Holder Clone Rejected By Senate--Again

I figured that James M. Cole, Obama recess appointee as Number Two in the Holder Justice Department must be a relative of James M. Cole, circus owner. Ever since the Senate (heavily-Democratic at the time) rejected Cole for the position of Assistant Attorney General, legal scholar Barack Obama has been conducting a circus attempting to make Cole's position permanent.

This past week, the Senate rejected him again on a 50-40 vote. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Bankruptvada) used a last-minute parliamentary trick which allows Obama to reintroduce Cole's name at a later time. He switched his vote from "yes" to "no," allowing "reconsideration" of the nomination at a more opportune moment. And while I'm talking about the vote, Indiana voters should take note that Dick Lugar (R-Ind) crossed the aisle to vote yes with the Democrats. Chairman Patrick Leahy opined that this was "the wrong filibuster at the wrong time." Leahy believes that Cole has demonstrated the leadership Obama "needs in the fight against terrorism."

Oh? Cole is an Eric Holder clone. He strenuously supports the concept of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields being treated as common criminals in the civilian courts. He is rabidly anti-military. He thinks that no military tribunal should ever have jurisdiction over defendants who are not American service men and women. He assisted in the prosecution of the Navy SEALs who were ultimately exonerated of all charges of roughing up a terrorist.

He currently supports the ongoing persecution and prosecution of intelligence agents who may or may not have used enhanced interrogation techniques during a period of time when enhanced interrogation had the support even of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. And to put frosting on the cake, he is pushing Obama and Holder to get on with closing Guantanamo and bring the terrorists onto mainland American soil.

Clearly, the attempt to sneak Cole past the Senate was carefully planned to coincide with the afterglow of Barack Rambo Obama taking personal credit for killing Osama bin Laden. Republican Senators have a longer attention span than Obama and Reid gave them credit for. They also have a problem understanding how it's perfectly "legal" to shoot the leader of Al Qaeda in the face when he was unarmed, but illegal and immoral to waterboard terrorists who are likely to have important information about imminent attacks on America and Americans. A dull-normal sixth-grader can see the massive illogic in that. John M. Cole can't.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) specifically pointed to an article written by Cole for The Legal Times in which Cole likened the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks to the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh was a demented criminal American citizen who committed a horrendous act on his home soil. The 9/11 terrorists and the detainees at Guantanamo were and are conducting a war on America with no civilized restraints. But Cole sees no difference between the two.

Perhaps the better analogy would be that Holder and Cole are Siamese twins, joined at the brain. Holder as a private citizen pushed other lawyers and law firms out of the way to get the honor of defending shoe-bomber Jose Padilla. He claims that proves that civilian trials work because Padilla was convicted. In actuality, it proves he's a publicity-hound who wanted to defend terrorists for personal gain. And the fact that Padilla was convicted is due at least in part to the fact that Holder is a lousy lawyer. Cole has a very similar record.

Both Holder and Cole previously denied that the Commander-in-Chief has the constitutional authority to determine the rules of the battlefield. It's not clear if they believe that constitutional concept still applies, but they strongly support at least one Commander-in-Chief who is presently doing exactly that (as he should). Congress has supported, enabled and funded the President's right to do so for George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. Court challenges to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) have been summarily rejected by every court which has addressed the issue (even the leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

The Act reads, in pertinent part: "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Holder and Cole pay lip service to the Act, but have had a problem with what to do with "common criminal" Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others.

Cole has justified the shooting of the unarmed bin Laden as being the same thing as the U. S. military assassination of Admiral Yamamoto in World War II. Holder asserts that it is lawful "to target an enemy commander in the field." Cole signed onto the Attorney General's opinion which further asserted "by my estimation and the estimation of the Justice Department (including Cole), bin Laden was a lawful military target, and the operation was conducted consistent with our law and values. There was no indication that he [bin Laden] wanted to surrender."

As I'm sure you all know, I don't have a problem in the world with the SEALs summarily ridding the world of a sneaky, cowardly engineer of mass murder committed on American soil. But Holder and Cole feel the need to justify the killing on shaky legal grounds. Bin Laden wasn't on a battlefield nor was he an enemy commander in the field. He was trapped in a civilian compound on the soil of a nominal ally. That's fine by me, but it seems to trouble Holder and Cole enough to require lame legal reasoning to justify it.

Obama will, thanks to Reid's parliamentary expertise, get one more bite at this apple before Cole's recess appointment expires. I don't see much likelihood that Cole will be confirmed by the Senate given Republican strength and fear among Democrats that they will be seen as soft on terrorism. But then I told everyone I knew that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would get socialized medicine past a reluctant Congress. I might be missing something here.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economy Must Be Broken?!

It’s becoming a common refrain on the left: what’s wrong with the American economy? Why won’t it produce any jobs? We have economic growth, so why aren’t there any jobs? Booo hooo hooo. There must be something wrong with America! Booo hooo hooo! It can’t possibly be that our leftist economic theory is completely wrong?! No, the fault must lie elsewhere.

For two years now, leftists have become increasingly frustrated that the economy isn’t producing any jobs. When Obama took power, they got to implement a Keynesian orgy of spending that their economic theories told them should have resulted in a vast flood of new jobs. It was only a matter of time. But somehow, it hasn’t happened. How can this be?

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology. Increased taxation and regulation combined with uncertainty have discouraged companies from hiring. Combine this with unfair trade practices by foreign governments that make it unnaturally cheap to send jobs overseas, and you’ve got a situation where companies just aren’t going to create a lot of new jobs in the US.

But the left can’t stand to hear this because it blows holes in two of their cherished beliefs:

(1) Every dollar spent, no matter what the source, results in five dollars being added to the economy as a whole. This in turn results in jobs being created because every percentage point of economic growth produces 800,000 new jobs a year.

(2) It doesn’t matter what you do to an economy, growth will continue like normal after the shock of your action and the rules of theory one above will be obeyed. So tax away comrade, tax away!

Every leftist economist from moronic oracle (“moronacle”) Paul Krugman to malignant dwarf Robert Rubin to the self-deluded Economist prays at the alter of these theories. In fact, they need to believe this or else they couldn't justify raising taxes on people they don’t like, i.e. companies and “the rich.” Thus, they are stuck struggling for ways to explain Obama's economic failure while carefully denying the obvious -- that higher taxes and more regulations destroy job growth.

The latest theory they've pulled out of their nether-regions is that the link between economic growth and job creation no longer works as it has for thousands of years. In other words, economic growth no longer creates jobs. Naturally, they twist this into a call to tax non-job creators, i.e. corporations and the rich, so that the government can use the tax dollars to somehow create jobs. Apparently, Atlas Shrugged wasn’t fiction after all.

What these leftists are missing, of course, is that their two pillars are laughably stupid. Consider this:

Stupid Theory No. 1: The “Keynesian multiplier” theory works on the assumption that if you add money to an economy, the economy must grow larger. But it forgets to ask where the money comes from. Government spending must be pulled from the economy in the form of taxes before it can be spent. And if the multiplier is true, then every dollar pulled from the economy reduces the economy by $5. Thus, at best you break even -- five dollars out, five dollars in. But the government is an inefficient spender. hence, what you actually get is something like $5 out and $1.4 in. That means every dollar of stimulus spending results in $3.6 lost to the economy.

And if you think about it, this makes sense. Otherwise, we could just spend ourselves to prosperity. Indeed, if this worked, why stop at a trillion dollar stimulus? Wouldn’t a hundred trillion dollars be more responsible? Interestingly, even Keynesians don’t think that works. . . though they can’t explain why the trillion is supposed to work and the hundred trillion would fail. So why can't "brilliant" leftist economists understand this?

Stupid Theory No. 2: The second theory completely misunderstands human nature. Reality is simple: people work because it benefits them. If you tax their earnings/profits, they will work less because it becomes less worthwhile to work, invest or take risks. The same is true of regulations. If you make something harder/more costly to produce, people will produce less of it. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to believe that people will continue as if nothing has changed when you increase taxes or regulations -- indeed, if I started punching you every time you went to work, why would this bother you the first couple times but not the 1,000 times after that? Therefore, pillar two is utter nonsense.

What’s more, the Democrats don’t understand the concept of uncertainty. Even where Obama has left taxes as they were or not imposed some regulation, he’s still run around flapping his gums about how he plans to raise taxes or impose regulations as soon as he feels he can. That makes future profits and costs uncertain and causes people to stop spending, investing or working until they get clarity.

Conclusion

The left refuses to accept the obvious because that would discredit their economic theories and interfere with their desire to punish those they don’t like. Indeed, their economic theory makes no sense logically nor has it ever worked in practice, but it gives them the excuse they need to exercise a little self-righteous spite. Thus, moronacles like Krugman and The Economist would rather disgrace themselves with ridiculous theories about the economy having mysteriously failed than admit that the fundamental tenets of their beliefs are completely and utterly wrong. That must suck.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can The GM Bailout Save Obama?

The Democrats change campaign strategies like most people change their socks. Obama is doing that too. His latest strategy calls for using the GM bailout to sway us all over to his side -- especially those of us living in rustbelt states. Good luck with that! Here's why this is one of his stupider ideas:

Point 1: Obama Didn’t Do It: Right out of the gates, this one is a bit of a laugher. The auto bailouts began under George W. Bush. Sure, Obama finished it, but this is a bit like crediting Truman for his decision to take on the Nazis. And how ironic is it that Obama, who loves to blame Bush for all of his own failures, should not be planning to steal Bush’s “achievements.”

Point 2: Americans Hate The Auto Bailout: Obama really thinks the public will respond to his claiming credit for the GM bailout. Yet, polls show the public hates the auto bailout. They have from the very beginning and they continue to do so today. Indeed, as recently as one month ago, Rasmussen found that 57% of Americans continue to say the bailout was a mistake and another 44% of Americans said they are less likely to buy a car from GM because of the bailout. But then, the percentage of Americans who oppose the bailout is down a full 7% in three years. . . maybe Obama thinks that’s a “trend”?

More importantly, this bailout was in place before the November 2010 elections and the Democrats got massacred in the rustbelt states. What’s changed since then to make Obama think this will be a better selling point now?

Point 3: The Bailout Didn’t Really Work: It’s hard to see how the bailout worked. Sure, GM is still there, but (1) 334,000 manufacturing jobs vanished despite the bailout, (2) 10,000 dealerships were closed, dealerships that employed 500,000 people, and (3) one quarter of US factory capacity to build automobiles was lost. . . i.e. rustbelt factories closed.

At least GM has been profitable for a year now. Of course, that happened because of dealer incentives -- the same tactic that ruined the big three in the first place. Also, the reason GM is profitable has nothing to do with the bailout, it has to do with GM filing bankruptcy and getting billions of dollars in debt discharged. In fact, GM could have gone straight into bankruptcy without the bailout funds and things would have turned out identically for GM. . . though the UAW wouldn’t have gotten taxpayer funds to cover their health and pension plans.

But what about the bailout money? When it was given to GM, we were told that it would all be paid back. . . every cent. Then we were told that GM had in fact paid it all back, only that wasn’t quite true because GM paid it back with TARP money. Basically, they borrowed taxpayer money to pay back debts to the taxpayers and then they acted like we should be happy.

In exchange for the TARP money, we got an ownership interest. And right before the election, Little Timmy Geithner and Joey "the liar" Biden announced to the world that we would indeed be making a profit on our “investment” in GM! Hurray! Vote Democratic! Of course, that wasn’t true either. GM stock has hovered near its IPO price since it went public again. GM’s stock price must get above $40 a share before we break even. It closed at $31 on Friday. . . 25% below the price we need. If the Treasury sells today, they would lose $17 billion to $20 billion of the $86 billion “invested”. . . and keep in mind that right now the market is likely at a multi-year high and will head south.

So what exactly can Obama trumpet here? What you’re going to hear are fantasy numbers. There are leftwing economists who have already speculated that the bailout saved millions of jobs and will make all of America’s kids 5% smarter and 2.4% more attractive. But this is bunk. These numbers, like the $3.5 million jobs "created, saved or made up," are just mindless applications of discredited Keynesian formulas that bear no relationship to what actually happened.

The real story of the bailout is the one above, and people get that. So good luck selling this one Mr. President.


BONUS ROUND: What do you think should be Obama's next sales pitch? He kept us out of war with Mexico? He didn't try to save the Yen? New York hasn't been blown up yet? Come on, let's give the guy a little help. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Faux Fear And Loathing Among Liberals

Liberal Democrats love to tell conservative Republicans which GOP candidate might appeal to them and independents. The ploy frequently sways enough voters in primaries so that the "acceptable" candidate wins the nomination. And then, just as with Lucy and Charlie Brown, the football is pulled away during the general election. Can you say "John McCain?"

Democrats love to talk about their favorite Republican "mavericks," and moderates and how dangerous they could be for the choice of the Democratic Party. Then, like clockwork, the day after the Republican nominee is chosen he becomes an object of low humor, derision, and angry denunciations by the same Democrats who had praised him. They warn Republicans that if their candidate is too conservative, he (or she) just can't win. They demonstrate their faux fear of the moderate/liberal Republican candidate by advising Republicans that if they nominate so-and-so, the Republicans might just win. It reminds me of Bre'r Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch.

So now I have to consider why some liberals are warning their own about Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. There had been talk among the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party that Daniels might be the John McCain for 2012. Hendrik Herzberg of The New Yorker had given the governor McCain-like reluctant praise, writing: "He doesn't throw off the crackles of craziness. I found his effect reassuring. When it comes to red meat, he seems to be a vegetarian." Uh, oh. Daniels is sane. That could be dangerous for Democrats. Let's let the Republicans know we're scared of him. Maybe they'll nominate him, and then we can hit him with the switcheroo. Same stuff, different package.

Michael Kinsley of Politico was an early proponent of "fearing" Daniels. Said Kinsley: "the blue-eyed governor would be better than any of the other Republicans who are running to stop Obama from winning a second term." Kinsley couldn't resist at least one "he's white" comment, but you get the idea.

That piece was followed by "maverick/moderate" phony praise for Daniels in the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. So imagine my surprise when I see the age-old mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, The New Republic, warning its readers that Daniels may not be the McCain choice after all. "Don't be fooled" said TNR. Daniels had recently announced that he would not campaign on social issues. He told reporters: "We still need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean." Some right wing bloggers jumped all over Daniels for that. Still, TNR believes it knows the truth: "But savvier and more influential voices on the right know better than to think Daniels would run as a moderate Republican."

So instead of announcing its fake fear of Daniels to Republicans, it announced its real fear of Daniels to the Democratic faithful. TNR trotted out a bloody litany of Daniels atrocities. He was president of Eli Lilly, one of the largest drug companies in the world. He initiated the largest private-school voucher program in the nation. He took donations from the Koch Brothers. He has stated that he would sign a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. He abolished the right of Indiana teachers to bargain collectively on anything except wages. He supports Paul Ryan's proposed federal tax cuts. God help us all, he even privatized a state highway.

TNR then goes on to list the frightening collection of fascists and fascist organizations that have spoken well of Daniels's record. Dick Armey and his friends in the Tea Party. The Weekly Standard. Arthur Brooks and the American Enterprise Institute. The American Spectator. And the lowest of the low, National Review. As an example of liberal-think gone wrong in the past, the author brought up the favorable biography of McCain by liberal Elizabeth Drew. The book was praised by liberal historian and FDR biographer Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Then the magazine went on to list the post-primary vision of their previous favorite McCain:

"The celebrated maverick chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate, embraced a Muslim-bashing preacher, and accused Barack Obama of running a radical education foundation with Bill Ayers." But at least McCain had some bipartisan legislative accomplishments on his record before he became the presidential candidate. Yep, McCain-Feingold comes to mind. Still, TNR can find no such accomplishments for Daniels. The problem here with TNR's logic is that McCain did exactly what the "fearful" left was hoping to engineer--he lost.

By logical extension, if McCain with all his liberal support turned fascist after getting the nomination, imagine what will happen if Daniels gets the nomination. He'll be a super-fascist. Or so TNR appears to believe. Says TNR: "For Daniels [unlike McCain], bipartisanship seems to consist of seducing journalists at what Hertzberg describes as a 'gilded age' mansion." Beware--the end is near! "But if he does go lunatic [Daniels once mused "what sane person would run for president?], the policies Daniels espouses will be no better than those of his GOP rivals."

Completing the thought, TNR adds: "In order to win the nomination, all in the running will have to take stands even to the right of Reagan, who as president was heedless of deficits and left Medicaid and Medicare alone. A good salesman like Daniels may be able to make the conservative creed sound 'reassuring.' But, in reality, he will have no desire to alter the harmful doctrines of the faith." In other word, TNR believes that Daniels is a truly dangerous conservative threat to Obama rather than a fake conservative like McCain. Rather than try to ambush him after the primary voters have made their choice, it's better to warn off less-sophisticated Democrats now who might think he's another McCain.

I'm certainly not going to make my decision about which candidate to support based on what liberals tell us about who would be their most dangerous adversary. And I'm not ready to support a candidate based on who TNR considers to be a genuine conservative. But the simple fact that TNR considers Daniels to be too dangerous to deserve even faint praise makes me want to take a longer look at him.

Andrew and I have both written about Daniels previously. We have discussed his positives, his negatives, and his "questionables" in order to help our readers (and ourselves) make up our minds. Andrew's posts can be found at Conservatives Should Embrace Indiana Abortion Bill and Mitch Daniels--Conservative?. Mine can be found at Mr. Show, Meet Mr. Go and Who's In Charge Here?.

As we move through the early election season, I'd like to remind each of us of two things. 1. The perfect is the enemy of the good. 2. There was only one Ronald Reagan.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: eXistenZ (1999)

Written and directed by David Cronenberg, eXistenZ is one of those films. It’s got a great science fiction concept, a quality cast (Jude Law, Willem DaFoe, Ian Holm) and enough mystery to hold your interest. I generally enjoy it and even find it strangely fascinating. Yet, it’s unsatisfying. And the more I think about it, the less satisfying it gets. The reason for this, sadly, is that Cronenberg has created a mess and he tries to cheat his way out of it.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Lives!!!

Sorry about that folks! Google is having problems at the moment and they put Blogger into a "Read Only" mode, so we couldn't comment, make new posts, or even edit our current ones. They also took away yesterday's posts, but are promising to bring those back. This is a Blogger-wide problem, not just us.

We're going to wait until Sunday to put up new articles to give Google a chance to fix this. We're also going to re-open the Twitter account so we can make announcements like this in the future. Sorry for the inconvenience! [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Teachable Moments On Black Racism

The biggest obstacle in race relations in America is black racism. Black professors lie about black achievements and claim they were stolen by inferior white civilizations. Black preachers preach race hate. And black leaders/opinion makers scream that racism "keeps them down" and warn of a return to slavery. This leads to open black hostility to every other racial/ethnic group and retards black economic progress. A conscientious black leader would work to defuse this garbage and get blacks out of the race hate and victimology business. Sadly, Obama is not such a leader, as demonstrated by his failure to address a single one of the recent teachable moments on black racism.

In the past few months we've been awash in teachable moments on black racism. It’s been exposed that Obama/Eric Holder believe the nation's civil rights laws should protect blacks but not whites. We’ve had a dozen black legislators caught committing crimes, and their excuse was to claim racism at being exposed. A couple weeks ago, the race industry starting whining that anyone who doubts Obama’s “certificate of live occupancy” is motivated by racism. . . as apparently are also all Republican challengers and the entire Tea Party. Whoopie Goldberg boldly announced that she intended to milk her race by playing the race card, while her idiot co-worker and producer scanned the crowds at the British royal wedding hoping to find racism in the penumbras of the guest list.

Black NFL players spent the last month claiming that the same criticism they themselves made of white quarterbacks in the draft becomes “motivated by racism” when made against black quarterbacks like charlatan Cam Newton. Black NFL players also whined that the NFL treats these pampered millionaires “like slaves.” Black boxer Bernard Hopkins just attacked black quarterback Donovan McNabb for not being black enough:

“Forget this [points at skin]. . . he’s got a suntan. That’s all. He goes on HBO and talks about being black. The only reason he spoke was because he felt betrayed. ‘I thought I was one of y’all’s guys. I thought I was the good one. Y’all told me this.’ Why do you think McNabb felt he was betrayed? Because McNabb is the guy in the house, while everybody else is on the field. He’s the one who got the extra coat. The extra servings. ‘You’re our boy.’”

In other words, McNabb is an Uncle Tom and a “house nigger” because he wasn’t ghetto-enough, and that's the only kind of black whites will allow to succeed. This same criticism is routinely made of black candidates who don't speak with the "negro dialect" that thrills Harry Reid so much.

So did Obama say, “it’s time we stop denigrating blacks who strive to become a success”? Nope. Did he say, "wait a minute, the law should be colorblind"? Did he tell Whoopie and friends, "racism is a serious charge, don't make it unless it's real"? Did he say, "hey, just because they criticize me doesn't make them racists"? Did he say, "come on, you people broke the law, there's no racism here"? Nope, not a peep.

That’s at least nine teachable moments Obama could have used to defuse black racism by speaking out against it, but he shamefully remained silent. Think about that. One cop in Boston correctly arrests a belligerent black professor and Obama rushes to a camera, but Obama remains mysteriously silent as high profile blacks make false racism allegations, slavery analogies, tell blacks they better get in line or they aren't black, and advocate an apartheid-like legal system of separate and unequal treatment under the law?

Now we have two new teachable moments from this poetry reading shindig the Missus is having at the White House. The problem involves two of the guests invited by Michelle “never felt proud of America before” Obama.

The first guest is Lonnie Rashid Lynn, known by his rapper name “Common.” Common is famous for writing lyrics about killing cops, for using racist and misogynist language, for rapping about other Black Panther murderers, and for singing about burning George Bush. For good measure, he named his daughter after a Black Panther who killed a cop in 1981. And it probably won’t surprise you that Common, like Obama, is a disciple of the hateful, racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and like Obama, Common apparently wasn’t paying attention during the hateful parts: “What I picked up from the pews. . . was messages of love.” Then you, sir, are an idiot with serious comprehension problems.

The White House is trying to defend including Common on the guest list on the ludicrous basis that everyone is blowing his lyrics out of proportion and because “he’s spoken very forcefully out against violent and misogynist lyrics.” Yeah, sure.

Common also has one other view that is relevant here. Like George Wallace before him, Common is opposed to miscegenation, i.e. the mixing of races. Indeed, he’s a very vocal opponent of mixed race relationships and believes that black men should not be dating white women. That's called racism when the KKK says it.

And Common won't be lonely at the party because Obama's guest list also includes Jill Scott, a black writer, who also hates miscegenation and “winces” whenever she sees a black man married to a white woman. She says she feels betrayed. Check out her article from Essence:

When our people were enslaved, "Massa" placed his Caucasian woman on a pedestal. She was spoiled, revered and angelic, while the Black slave woman was overworked, beaten, raped and farmed out like cattle to be mated. . . As slavery died for the greater good of America, and the movement for equality sputtered to life, the White woman was on the cover of every American magazine. . . She was unequivocally the standard of beauty for this country, firmly unattainable to anyone not of her race. We daughters of the dust were seen as ugly, nappy mammies, good for day work and unwanted children, while our men were thought to be thieving, sex-hungry animals with limited brain capacity. . . These harsh truths lead to what we really feel when we see a seemingly together brother with a Caucasian woman and their children. That feeling is betrayed.

That’s well beyond the definition of racism and well into the land of “race hate” and paranoia.

If just praising Strom Thurmond (who disavowed such views long before he became a respected Senator) was enough to get blacks outraged at the "racism" of Trent Lott, then there is no possible justification for allowing these two racists onto a White House guest list. They haven't even disavowed their racist views. . . they revel in them. Obama's failure to condemn these two is a pathetic failure of leadership by a man who has no desire to lead blacks from the wilderness in which their hate has taken them. His decision to invite these racists to his table is a disgrace.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Finally Has A Good Idea

Shown is a new Border Patrol recruit checking a local residence for illegal immigrants. At a rally in El Paso, Texas, the Panderer-in-Chief accused opponents of illegal immigration and open borders of "moving the goal posts" after his administration has given them "all the stuff they asked for." Those damned ingrates! "Maybe they'll need a moat. Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat. They'll never be satisfied."

The moat and alligators comment was preceded by: "Well now they're going to say we need to quadruple the border patrol. Or they'll want a higher fence." Yes, Mr. President--and your point? Obama made his comments in a town located right across the border from Ciudad Juarez, the home of beheadings, necklacing, and mass murder in the streets. Illegal immigration has already spilled across our borders and the narco-violence is following close behind.

Said Obama: "They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete." Barack Obama is nothing if not an accomplished liar. The border is nearly 2,000 miles long. About 670 miles have been fenced, and much of that wouldn't stop a wily coyote. Richard M. Stana, who is the director of homeland security and justice issues at the Government Accountability Office blew a hole in Obama's statement by declaring: "The federal government can actually prevent or stop illegal entries into the United States along only 129 miles of the 1,954 mile-long United States/Mexico border." Much of that 129 miles is on the California border, leaving most of Arizona, New Mexico, and yes, Texas, to fend for themselves.

"Spillover violence" is a major issue for all of the border states. The House Homeland Security subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Management will shortly be conducting hearings into the topic under the leadership of Michael McCaul (R-TX). Needless to say, McCaul did not attend Obama's self-serving, immigrant-pandering, border-denying prevarication fiesta in El Paso.

Using the generous "we" instead of his usual self-aggrandizing "I," Obama went on to cite statistics that have next-to-nothing to do with his executive actions: "Over the past two-and-a-half years, we've seized 31% more drugs, 75% more currency, and 64% more weapons than before. Even as we've stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40% from nearly two years ago--that means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally." "We" is the appropriate word, since most of the plans were originated during the Bush administration, and have been implemented largely because of a strong push from Congressional and State House Republicans and border-state conservative Democrats.

He must be right though, because he has the support of the experts such as Desperate Housewives star Eva Longoria and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. I suspect they discussed the real plan, as he assured them that this is all a big show of strength that has two purposes. First, to claim that the status quo is just dandy, and no more border security is needed. Second, to use his brilliant enforcement of the law as the bargaining chip for reopening the talks about "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka "amnesty" or "the Future Welfare Democrats of America").

And let's not forget the temporarily-defunct DREAM Act. Obama trotted out several poster-children of illegal immigrants who managed to be lucky enough to be born in the United States. Cue the violins. These young people would be separated from their families if we sent their parents, brothers and sisters back to Mexico. But despite all the horrendous racist oppression of illegals by redneck ethnocentrists, these young people have attended American schools, learned English, and are ready to move on to college and becoming valuable American citizens. For reasons rather apparent, he didn't trot out too many of the young illegal immigrants who have done the same thing, on the taxpayers' money.

Obviously, Obama is setting the stage for chain immigration with his purple prose. Speaking of the illegals, he hypocritically said: "They've broken the rules, and have cut in front of the line. And the truth is, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally." But what he wants to do is redefine "illegal" and put them right back at the front of the line, starting with the illegal immigrant parents who dropped a baby or two on this side of the border. Eventually, there would be sufficient family connections for all of the illegals to move to the head of the line. Why be concerned with background, skills, intelligence, need, or contribution to the betterment of America as a whole when you can "reunite families?"

This is all pandering on a cosmic scale. Obama is an impresario at tugging on heartstrings, lying through his teeth, and setting lofty fantasy goals, while protecting his own behind by leaving the dirty work to others. If he were genuinely serious about comprehensive immigration reform, he would put together a package and present it to Congress instead of demagoguing for Hispanic votes. Instead he leaves the nefarious task of legalizing 12,000,000 illegals to the likes of Senator Harry Reid and Congressthing Nancy Pelosi.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

F... You, El Presidenté!

Presidents of the United States are generally considered to represent all of the people of the United States. I’ve never doubted the loyalty of any of them in this regard. . . until now. Obama has repeatedly shown that he only represents his friends, as if he were some Banana Republic dictator. Not only does he view the Treasury as a prize to be plundered by his allies, not only have he and his wife become to vacations what Imelda Marcos became to shoes, but now he’s shown a vindictive streak that stretches beyond disloyalty.

For some time now, Obama has shown a willingness to snub parts of the American community that don’t support him. I don’t mean that he’s not willing to implement their preferred policies, no, that’s all part of politics. What I mean is well beyond politics. He is actively delighting in attacking people who do not support him and ignoring them even when his duties call upon him to get off his skinny *ss and help them. Texas has been the subject of his latest attacks, though it’s hardly alone.

Just as Obama ignored the BP oil spill, which occurred in Republican-voting states, and ignored tornados that tore through Republican controlled southern states, and ignored a drug cartel invasion in Arizona, a definite red state, Obama is now ignoring the wildfires burning through Texas. In fact, he’s in Texas for a fundraiser and his spokesmonkey Carney made a point of mentioning that Obama did not even look out the window of the plane at the damage done by the wildfires.

But that’s not all. Texas has actually requested federal aid from Obama. Historically, such requests are granted pro forma. Indeed, I can’t think of an instance when such a request has ever been turned out. Yet, Obama turned down Texas’ request. That’s right. A prairie dog catches a cold in a liberal state and Obama sends in the federal troops with their pockets stuffed with cash, but somehow fires have destroyed more than two million acres of Texas land and cost the state at least $24 million in agricultural damage alone and that doesn't qualify for federal assistance?

What’s worse, last month, Obama sent aid to Mexico to help them fight wildfires. How in the world can one explain the President of the United States (1) demonstrating a pattern of ignoring natural disasters that occur to states that didn’t vote for him, and (2) rejecting a more-than-valid aid request from a United States state, yet offering aid to Mexico for a lesser crisis? The only answer I can come up with is that this El Presidenté believes in political payback to such a degree that he must lack any sense of loyalty to the American people.

Oh, and while we’re talking about this sick bastard, he is now using “his efforts” at getting Osama bin Laden as a campaign gimmick. Yep, it’s become an applause line. Of course, he doesn’t seem to realize that none of us actually give him ANY credit on this one. He spent 16 hours to make the only decision he possibly could. And his miserable 0-3 point temporary bounce (just like all his others) reflects this. Trying to taking credit for the awesome work of the US military is not going to suddenly turn this disloyal skunk in a man, a soldier or a president. . . no matter how much the left wants to believe he’s a big soldier now. In fact, in keeping with his banana republic precedents, maybe he should just go all out and decorate himself with a huge, gaudy award for bravery in the face of a teleconference. He can wear it next to his Nobel. . . and his merit badge for crapulence.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Pushing Boldly Ahead

The November 2010 election was a major triumph for Republicans across the country. Capturing a net six governorships and net 680 state legislative seats (blowing away the post-Watergate record 628 seat swing), Republicans now control 29 governorships and 25 state legislatures (the Democrats control fifteen, ten more are divided or nonpartisan and the other seven are imaginary). So what have the Republicans done with this victory? You might be surprised.

No doubt, you’ve heard about the brouhaha in Wisconsin between Governor Walker and the unions. But that’s only the beginning. Indeed, Wisconsin Republicans are now pushing through their entire agenda before recall elections can rob them of control of their Senate. This includes (1) plans to legalize concealed weapons, (2) deregulation of the telephone industry, (3) expanding school vouchers, (4) undoing early release of prisoners, (5) requiring photo ID from voters before they can vote, (6) circumventing the court imposed stay and stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights, (7) cutting one billion dollars from the budget, and (8) passing a redistricting plan to implement the 2010 census. The consequences of this could be enormous. And Wisconsin is not alone:

● Twenty states are currently taking up or completing measures designed to limit the power of public sector unions. These efforts should ultimately result in a neutering of public sector unions, who use their position to support Democrats, both financially and with volunteers. As an aside, even the Democrats in Massachusetts just took away the unions’ rights to bargain their health care . . . oddly, there were no protests or death threats when the Democrats acted.

● Eighteen states are trying to pass right-to-work laws to join the 22 states that already have them. New Hampshire passed such a law, but it doesn’t look like the Republicans can overcome a veto by the state’s Democratic governor. Right-to-work laws make closed shops illegal and prevent unions from forcing employees to pay union dues. This generally kills off unions once employees are given a genuine choice. Passage of more of these laws could spell the end for private sector unions, who are near death in most states already, and will further cripple the Democratic Party.

● Another thirty states are cracking down on illegal immigration. This has the potential of robbing the Democratic Party of its base of illegal voters.

● Another thirty states are trying to pass laws requiring voters to produce a drivers license or official picture identification before they can vote. Since Indiana’s law on this point was upheld by the United States Supreme Court 6-3 in 2008 (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board), seven other states have enacted similar laws: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota. Kansas just passed such a law. Ohio’s House has passed a similar law, which is expected to pass their Senate and be signed by the governor. Wisconsin will pass theirs as well. And 27 more are trying.

The Democrats are, of course, furious. They are making all kinds of false claims about the horrible consequences of passing these laws. For example, they are trying to claim this change could cost millions in training costs for poll watchers. Of course, that ignores the fact that poll watchers get training already and adding a line that says “check their drivers license” won’t add a penny. They are claiming this will intimidate minorities, which is also garbage. Any minority “brave enough” to appear at a voting booth should be brave enough to bring their drivers license. They are claiming this will keep people without drivers licenses from voting, which deliberately ignores the fact that each of these laws allows people without drivers licenses to provide alternative proof. . . which, to the horror of angry Democrats, does not include college IDs.

What’s really going on here is that this has the potential of eliminating a good deal of Democratic voter fraud, see e.g. ACORN and Wisconsin, where Democratic groups pretend to be other registered voters. This could eliminate the Democrats' ability to magically find an extra 1-2% during close elections.

● Wyoming and Missouri have barred their courts from applying Sharia law or foreign law.

● And there’s more. Gun rights are being solidified, conservative social policy issues are being passed, taxes are going down, spending is being cut and states are regaining their financial health. And redistricting is starting and it looks like a total disaster for the Democrats.

That's not a bad return on an election that only happened a few months ago.

Naturally, liberals are very upset. They are so upset that liberal mouthpieces like the New York Times are actually encouraging people to sue or protest or do anything else they can to stop these evil Republicans. Even funnier, their most recent talking point has them all whining that this “goes way beyond what Republicans campaigned on. . . they campaigned on jobs. . . not any of this!” Aw, poor babies. I guess elections do have consequences after all.

So, what else have you heard about and what else would you like to see (or not see)?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Crips vs. Bloods--Iran Style

What mainstream press and TV there has been concerning unrest in Iran has largely been about the pro-democracy movement and demonstrations against the most recent rigged presidential election. But the story that is little covered is the clash between the two oppressive factions which are running Iran.

In Libya, Egypt and Syria, the clashes are between the Muslim radical public and the Muslim repressive regimes. It's a choice between arsenic and cyanide. Whoever wins, it's bad for the West. The clashes are painted as pro-democracy, anti-dictatorship, but that is just plain wishful thinking. If there's any democratic tendency there at all, it's the typical "one man, one vote, one time" version. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood have their fingerprints all over the uprisings.

The pro-democracy movement in Iran actually has strong underpinnings of democratic desire. Two generations of young people have grown up under the thumb of presidential tyrants and apocalyptic ayatollahs. The large student population is well-educated, and if there is any such thing as moderate Muslim thought and genuine democratic sentiment in the Middle East, you're most likely to find it in Iran. Still, the movement has little physical ability to overthrow a sophisticated, well-armed militaristic government. Tepid support from the United States and the West, combined with in-your-face determination from the Iranian regime has left the democracy movement to die aborning.

The only thing that might distract the Iranian powers-that-be and give the democracy movement a chance to be reborn is the battle between madman president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and insane Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. There has been bad blood between the two and their factions for some time, but only recently have the "blood threats" actually materialized. In the past few days, they've spilled into the streets. On Saturday, supporters of the two nutcases met in violent confrontations in Tehran. The security forces which are supposed to break up unauthorized demonstrations are reported to have simply stepped aside. The same paramilitary teams that ruthlessly suppressed the pro-democracy demonstrators seemed unable to choose a side in this conflict.

There were clashes throughout other parts of the capital city, but the numbers were smaller and the presence of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij militia kept bloodshed to a minimum. The more disorganized local anti-riot police didn't seem to be able to prevent roving confrontations between the highly-mobile, black-garbed demonstrators. In the Naarmak section of Tehran, the bustling clerical businesses which double as funeral homes and places of worship have become hastily-converted barracks. The two sides seem to have split the barracks about equally. But since Naarmak is the home base of Ahmadinejad, security forces are pouring into the area. Contrariwise, the Avlieh Amr, troops loyal to the ayatollah, have surrounded the Shaheed Mottahari Complex where his and the president's offices are located.

Several observers have reported that they found it hard to tell from their clothing and arms which group was which. But when they clashed in the streets, the demonstrators themselves seemed to have no problem telling friend from foe. Separation of mosque and state is not an issue in this gang fight. The impossibly-knotted political/religious nature of fundamentalist Islam makes this a clear battle between the secular-religious president and the religious-secular ayatollah. And then you have to add the additional ingredient of the Islamic belief-system unique to Iran and its current leaders.

The whole wonderful mess seems to have started with a movie produced a few months back. A "documentary" entitled The Coming Is Upon Us was commissioned by Ahmadinejad. It played on an Iranian Muslim theme centered on the return of the "mahdi" also known as the twelfth or "hidden imam." It is a Shiite belief that has become particularly potent in fundamentalist Iranian religious practice. And like apocalytpic Christian belief, it posits that the end times are coming very soon. The true believers are convinced that the hidden imam is already among them. And therein lies the conflict.

Ahmadinejad maneuvered the filmmakers into painting a picture that was designed to lead toward the belief that he is that hidden imam. Khamenei took strong exception. Neither has actually claimed to be the hidden imam, but their followers have made that claim on their separate behalves. The two leaders are pointing their fingers at each other over the issue, but Khamenei got the jump on Ahmadinejad by getting the clerics in the holy city of Qom to denounce the movie as empowering the West to divide the Iranian faithful while also revealing the "private" beliefs of Iranian Islam.

The opening salvo came when Ahmadinejad fired Minister of Intelligence Heidar Moslehi, and Khamenei reinstated him. A common religious belief had to step aside for the resolution of the question "who's in charge here?" Moslehi was too close to the ayatollah for the president's tastes, while Khamenei wanted to maintain control over Iran's spy rings. Fundamentalist clerics quickly rallied behind the ayatollah, announcing that disobedience of the ayatollah was an offense against Allah.

Khamenei's faction subsequently arrested two dozen prominent political figures who supported Ahmadinejad, and used their intelligence wing to block pro-Ahmadinejad websites. He even went so far as to arrest the prayer leader of the presidential palace. That resulted in Ahmadinejad's use of the Revolutionary Guard to threaten "blood in the streets." That was no idle threat, and came to fruition this past weekend.

This is a falling-out among thieves that Westerners should be able to enjoy and Israelis should cheer. Every day the two factions go at each other is another day that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are distracted from their duties to destroy Western civilization and wipe Israel off the map. Meanwhile, if the bloody dispute grows, the Obama administration and the MSM (mostly one and the same) will have to take notice of it. This should be an interesting test for the Obama administration. It can't claim it supports the pro-democracy faction since neither side represents anything faintly representing democracy. Both sides claim that Allah is on their side. How can a good Christian like Barack Hussein Obama claim to know which is right?

It's too early to tell if this conflict will grow into a major battle between Satan and Beelzebub. But if it does, will President Obama grasp the opportunity to use American intelligence agencies to help stir the pot? And will he at the same time grasp the opportunity to give real, genuine support to the pro-democracy movement that could benefit from the dueling dictators? Given his weak-kneed personality, it is more likely that he will stand back and wait to see which faction wins, then give another mealy-mouthed speech praising the growing warmth between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He doesn't know enough history to see that this is just the conflict between Hitler and Roehm written in Farsi.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows Indeed

No, that is not a picture of the cute balloon animal from my granddaughter's recent birthday party. It's an ethanol molecule. Ethanol is one of the most heavily-subsidized green weenie alternate fuels beloved by the federal government and farmers. In fact, in 2010, the bill for subsidizing ethanol (ethyl alcohol derived from corn) was $6 billion.

Like most alternatives for oil-drilling, natural gas drilling, and clean-coal development, ethanol is one of those "green" remedies that's as bad as or worse than the fuels that environmentalists hate so much. In fact, the only provable green parts of the ethanol boom are the greenbacks being used to support it and the massive algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from byproduct runoff being floated down the Mississippi River.

Every head of corn used to make ethanol is one head less which could be used as food. What has been an abundant and inexpensive food source for the poor people Barack Obama claims to love so much is now becoming scarcer and therefore more expensive. That's called "the market" principle of supply and demand--something of which the socialists are entirely unaware. Farmers who are receiving the subsidies are not at all concerned that farmers who do not receive the subsidies are paying higher prices for corn-based animal feed. That also drives up food prices.

So who are the strange bedfellows? California Senator Dianne Feinstein (liberal Democrat) and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (moderate/conservative Republican) have joined Tea Party activists attempting to end the $6 billion annual ethanol subsidies. This puts them on the side opposing the ethanol lobby, farm welfare pimps, major segments of the no-oil ecofreaks, and anti-tax bigwig Grover Norquist. Feinstein and Coburn issued a joint announcement in which they declared subsidies for ethanol and oil to be counterproductive. As for ethanol alone, they said: "Ethanol is the only industry that benefits from a triple crown of government intervention. Its use is mandated by law, it is protected by subsidies on domestic production and tariffs on foreign production, and companies are paid by the federal government to use it."

Speaking of the subsidies and tariffs on both ethanol and oil, they said "the subsidies are no longer affordable and the tariffs actually increase gasoline prices because it's cheaper to import oil than to import ethanol." That also runs counter to a recent statement by Barack Obama who praised Brazil for both its oil and ethanol production (he has actively squelched the former within the US). Said The One to the Brazilians: "You are eager to produce petroleum products, and we are eager to buy them." Speak for yourself, Mr. President. "We" want to see American drilling platforms in the Gulf that are twice the size and capability of the Brazilian platforms you are praising.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice government interference in the market. It's getting harder and harder to figure out who is on which side. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says that Coburn is breaking his pledge to halt tax increases because ending the ethanol subsidies would amount to a tax increase for corn growers. Well, Grover, that's not only a debatable point, but it wouldn't be an increase for farmers who are growing corn for food. In fact, it would boost production and net income for them, thus resulting in increased revenue for the government (Laffer Curve, anyone?).

Feinstein is caught in another dilemma which Coburn doesn't face. California (not Iowa, not Illinois, not Kansas, not Nebraska) had long been the largest corn-producing state in the nation. But the cornfields of the Central California Valley largely produce dust these days as a result of enviro-freak protection of a useless little fish and an attendant government-created drought.

Feinstein must be living in a terrible world of self-conflict. She is opposing subsidies to an agricultural entity that her beloved EPA is killing off in California anyway. She is denying pork to an industry that used to bring immense revenue to California and to the United States at large. And speaking of pork, hog production in California is also way down because of a lack of water to slake their thirst and corn to feed them. I'm getting a headache just thinking of all those self-contradicting concepts.

Coburn did not take Norquist's claim lying down. He fired back with: "The ethanol subsidy is nothing more than corporate welfare not-so-cleverly disguised as a tax 'break' that, in the real world, has the impact of a tax increase because other taxes have to be raised to pay for it." The Tea Party subsidy opponents seem to feel that all the talk of taxes is valuable, but there is a much more basic issue involved. Said one writer on the Tea Party website: "Why should we as taxpayers pay to make our road fuel more corrosive and less energy dense? And making fuel out of food is retarded, even for politicians (emphasis added)."

You may be surprised to realize that corn, previously 100% food, is now 60% food and 40% fuel. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that this really means a substantial decrease in the availability of a cheap and abundant food source. Joining Feinstein and Coburn are Greenpeace (over the algae blooms) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (over the food issue, obviously). 90 other large and influential organizations from every point on the political spectrum have formed a political coalition to fight the subsidies.

The one organization that isn't facing reality is, of course, the EPA. The EPA has now stepped into the unelected bureaucracy role of greenhouse gas regulator after the green weenies failed to enact "appropriate" legislation in Congress. But just how "green" is the EPA really? Says reporter Carolyn Lockhead, environmental writer for the San Francisco Chronicle (yes, that Chronicle): "Because fossil fuels are used both to grow corn and to refine it into ethanol, and because ethanol does not yield as much energy per gallon as gasoline, various studies have shown that ethanol does not save much energy overall, and may increase greenhouse gas emissions (emphasis added).
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Jon Huntsman Jr.

Let’s continue our look at GOP contenders with a look at Jon Huntsman Jr. Huntsman is routinely described as a “moderate” by some and “not as moderate as he sounds” by others. Some of his views are indeed well within the conservative mainstream. But several of his more important views appear to be on the left end of the spectrum. Also, he's got all the wrong friends.

Huntsman is the former two-term governor of Utah. He is also a Mormon and comes from a wealthy family. His estimated worth is around $70 million. He was first elected in 2004 with 57% of the vote and was re-elected in 2008 with 77.7% of the vote. His approval ratings topped 90% at various points. So far so good. But in August 2009, he resigned to become Obama Ambassador to China. In and of itself, this should not be considered a problem, but in this case, combined with his repeated attempts to make himself out as the “moderate” candidate, this may evidence a man more comfortable with the system than political principle.

1. Economics. When it comes to economics, it’s hard to argue that Huntsman is not a conservative. As governor, he pursued a pro-business agenda of tax cuts and employment incentives. Following his term, Utah was named one of the top three states in the country in which to do business. His biggest achievements in this regard were streamlining state government, cutting the sales tax and simplifying the tax code. In 2008, the libertarian CATO Institute praised Huntsman’s tax policies, giving him the highest ranking of all 50 governors. However, CATO also pointed out that he “completely dropped the ball on spending, with per capita spending increasing at about 10% annually during his tenure.” This may be more consistent with a big business Republican than a conservative.

2. Global Warming. Huntsman believes in global warming and in 2007 signed a Western states pact with Arnold Schwarzenegger to regulate emissions in Utah. He has yet to backtrack on this stupidity.

3. Foreign Policy. It’s not clear what Huntsman’s position is on foreign policy, except that he’s known to believe in the power of diplomacy and he happily accepted the role of Obama’s ambassador to China, a job that essentially involved kowtowing to the Chinese. He praised Obama’s handling of the Osama bin Laden killing, but has yet to take a stand on other issues.

5. Social Issues.

A. Abortion. Huntsman is opposed to abortion and has signed and supported various laws to limit abortion or impose restrictions on abortion. One of these laws requires doctors to describe the pain the fetus is likely to feel to the mothers before they can get an abortion. He also helped establish a fund to defend Utah in court, should Utah ever ban abortion entirely.

B. Gays. Huntsman has riled many conservatives with his support of civil unions. He does not appear to support gay marriage per se.

C. Guns. Huntsman is opposed to gun control and actually supported unpopular bills in Utah to expand gun rights by allowing drivers to carry loaded weapons in their cars without a permit.

D. Immigration. Huntsman described himself as “moderate” on the issue of illegal immigration and has been careful to avoid getting specific. He talks vaguely of wanting “comprehensive reform,” which is generally code for amnesty. While governor, he helped introduce a “driving privilege card system,” which sounds suspiciously like drivers licenses for illegal aliens, he fought to protect in-state discounts for illegal immigrants at Utah colleges, and he worked with Janet Napolitano to expand the guest worker system.

6. The Fuzzy Stuff. Much of the “fuzzy stuff” is troubling with Huntsman. For example, he happily embraces the “moderate” label. That’s not a good sign. Also, he has sought out Bush and McCain advisors for his inner circle, people who have demonstrated they lack political instincts, an understanding of policy, and a set of principles. That’s a huge problem. He’s also the one candidate that many on the left claim is someone they could love. Jimmy Carter and Huffington Post both have high praise for him. That’s truly disturbing. Finally, most of the big players in Utah, even people like the current governor who was hand-picked by Huntsman, have all said they will support Romney over Huntsman. Again, that's not a good sign when the people who know you (and owe you) won't support you.

All told, this seems to add up to a man who favors big business and democratic policies, except in a few isolated instances like abortion and guns, and who is very comfortable within “the system” and would fit in well at the country club.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Comedy Central Caves Again

Bin Laden is dead, and the government has decided we don't get to see pictures of his non-smiling face after having his head air-conditioned. At the same time, the self-censors at Comedy Central have once again decided that it's just not right even to show cartoon pictures of the Pedophile Prophet Mohammed. Creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are not pleased.

Comedy Central doesn't seem to have any objection to Parker and Stone depicting Jesus as a foul-mouthed, stoned hippie philosopher. Jews are routinely depicted as stereotypical bearded anomalies, with funny accents and strange ways of expressing themselves. Catholics are a particular source of derision, and even Scientologists haven't been spared. The humor is often vulgar and over-the-top, but the purpose is to prick the sensitivities of those who often take themselves and their religiosity too seriously.

The pair have no hesitation about depicting Mohammed in the same manner, but for some reason that we unsophisticates are not privy to, Comedy Central sees fit to cut any pictures, references or mockery of Mohammed. Well--maybe we do know. The absence of beheading threats from Christians, Jews and Scientologists gives us a hint. And the absence of burned mosques or hanged Muslims in the wake of the pairs' jabs might also be a clue. South Park has actually depicted Mohammed a few times, but that was before the murderous riots that followed the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons. In fact, Mohammed is depicted in the accompanying picture, and if you can blow the picture up, you'll see him mid-right with a red rectangle drawn around him. Those were less dangerous times.

200, an episode that celebrated South Park's 200th joke-fest, contained an image that has come to be known as Parker and Stones' "safe" way of depicting Mohammed as a bear. The episode was aired a year ago, complete with censored pictures and dialog, and is now out on the Season 14 DVD. It created the predictable furor from the mad Muslims who won't even allow the creators an alternate way of depicting an unlabeled Mohammed. Even those dummies have figured out that the bear is the creators' way of jabbing at both Comedy Central and furious Muslims by depicting Mohammed with a non-depiction. The same depiction was to be repeated in episode 201. No such luck.

South Park is normally available intact for videostreaming at the same time as the episode is shown on Comedy Central. Parker and Stone previewed the censored episode from the DVD and went online to add the following message where the Mohammed non-depiction depiction was intended to be:

We apologize that South Park Studios cannot stream episode 201 at this time.

After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, Comedy Central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode. We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show.

We will bring you a version of 201 as soon as we can."

In other words, despite the network bleeping on air and in streaming video, Parker and Stone had expected the Season 14 DVD to be restored to its original outrageous form. That didn't happen. They were allowed, however, to issue a statement preceding episode 201: "In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. The bleeps [which viewers may have missed when the show first aired] were added by Comedy Central. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear [in the wake of the original airing]. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too."

That statement was undoubtedly far more civil than what the pair actually thought and wanted to say. In fact, if they had said on the DVD what I suspect they said privately, we wouldn't be able to repeat it on our blog. As it stands now, this most recent selective network censorship does more than simply cut the "offending" words and depictions of non-Mohammed. It makes it far more difficult to put together those weekly shows that center on current events involving religions and philosophies of all kinds. They know that only one religion demands self-censorship by the network--or else.

How can they reasonably be expected to continue to jab at Christianity, Judaism and the Scientology cult while having anything they say or show about Islam and Mohammed cut into non-existence? They can either expend considerable effort on creating an episode that will be savaged (either by the network or by the religion of peace, or both), or accomplish the goal of the haters by not doing any material that relates to Islam and Mohammed.

Parker and Stone have no intention of doing Islam's dirty work and becoming propagandists for them by parodying only Christians and Jews (yes, and Scientologists). The insane outrage from Islamists on a daily basis provides a wealth of material that exceeds all the foolishness of the other religions combined. The pair are expected to ignore the wildly-indignant Muslims at all costs, including suppressing their artistic creativity. Shame, again, on Comedy Central for its cowardly retreat from openness and equal opportunity parody.

They can only do just so many parodies of Barbra Streisand, Mel Gibson and San Francisco before the material gets stale. But militant Islam is the comic gift that keeps on giving on a daily and even hourly basis. Their greatest source of pointed comedy, alas, will reach nobody until Parker and Stone can find a way to get the material past the Comedy Central censors and out to the public. No mean feat, given the large legal staff at Comedy Central and the Muslim lobby.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Happy Mother's Day -- Open Thread!

Happy Mother's Day to all the moms of the universe!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Alive, Well, And Living Among The Unions

Just in case you thought Big C communism was a thing of the past, think again. May Day is the traditional day for the communist dictatorships to trot out their loyal followers, armed troops, tanks and infantry, air forces and ICBMs. It was rarely openly celebrated in the USA. How times have changed. Behold the Commie/Immigration/Union parade in Los Angeles.

Zombie.com is noted for taking and reproducing the photos that the mainstream media won't show you. My first encounter with their site was after several of the big anti-Iraq war demonstrations took place in San Francisco. The pictures I was seeing on TV and in the press bore little relation to what I had seen in person. Sure, they showed the antiwar movement at its delicate best, and you could even see an occasional keffiyeh'd follower of Islam. What they didn't show were the large banners with representations of Jews being hanged, George Bush sporting a Hitler mustache and a Star of David badge, and the ubiquitous placards stating "we'll support our troops when they shoot their officers."

Zombie doesn't disappoint, showing the pictures of the L.A. May Day demonstrations. The largest presence was the SEIU, and it makes no bones about its solidarity with the Communist International. Any attempt to hide the true beliefs of this most heinous of unions is gone. They were out in force, wearing the SEIU purple shirts while many carried the Red Flag. They were joined by Mexican irredentists, Castroites, and a large contingent of useful idiots. Big C communism is in better shape at the SEIU and in Los Angeles than it is in Moscow or Beijing.

For the pictures you didn't see on TV or in your local newspaper, here they are. I suggest a good strong drink before you click on the link. Communists march for unionism, solidarity and illegal immigration--May Day in Los Angeles.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

We Already Work For The Government

Shown are Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner sharing a laugh about the taxpaying rubes before the Treasury Secretary headed off for a speech to the graduates of NYU's Stern School of Business. His subject before the mutual fund advisors was the advice he would give to all young professionals just entering the work force.

Geithner started off by telling business graduates: "I guess what I'd say is to learn about the world, make sure you try to understand the basics of economics and finance, because it's critical to everything." I'd have to say that advice is at best redundant to former students who now have that gilt-edged M.B.A. It's a little like telling math majors that they should learn their multiplication tables. But it is what came next that makes Geithner a true Obama administration champion.

Channeling Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, Geithner advised the grads: "At some point come try to work for your country some time." Needless to say, by that he didn't mean join a SEAL team to take out America's enemies. He meant "go to work for the government." Don't waste time using that M.B.A. to build businesses and create wealth. You could be working as a government bureaucrat figuring out how to destroy businesses and print worthless money.

Now most of us work for the government every year for three to five months, depending on how you calculate income taxes and all the other federal, state, and local taxes. But given Geithner's inability to use TurboTax properly and pay his taxes, I also suspect that he isn't thinking of that angle either. No, I think Geithner genuinely believes that working in the federal government bureaucracies somehow magically makes one smarter and more loyal to America. Well, it won't make you smarter, that's sure. And it will make you loyal to the government, not to America.

I think that the only reason to go to work for the government is to figure out ways of getting around the government's interference in our lives, fortunes and sacred honor. It is patriotic to work for America. It does not follow that one "serves America" by working for the government. Most of the time over the past two years, it has been quite the opposite. Of course if income and perks alone are the guiding principle for why you go to work for your country, that's a fertile field. Gummint workers are paid about twice what their civilian counterparts are paid for doing the same type of work.

Said Geithner: "The economic challenges we face as a country depend a lot on getting a better understanding of economics and finance so you can get better policy outcomes from your government." Better economic outcomes? What the hell does that mean? My best guess is it means pork, and the smarter you are, the more you can get. But Geithner does go so far as to mention that it is possible (gasp) not to make sucking at the public teat a lifetime commitment. "You don't need to spend your entire life doing it--but it's good for the country to try and attract people to do this, and I hope you do."

Working for the government would require these brainiacs to do the exact opposite of what Geithner cites. They would have to forget everything they learned about accounting, economics and finance since government works on bureaucratic "don't rock the boat" principles and arcane and often contradictory rules about how to screw the public. Alternatively, they could cling to what they learned, then do the exact opposite.

Geithner told the grads that his personal experience taught him the lesson about what to learn. His parents sent him overseas to Europe, and that's where he learned to "look at the United States through the eyes of other countries. That experience is what led me to want to work for my country." In other words, what he learned in Europe is what he wanted to impart to America. Sadly for Geithner, he doesn't realize that the Europeans are awakening to the fact that the things they taught him don't work there, and will be a disaster for the great American economic engine.

As socialism slowly collapses of its own weight in Britain, Germany, France and other notable Continental nations, Geithner wants us to follow the path they are abandoning. In finance and accounting, they are learning that you can't perpetually spend more than you receive, particularly on expensive social engineering that perpetuates poverty and government dependence. They've also learned that simply printing more money only makes the money worthless. In economics, they've learned that Keynes was just plain wrong, governments don't create wealth (they eat it), and one person making real money does not automatically do so by taking it from someone else.

Geithner should have stayed in Europe just a bit longer. Frankly, I believe that anyone who has spent time in government below the executive level should stay there. It's too much like putting the local prostitute in charge of the church choir. She has learned a lot, but it won't help the choir stay on tune. According to the Office of Management and the Budget, there are 2.65 million employees already working for the federal government. That's enough.

If they had asked me to speak (which is unlikely in any event), I would have told them that if they are not going to go into the private sector immediately after graduation, they might consider the military. Sure, they'd be technically working for the government, but they would also really be serving their country. Sadly, it's unlikely that NYU/Stern grads would take the only federal pay that is actually too low for the job they do.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Addendum Reboot

I’ve talked before about the problems with sequels and my displeasure with reboots. Today I want to talk about three recent “reimaginings” that add a whole new level of error to the remake industry. These unimaginings commit the sin of sucking the life out of the material they are remaking and then filling in the holes with pure filler. They are like addendums more than films. Specifically, I’m talking about: Halloween (2007), Final Destination (2009), and A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010). Blech.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Dueling Immigration Laws

Congressman Lou Barletta (R-PA) is going before the House with a bill which would eliminate federal handouts to cities which refuse to enforce immigration law. Sanctuary cities are awash with illegal immigrants and illegal immigrant crime. I've mentioned this before in posts about Sanctuary City Numero Uno--San Francisco.

It has gotten so bad that the liberals are at war with the radicals over enforcing cooperation with the feds over this issue. The radical left San Francisco Board of Supervisors re-wrote city ordinances so that only illegals convicted of violent felonies would be reported to the federal authorities. The previous rule had been that illegal immigrants, including minors, were reported to the feds upon arrest for any felony or misdemeanor. Liberal former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, unable to get enough votes to override a veto, simply ordered the police department to continue to report the miscreants to the feds and ignore the Board. It's an ongoing battle between the mayor's office and the Supes.

Barletta's proposed legislation (dubbed the "Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act," or "MASCA") would clamp down on the cities that gladly take federal funds but refuse to follow federal rules regarding reporting illegal immigrants. Barletta's move came in the wake of the Republican takeover of the House, the failure of the DREAM Act, and the inability of the Democrats and Republicans to agree on some sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka "amnesty").

Barletta first came to the attention of political junkies when, as mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania he cracked down on illegal immigrants. Now he has announced that he is forming the Congress Immigration Reform Caucus, dedicated to striking a major blow to the ease with which illegal immigrants can hide out. He has already recruited several new Republican young turks to join him. Says Barletta: "My intention is to face illegal immigration head on." By cutting off the source of major illegal immigration enabling--federal funds.

Meanwhile, back here in La La Land, California legislators are using loopholes in the federal "must report" program which automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees. In a state which accounts for more than one-third of illegal immigrant deportations, the Democrats fear the loss of one of their major political constituencies and its major source for future (and present) Democratic voters. So they have to find a way to keep their people from being deported in even larger numbers. You see, of the 102,000 illegals deported since the program began in 2008, twenty-nine percent have been arrested for, but not convicted of criminal activity. That doesn't please the radicals-in-residence in city halls located in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Under the program, local police are expected to report illegal immigrant arrestees to the FBI, and the current program added ICE and Homeland Security to the list of agencies to be notified, along with a copy of the arrestee's fingerprints as additional identification. But the enabling Congressional legislation did not directly address "sanctuary cities," leaving them free to make their own decisions about whom to report without the real and immediate threat of having their federal benefactor cut them off. ICE's goal of having nationwide cooperation by 2013 spurred the pro-illegal immigrant California crowd into action.

The proposed California legislation would simply allow cities to opt into or out of the national program. Illinois has pending legislation that would allow this, and Washington State already has such a law in place. This is more insidious than you might think because what it actually accomplishes is the elimination of the highly dubious pariah status of "sanctuary city" (which has no legal standing) by creating a legislated sanctuary city without the need for skirting the law and use of an appellation that has no meaning in American law.

This is a very clever ploy. By giving cities the legal right to opt into or out of the reporting program, the offending states create huge buffer zones where illegals can hide out with semi-legal confidence. Current sanctuary cities will opt out because they want to continue encouraging illegal immigration (and a future Democratic base). But many smaller towns may also opt out solely because they could cut expenditures and manpower in a state where most municipalities are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

This is not the classic states rights versus federal preemption argument. The California legislators get what they want, while at the same time not interfering with federal prerogatives. If a city ops out, it would theoretically lose its federal assistance. But that hasn't happened, ever, under the current system which coddles the amorphous "sanctuary cities." They have been hiding in plain sight, and would now have the imprimatur of the state government.

Currently, federal law does not mandate the termination of federal funds going to cities which harbor illegal immigrants. California would simply be taking advantage of that fact by legitimizing sanctuary cities. Without the mandate to cut off federal funds, Democrats and timid Republicans have simply ignored their ability to starve sanctuary cities. Thinking Congress critters who oppose illegal immigration but fear losing voters should be aware that they will actually gain votes. The voting public wrath in the current sanctuary cities will largely be turned on the local officials who arrogantly flouted the federal law when the "free goodies for everyone" crowd suddenly doesn't have those federal funds to throw around for other, more legitimate efforts. Los mas furiosos illegals would go into tizzy mode, but so far, they haven't been given the vote.

Barletta's MASCA legislation would change the rules of the game, and at the same time defeat California's legitimization of sanctuary cities. Under Barletta's proposed bill, opt-out cities would automatically have their federal funds cut off (all that would remain would be determining how much would be cut off). Whether this bill has any chance of passing, particularly given the Democratic control of the Senate and the White House remains to be seen. Nevertheless, even introducing such a bill would be an heroic move. I wish Barletta all the best.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Palin Knows How To Win In California

One potential Republican presidential candidate has figured out the only way that the GOP has a snowball's chance of winning in California in 2012. That person is Sarah Palin. The election will be won or lost in the Central/San Joaquin Valley, where a federal government-imposed artificial drought is killing California agriculture and putting thousands of out work while putting California's economy even deeper into the debt hole.

I've been writing about the destruction of the American cornucopia since long before I left San Francisco for that selfsame Central Valley. People who don't know California tend to think of its industrial and entertainment powerhouses without knowing that California is was America's agricultural heartland (peace to my friends in the Midwest). California produced more corn, rice, wheat, cotton and a myriad of other agricultural products than any other region within our national borders. It was an integral and substantial part of the economy that was at one time the fifth largest in the world.

I first saw the sign in the picture accompanying this article as my son and I were driving the moving van from San Francisco to my new digs in Caliente (Kern County, Central Valley). It appears in duplicate form all along the inland route from Northern to Southern California. I drove that route many times over the years from my homes in Downey and Simi Valley to the Bay Area and my residences in Berkeley and San Francisco. I remembered miles and miles upon miles and miles of fertile green fields, farms, citrus groves, vineyards and domesticated animal herds. It was a genuine shock to see cracked earth and brown, untended fields devoid of life-giving water.

All of this green wealth was brought to the Central Valley by the California Water Project begun in the 1920's and continuing through the late 1990's. What was once a desert with fertile but dry soil became the wonder of the agricultural world. Most of the water came from the Delta region of Northern California through a massive system of dams, canals, pumps and pipes. There was (and is) enough water to provide the life-giving liquid to the entire state. That is until the federal Environmental Protection Agency discovered that the pumps endangered an already dying and worthless fish species--the Delta smelt. For the whole background on this fiasco, see The Fish That Conquered California.

Politicians and candidates of both parties come to San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose/Silicon Valley and Sacramento to demagogue and raise funds. None of those cities are directly impacted by the avoidable drought in the Central Valley. In fact, if not properly dammed and diverted, parts of California would be drowning in water after this year's heaviest snow pack and rainfall in fifty years (global warming?). San Francisco Bay is being flushed out by millions of gallons of water from those wet conditions while the Central Valley remains cracked and dry.

Of all the candidates and potential candidates for the presidency, only one has done the right thing and visited the towns of the Central Valley. And she has done it twice. From Fresno to Bakersfield, the unemployment rate is two to four times that of the rest of the state, and bankruptcies and public assistance are nearly three times that of the other regions of California. Just ten years ago, the unemployment rate was half that of the rest of the state. The EPA killed oil production in the Central Valley decades ago (along with farming, it was the largest employer in the region). Now it has brought death and destruction to the agricultural industry.

God love Sarah Palin. Speaking this past Sunday at West Hills College in the small town of Lemoore (about ninety miles from my home in Caliente), Palin said: "A faceless government is taking away your lifeline, water, all because of a three-inch fish. Where I come from, a three-inch fish, we call that bait. There is no need to destroy people's lives over bait." Not exactly "fourscore and seven years ago," but it is more than adequate to sum up the situation.

This was a fund-raising event for the inauguration of the school's new Golden Eagle Arena. It raised about $115,000 net for the cause. But the implications of a nationally-known political personality speaking to a crowd comprised largely of California farmers and farm-workers cannot be overestimated. Independents and Democrats in the area who voted for Obama in 2008 are seriously reconsidering their votes. Republicans voted for McCain, but weren't at all enthusiastic about it. But still the Republicans won the majority of votes in the Central Valley districts. Palin is now energizing the Republicans while wooing the Independents and Democrats who are all suffering equally from the predations of the EPA.

Whether Palin will run or if her attention to the Central Valley will help her potential candidacy remains to be seen. But I will tell you from decades of involvement in California politics that one trip to the besieged Central Valley to talk about the crime against California's agricultural industry is worth more than a hundred visits to the big cities. You may raise more money in San Francisco and Los Angeles, but you'll raise far more votes by visiting Lemoore, Weed Patch, Tehachapi, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and my nearby "metropolis," Bakersfield.

Any Republican candidate who is serious about winning in California (or at least adding substantially to his or her popular vote) had better learn from Sarah Palin and follow her lead. Even I might find it in my heart to leave my comfortable retirement, roll up my sleeves, and get back into the fight. The destruction of the lifeblood of the Central Valley by federal bureaucrats and green-weenie Democrats is the issue that trumps all others here. That issue affects millions of California voters.

Democrats constantly talk about "the forgotten man" by which they mean the welfare community, illegal immigrants, and workers now on the unemployment line largely because of Democratic profligacy. The true forgotten man lives right here in the Central Valley and is just waiting for a presidential candidate who remembers him.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...