttiest and farthest left politician on the Board of Supervisors, and has a long history of disruptive and obscene behavior at public meetings. Sounds like he's qualified to be the next mayor.

Note: Writing in the Chronicle, Dr. Peter Gleick at the earth-worshiping Pacific Institute hands us the following scary headline: "Stealing water from the future: California's massive groundwater overdraft newly revealed." You see, there is all this water under the California Central Valley which is being used to do rotten tasks like watering fields and crops. "This rate of overpumping is more than 4.4 million acre-feet per year. Whoever can pump it can have it, to the detriment of everyone else, our wetlands, and runoff into our rivers and streams. GRACE data reveal groundwater in these basins is being pumped for irrigation at rates that are not sustainable if current trends continue." And Chicken Little says the sky is falling.

What amazes me about these "experts" is how they can actually get things in their myopic science right, without reference to much broader issues which have a direct impact on their panicky predictions. He is probably right about the overpumping. But why are the farmers doing it? The Delta Smelt, you idiot (The Fish That Conquered California). They can pump water from the underground aquifer without running afoul of the ecofreaks who won't let them pump from the abundant and constantly renewed water of the rivers flowing into the Delta. Maybe Gleick should be out protesting the stupid fish that is largely responsible for the overpumping of the underground water. If the "experts" had something other than their current tunnel-vision, they might realize that the farmers and other water-users would rather use a constantly renewable water supply than to pump water more expensively and damagingly from the aquifer.

Note: The Supes are watching out for our health, though. While promoting sex on the streets and illegals with guns, they know where their priorities are. The eleven dwarves are now considering a new anti-smoking ordinance. They want to add to the current restrictions, which are already stifling. Now it will become illegal to smoke "near the doors, vents and operable windows of any building--restaurants, shops, offices and housing complexes." Likewise for smoking at outdoor tables at restaurants, as well as the farmer's market (an open space), lines for movie theaters, concerts and sporting events, near ATMs and cab stands, plus an increased distance from transit stops. I can't help but wonder if it will still be legal to smoke while having anonymous sex on the streets or while murdering people under the cover of illegal immigrant status.

There's a very interesting article from SF Weekly dated December 14, 2009, about the "efficiency" of San Francisco government that you might get a kick out of: The Worst-Run Big City In The U.S.

Note: Mark Morford has been terribly apolitical lately, much to my personal disappointment. His latest rant is actually quite funny, if obscene. For those of you who need your Morford fix, here it is: 101 reasons why men cheat, Tiger Woods edition.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Teaches Al Qaeda A Lesson

If nothing else works, apologize. But be sure you apologize in just the right way. Apologize for things you may or may not have done. Apologize to appeal to the right people. Apologize in a way that makes you look like the good guy. Apologize for your "inadvertent" mistakes. Apologize using "weasel words" appearing to apply to everyone at large, but actually appealing only to your target audience. And most of all, apologize insincerely while sounding choked up with the emotion of your sincerity.

That handsome devil in the picture is Adam Gadahn, who now styles himself "Azzam The American." Yes, I'm making fun of Gadahn's stunning good looks, but this guy's no joke. He's a public shill for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and that ain't funny. Contrary to rumors awhile back, Gadahn was not killed during a joint American-Pakistani raid. He is very much alive, and doing the devil's work on the Islamic TV and websites.

This past weekend Gadahn went on Islamic TV and the web with a new video apologizing for the Al Qaeda exterminations of large portions of the innocent civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like most of Obama's apologies, Gadahn's wasn't particularly sincere, and was actually targeted at a very specific audience. He didn't really address his "apology" to innocent civilians. He addressed it very carefully to "innocent Muslims" blown up in the pursuit of worldwide Islamic domination.

In part, in a seventeen minute video, Gadahn said: "We express our condolences to the families of the Muslim men, women and children killed in these criminal acts and we ask Allah to have mercy on those killed and accept them as martyrs." That takes care of blaming the West for the bulk of the civilian casualties. Then he goes on: "We also express the same in regard to the unintended Muslim victims of the mujahadeen's operations against the crusaders and their allies and puppets, and to the countless faceless and nameless Muslim victims of the murderous crusades."

Get it? Civilians who are killed by the troops of the West are "innocent Muslims" who were purposely targeted by the "crusaders." But the vastly larger numbers of purposely blown up Muslims who were killed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban (he refers to the "mujahadeen" since he specifically addressed Afghans) are described in his apology as "accidental martyrs." Only the craziest of theological logic and outright lies could lead to an apology like that.

On the one side, the West has, to its dangerous disadvantage, gone scrupulously out of its way not to kill or injure civilians, Muslim or otherwise. It has cost the lives of good soldiers who would have been much safer just blowing away all the civilians harboring the single terrorist they were after. The rules of engagement are so crippling and so stringent that almost any civilian deaths generate cries of murder, torture and war crimes back here in the States.

On the other side, almost anything can be quickly justified if you genuinely understand The Prophet as interpreted by Gadahn and his fellow Islamofascists. You see, "martyrs" can be created in some very clever ways in the religion of peace. And Gadahn does just that. After surprisingly admitting that Al Qaeda and the other jihadists have ever actually killed anyone who didn't deserve it, Gadahn then apologizes to the Muslim world for the accidental killings which, soul-salvingly, created "martyrs." So if you're unfortunate enough to be in one of those Muslim crowds that the terrorists regularly blow up to get at one American soldier or a small vehicle convoy, you're an instant martyr. That must be very comforting to the Afghan cave-dwellers. After all, Gadahn is very apologetic about it.

These "martyrs" are not accidental at all. They are fully intended to die, preferably in large numbers. Sure, you killed a couple of crusaders, but at the same time look at all those martyrs whose families, in the great blood-letting tradition of primitives will seek revenge for. And if they're lucky, they'll get to be martyrs, too. But as long as Gadahn was busy praising accidental Muslim martys, he figured he might as well address the issue of Muslims who don't get to be martyrs.

I said you could justify anything. Here is what Gadahn has to say: "Those who have made the foolish decision to stand with America and its allies in their losing war against Islam--you have not only betrayed Islam and Muslims and left the fold of faith, but you have also caused the destabilization of nations and the displacement of thousands of weak and oppressed people."

It almost seems there's a special place in Islamofascist hell for Muslims who make the mistake of acting like civilized human beings protecting civilians from terrorist attacks. "The blood of countless Muslims is on your hands, and the security and very future of the countries you claim to defend and serve has been placed in jeopardy because your external enemies are taking advantage of your heedlessness as you fight and kill your fellow countrymen for American dollars." Now, dear readers, do you understand why I have a problem believing there are really very many truly "moderate" Muslims--particularly in the Middle East? That moderation could get you killed. And you don't even get to be a martyr.

I don't actually think for one minute that Barack Obama purposely gave any ideas to Azzam the American. But, what the heck! If a vast TV audience and the Big Apology works for him, why wouldn't Gadahn give it a try himself? Anything to look good and explain your crazy actions in the Middle East. At least Gadahn doesn't apologize for his own people.

I should probably add that the only people slightly crazier than Gadahn are some of the left wing sites which are determined that somebody who would say such crazy things must actually be a secret agent of Israel and the co-conspiring United States. In their zeal to find vast right-wing conspiracies everywhere, they have actually convinced themselves that Gadahn is just saying these outrageous things to turn people away from militant jihadism. Oh, brother! Take my word for it, lefties. This guy's for real. And if you'd actually take a few hours to read what's coming out of the mouths of the imams, ayatollahs and other leaders of the religion of peace, you'd know that Gadahn isn't saying anything that Islam's best and brightest clerics aren't saying. He just speaks better English, because he is an American convert to Islam who escaped overseas, became further radicalized in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and is now gleefully committing treason at every possible opportunity.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Number of Things. . .

Numbers are magical things. They can tell us much. . . or little. Let’s look at a few numbers that told us much this week.

44. . . As in 44%, which is the new low that Obama’s approval rating hit this week according to Rasmussen. Even more interesting, however, is the number 42, as in the 42% of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama. Think about that. Obama’s total approval ratings, both those who strongly approve of him and those who kind of, sort of, guess they like him is only 2% above the number of people who strongly disapprove of him. Not good. For the record, his total disapproval is 55%. Oh, and among independents, only 36% offer their approval.

9. . . As in how many times higher the murder rate is in Brazil than in the worst US city. And that’s not the worst of it. In Brazil, 1 in 23 people “arrested” is killed by the police in the process. In the evil, old US of A, that number is 1 in 37,000. Yet the left complains about "abusive" American police.

1. . . The loneliest number that you’ll ever know. 2, not so much.

135. . . The number of developing countries at the 192-nation Copenhagen summit who staged a brief boycott because they are very upset that they will be expected to pay for their own efforts to fight global warming. They want rich countries to pay for their efforts.

40,584. . . The number of tons of carbon emitted by the delegates to Copenhagen in making their journey. This is the same amount Morocco emitted in 2006.

18. . . A proposal in England would make it a legal right to see your doctor within 18 weeks. Still prefer the English system to the American system?

19. . . The percentage of federal employees who make more than $100,000 a year.

71,000. . . The average salary at Club Fed. This compares to $40,331 in the private sector.

3,042,200,000. . . The number of dollars 276,300 Federal employees owe in back taxes.

1,900,000,000,000. . . The amount the Democrats want to add to the nation’s debt to pay for their insane spending, and a 2% raise for Federal employees.

4. . . The number of letters in the word “jobs”. Somebody tell Joe.

14,000. . . The pay raise Sen. Max Baucus gave one of his staffers after they started dating, and before he recommended her for the position of US Attorney in Montana.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fear and Loathing In D.C.

If there is one thing the Democrats are good at, it’s political theater. Watching them act is like melodrama of the highest order. . . or a low quality soap opera. Of all their recent fooling around, nothing approaches the drama they are generating with health care reform. Fear, hate and revenge fill the air of the Senate. . .

News Item: Dorgan Terrifies Democrats

After fourteen days of debate, the Senate has managed to vote on only eight amendments. Why has the process ground to a halt you ask? Because of little-known Senator Byron Dorgan, who, having fallen for an e-mail scam about a Mexican pharmacy, has introduced an amendment to allow the government to import prescription drugs from other countries.

This has frozen the Democrats with terror. Imagine Dorgan pulling this amendment from his briefcase as the other Democrats huddle together in a distant corner, afraid of the radioactive document. And why is it radioactive? Because this document puts them in a bind. Their idiot followers demand that they PUNISH the drug industry. But the drug industry has been bought off by the White House in a quasi-secret deal to support this reform. Passing this amendment would turn the pharma industry (and their powerful lobby) against them. Thus, they are frozen, unsure what to do.

News Item: Nelson II Terrifies Self

Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson turns the Democratic position that $460 billion in Medicare cuts won’t hurt Medicare into farce. He’s decided that his political survival requires him to offer an amendment to the bill that will exempt three Democratic counties in South Florida with large retirement populations from Medicare cuts. So why would this bill hurt the oldsters in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties. . . but no one else in the country?

News Item: Howard Dean Suggests Billocide

A frustrated Howard Dean has told every camera he can find that this bill should be killed. “The Senate version is not worth passing,” growled an angry Howard Dean, a possible gun owner. “The insurance companies got to write this bill the way they wanted to. This isn’t health care reform, this isn’t even insurance reform.” He then noted, in a bizarre moment of honesty, that the bill “does nothing to reduce costs.” And he angrily poked fun at the idea that the bill would cover people with pre-existing conditions: “You can’t afford it, even if you are allowed to buy it.” I wonder if any of ObamaCare's utopian supporters heard those comments?

News Item: Nelson I Rediscovers Principles

Now that it appears the bill cannot pass, Sen. Ben Nelson has rediscovered his principles and states that he won’t support this bill unless the Stupak-like abortion language is inserted.

Meanwhile, the abortion lobby is gearing up to hunt Stupak.

News Item: Democrats Get Their Hate On For Lieberman

But the real hate this week has been aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman. First, there were hints that Joe might lose his chairmanship. Then the Democrats went a little (lot) crazy. Screamed the shrill Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:

“And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.”

And loony Klein is not alone. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, makes the same claim:

“He seems to view the prospect of sticking it to the liberals who supported his Democratic opponent in 2006 as a goal potentially worth sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to fulfill.”

Chait then gets his anti-Semitism on to explain Lieberman’s actions:

“[T]here's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform. . . I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true.”

He finishes by accusing Lieberman of simply being anti-liberal:

“If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.”

Hate-filled, leftist Huffington Post blogger (or is that redundant) Jane Hamsher has gotten out her long knives for Lieberman’s wife. She accuses Hadassah Lieberman of being a shill for the insurance industry (hmmm, didn’t Howard Dean mention insurance companies above?). Hamsher, thus, wants Mrs. Lieberman fired from being a spokesman for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which fights breast cancer. She also accuses Hadassah of “being instrumental” in killing HillaryCare.

No word yet on whether Hamsher is looking to injure Lieberman’s kids, but I haven’t read all of her diatribes.

But these are just bloggers and/or Howard Dean -- they don’t count. No real politician would act this way, right? Actually, they would. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is calling for Connecticut to recall Lieberman, even though Connecticut has no law to do this and even though the United States Constitution does not allow states to do this.

“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he out to be recalled.”

Added Connecticut Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy, “People are fed up in Connecticut, and it’s maddening to those of us who feel we have a pretty clear sense of where people in Connecticut are.”

Nice. So if you don’t toe the party line, you need to be removed from office. And these same little totalitarians had the nerve to blast the Republicans for suggesting that candidates who did not agree to 8 of 10 positions would not get financial assistance. Hypocrisy, thy name is “Democratic Party.”

So why did Lieberman do it? According to Lieberman, he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the Medicare proposal by liberals who had been championing the public option:

“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare buy-in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer. Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Finally, we predicted a few weeks ago, that liberals would soon begin throwing around the word “betrayal.” Guess what word The Politico used to describe how liberals feel about Obama’s behavior:

“And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.”

and

“Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.”

Equally interesting, check out the conspiracy theory thinking being promoted by our old friend Jane Hamsher:

“They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen. It’s hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country — arguably the world — could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation.”

Wow, so Obama didn't fail, he never really tried?! How about a tin-foil hat to go with your brown shirt Jane! It’s all a plot! The bells!! The bells!!!

If anyone ever needed proof that leftists are petulant and unbalanced, here it is.

Enjoy!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Minarets In Berkeley?

OK, you got me, that's not a minaret. It's Sather Tower on the UC Berkeley campus. The tower is commonly called "The Campanile" because of its resemblance to the famous tower in Venice, Italy, which collapsed in 1902 but later was rebuilt. But a true minaret, and all it implies, is not far behind. Plans continue apace to build the first official Muslim institution of higher learning in America, in the shadow of Sather Tower. The Campanile is a landmark in Berkeley, clearly visible from the waterfront across the Bay in San Francisco. Let's hope the minaret doesn't replace it in the East Bay skyline.

A lot of hype and nonsense has gone on about the "religion of peace," and "moderate Muslims," beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001. George Bush was no less guilty of it than Barack Obama. I know there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. I've actually met one or two. They're like "jack" Mormons or lapsed Catholics, or RINOs. They don't really ascribe to the underlying theology/philosophy at all, but they feel a need to call themselves something. Nothing I've seen since 9-11 has convinced me that there's a very large segment of those moderate Muslims, here or abroad.

Nevertheless, the moderate Muslims are working on finalizing their lovely college, which will be named Zaytuna College, and have apparently succeeded in obtaining academic accreditation (or are working on it, I'm a little unclear on this). It's supposed to open next fall. Their goal, they claim, is to "blend traditional Islam and American culture and establish a permanent place for the religion in American society." That will be a neat trick if they can pull it off. The last time I looked, traditional Islam as currently practiced throughout the largest part of the Middle East and pre-Obama American society are not a particularly good mix.

So let's take a brief look at the moderate Muslim founders of the school. One is Zaid Shakir. Shakir has real trouble remembering to be moderate. He occasionally, and publicly, slips and lets out what he really believes (sort of like Joe Biden). On the website New Islamic Directions, Shakir said: "9-11 occurred under dubious circumstances that have yet to be thoroughly investigated." I'm sure the 9-11 Commission will consider itself properly chastened. And the Troofers clearly have an ally.

In October of 2007, he stated that president Bush's agenda was cut from the same cloth as the fascist movements of the 20th century, and then made the great segue into referring to Bush as Hitler. Of course Hitler murdered Jews, not Muslims, but you get the idea. Shakir in 2006 told the New York Times: "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country." But Shakir is only second banana to the real moderate Muslim behind the plans.

In the number one spot, we have moderate Hamza Yusuf Hanson. And Hanson is big-time. He has been lauded by National Public Radio and the New York Times as a "moderate Muslim who takes the middle ground (as in Ground Zero?) who has built a following with his inspirational lectures and willingness to take a critical look at Islam." I'm guessing his criticism includes using bigger jumbo jets next time. Is there anything worse than an "ex" anything? Hamza Yusuf Hanson was formerly Mark Hanson, and he has said he is a citizen of the United States by birth and not by choice. To demonstrate his bona fides, Hanson has called democracy and the American Bill of Rights "false gods." He called Judaism "a most racist religion." And mysteriously, on September 9, 2001, he said "America has a great tribulation coming to it." Now that may be pure coincidence, but it has more substance than any speculation the Troofers can come up with.

For those two or three actual moderate Muslims that I mentioned earlier, the first and quickest test of their moderation is how strongly they will speak out against the well-funded intrusions of Saudi Wahhabism into American life as well as its perversion of religion for purposes of control within Saudi Arabia itself. Hanson and Shakir have notably refused to answer any questions whatsoever about their opinion of Wahhabism. Little wonder, since most of the elementary and high school level education at Muslim institutions in America is straight-up Wahabbism. Wouldn't want to confuse the little devils when they get to college, now would we?

Granted, my opinion of moderates of any kind is not very high. I prefer the term "wishy-washy." But the concept of "moderation in everything" is not an entirely bad one. Even some of the ancient Greeks liked that idea, and they were the leaders in bringing western civilization to a barbarian world. So putting my prejudices about moderates aside for a minute, let's take a look at the new college's curriculum.

There will be two majors, "Islamic Legal and Technological Studies," and "Arabic." They wanted to call the school a university, but that curriculum hardly qualifies for a mere college. The classes will be segregated by sex of course, and if the women are allowed in at all, the big debate is whether they will be put on one side of the room while the men sit on the other, or whether they will have separate classes entirely. Mathematics and the hard sciences are not in the plans. Who needs them when you have the Koran?

I'm not sure if the curriculum is "moderate" or merely inadequate. But a curriculum is only as good as the instructors teaching it. Considering the founders, I don't really think you're going to get a whole lotta moderate instructors. Over at the Weekly Standard, Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim relations at the Hartford Seminary and a serious critic of the plans for Zaytuna is quoted as saying: "Any attempt like Zaytuna College should be studied very carefully so we do not ruin the future of young people who, out of religious enthusiasm, would study at such a place and probably get a worthless degrees." Professor, I agree with both the tone and content of your comment, but I should point out that non-Muslim universities are doing a pretty good job of printing worthless degrees themselves.

My son's home in the Berkeley Hills has a panoramic view of the UC Campus, as well as the entire San Francisco Bay. I'm going to be sure to ask him at Christmas dinner what his opinion of minarets is. As for the rest of the Berkeley residents, I don't think there's one with "Swiss-courage" enough to demand that no minarets and calls to prayer break up the Berkeley skyline. That would be intolerant, you know.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Audit The Fed? Pros and Cons. . .

There has been a lot of disinformation surrounding the Federal Reserve. In fact, spreading disinformation about the Fed has become a cottage industry. The left originally viewed the Fed as the tool of international bankers bent on enslaving the world. In the 1950s, the John Birchers decided that the Fed was the agent of international communists. Fed-hate continues to run wild today in various groups. The Fed, apparently, is the secret cabal of the Bilderberg Group, the Communist Party, Zionist Bankers, and perhaps even a few extra terrestrials. Let’s cut through the garbage.

What Is The Fed?

The Federal Reserve was created by an Act of Congress on December 23, 1913. The Federal Reserve System consists of twelve Federal Reserve Banks located throughout the United States. These banks are governed by a seven member Board of Governors. The members of that Board are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They serve 14-year terms and are term-limited to one term, unless they are appointed to complete an unexpired term, in which event they can be re-appointed to a full term.

Contrary to the rumors, the identity of every member of the Board and every officer and director of every Federal Reserve Bank is known and available to the public. In fact, their names are available online, see. e.g. Officers and Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

This, by the way, is one of the first lies told by anti-Fed people, that "no one knows who is on the Fed." I say lies because even when these people are confronted with the facts, they continue to deny them and simply move to more gullible audiences. Indeed, I had an interesting run in with one at Big Hollywood a few months back. Despite my presentation to him of evidence that he could verify with his own eyes that contradicted every single thing he claimed, he simply insisted on repeating his false claims over and over -- eventually accusing me of being “an agent of the Fed.” This is fairly typical behavior from this group.

What The Fed Does: Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve has numerous responsibilities, but two are relevant here. The first is to handle “monetary policy” for the United States government. Monetary policy involves adjusting the prime interest rate, buying or selling bonds, and setting reserve requirements at banks to control the amount of money available to the economy and the “velocity” of money within the economy -- velocity means how often money gets spent.

In this regard, the Fed has been statutorily charged with holding inflation in check while also encouraging economic growth. European central banks, by comparison, generally are charged only with fighting inflation -- often leading to anti-growth policies.

Many people are upset that the Fed handles this function, and they argue that the Fed should be abolished. In the 1970s, they complained that the Fed caused inflation. In the 1980s, they complained that the Fed artificially kept the economy in check by overly-restricting the amount of money available in the economy. Now they complain that the Fed has created bubbles by allowing too much easy money to circulate in the economy.

There is some truth to each of these assertions as the Fed is not perfect. But the idea that eliminating the Fed would improve the situation is simply not accurate. The Fed was established to act independently of the political process; they are supposed to make their decisions based on the best available economic thinking. If the Fed was eliminated, the duty to handle monetary policy would fall upon the Treasury.

Unlike the Fed, the Treasury is a political creature. Shifting monetary policy to the Treasury would mean that the President, who is subject to election every four years -- and who seeks campaign contributions from people who could benefit directly from such decisions, would be deciding whether or not interest rates should be raised or lowered and whether or not liquidity (i.e. more money) should be injected into the economy.

Moreover, the Congress, which gets elected every two years -- and which seeks money from the same interests, would likely attempt to force the President’s hand whenever they felt the economy needed a boost. That’s a recipe for economic chaos and corruption.

But the other side of that coin is that the President and Congress are more directly accountable to the voters than the independent Fed. That's the trade off.

Incidentally, one of the arguments made for abolishing the Fed is that inflation has been be “out of control” since the Fed came along. But this is a red herring. First, looking at inflation in a vacuum is misleading because it is the comparison of wages to inflation that matters, not inflation itself. In other words, it doesn’t matter if bread costs 100 times what it cost fifty years ago if your income rose 100 times as well. Moreover, an examination of foreign currency exchange rates (a better measure of the value of the dollar than an examination of inflation) shows that the dollar has nearly doubled in value against all major currencies (and gold) in the past 100 years. Thus, the assertion that the Fed’s actions have hurt the dollar is completely wrong.

What The Fed Does: Discount Lending

The Fed also provides temporary loans to banks that are suffering from liquidity problems, i.e. those that are temporarily short of money. This is what they are talking about when you hear about banks “using the Fed’s discount window.” These loans are made at low rates and in secret to protect the identity of the bank. The fear is that knowledge that a particular bank was short of cash would cause people to try to get their money out of the bank, causing a run on the bank and collapsing an institution that likely only needed a short term loan.

The Audit Issue

This leads us to the audit issue. The conspiracy theorist claim that “the Fed has never been audited.” This too is a lie. The Fed is audited each year by independent accounting firms. For example, here is a link to the 2005-2006 audit conducted by KPMG. This audit is fairly typical of the independent audits normally conducted of banks or large businesses.

Moreover, Congress already has the right to audit the Fed, with one caveat. In 1970, Congress passed a law allowing the General Accounting Office to audit the Fed and all of its functions with the exception of the two mentioned above: the Fed’s decision making process for monetary policy and the Fed’s discount lending practices.

The reason the Congress did not allow the GAO to audit the Fed’s monetary policy decision making process was the fear that allowing such audits would interfere with the Fed’s independence. The thinking was the Congress would use these audits to pressure the Fed.

And even though the GAO cannot currently audit that function, this does not mean the Fed is acting in secret. The Fed releases the meeting minutes for each meeting of the Board of Governors which explain broadly the Fed’s thinking on monetary policy. It also releases reports for each region of the country, called the Fed Beige Book, which outline the Fed’s observations regarding all aspects of the economy in each of the Federal Reserve Bank regions. Finally, the Fed Chairman testifies on Capitol Hill on an on-going basis.

The Congress did not allow the GAO to audit the Fed’s lending practices for fear that this would reveal the banks who needed the Fed’s assistance with liquidity, which could cause runs on those banks.

Now the Congress is looking to pass a bill that would allow it to audit these two functions. The cons are those just identified. The pros are that the Congress, as the maker of our laws, should be able to know the thought processes employed by the Fed to make sure that it is acting in a manner which is consistent with the law and that the Congress can continue to support.

With regard to monetary policy, there certainly is a legitimate fear of a loss of the Fed’s independence. Once Congress starts tinkering, the Congress is unlikely to stop tinkering. Soon the Fed’s independence could disappear and we could end up with Congress directing the Fed to do its bidding. But the possibility that Congress may overreach is a poor excuse for denying Congress the oversight that is its responsibility under the Constitution. Not to mention that Congress could just as easily overreach now.

So perhaps allowing an audit is an excellent idea. It’s only the next step that becomes problematic.

With regard to auditing the discount lending practices, the same arguments apply, as well as the concern about creating runs on banks. If the current bill protects the secrecy of those banks that seek the Fed’s help, then an audit of these practices also should be supported. But if it does not, then the risk to the system, with banks avoiding seeking help to prevent possible bank runs, might be too potentially damaging to the banking system to allow.

In the end, those are the choices. There are no conspiracies, no secrets, no Zionist bankers or evil plots by our alien-masters. It is just the difficult trade-off between a process that is independent of political tinkering, but not responsive to voters, versus a process that would likely be more damaging to the economy but more responsiveness to the people.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...