Reality Bites Back

The Loud Family was a typical American family. In 1970, they allowed a documentary team to set up cameras in their home to film them as they went about their daily lives. The documentary titled "An American Family" aired in 12 episodes on PBS in 1973. Originally intended to be a chronicle of the daily life of an American family, the documentary ended up proving that people will change their behavior to "play to the camera" and ended up with breaking the Loud Family apart.

That was then, and this is now. Okay, I am about to make a confession that may shock you and quite possibly make you think less of me...

I watch reality shows. No, no...it's worse. I don't watch the singing and dancing shows. I watch the really hideous, mind numbing ones. Okay, here it goes. I have been known to watch The Real Housewives of [fill in the blank]. It started innocently enough. Just a little Orange County Housewives, no harm done. As the brand expanded, I became a little bit hooked. I looked at them like I would any National Geographic documentary of exotic animals. In this case the animals are extremely rich women with too much botox and time on their hands and egotistical enough to think people are interested in their lives. Well, apparently they...er...we are. If you've never seen one, the premise revolves around an extremely rich/idol group of "friends" who allow themselves to filmed so the public can get a glimpse of what happens behind those gates in upscale, McMansioned communities. The women who sign up for these shows are caste to "type" - overly botoxed, surgically enhanced, mostly bleached blonds with unlimited credit cards and hours of idle time on their hands. Their children are props and their husbands are dispensable.

The first group of "Real Housewives" was an interesting study of the idle Nouveau Riche. You know, that class of rich that buy exclusive labels, expensive vacations, and high fashion. They don't care much for intellectual pursuits like "education". In the beginning, they were more "natural" and diplomatic in their opinions of each other. After the first table was thrown, all bets were off.

Because of the success of the Orange County show, the producers saw a gold mine and expanded to New York - same idea, just different accents. Then came another expansion to Atlanta which opened up the brand to the idle rich of color. Then came New Jersey, Beverly Hills, DC, and Miami. With each new iteration, the shows developed a marketable formula and a defined cast of characters - the Mean One, the Nice One, the Successful One, the Singer who can't hold a tune, the Fashion Designer who can't design, etc. All the women involved have become a new level of "famous". They make the entertainment gossip pages, and are invited to the "best" parties and openings for no other reason than they allow themselves to be filmed - no talent needed. It sounds great, but there is a darker side.

The reality of reality is that "fame" is not all it's cracked up to be. In the beginning, it must be fun that everyone knows your face and name. But as these women and men found out, the real reality is that the deep, dark secrets of your life are laid bare for ratings. The unflattering, private moments that you thought you could hide like a former life as a prostitute, failing marriages and businesses are now fodder for the masses. The arrests, depleted bank accounts, bankruptcy proceedings and the foreclosure auctions to sell the McMansion and contents including that $16,000 hand-made leather handbag you bought on Episode 10 are all now in the public domain. But the ultimate reality occurred this week when the estranged husband of one of the Beverly Hills "wives" committed suicide. He was so afraid that his failing business and private sexual proclivities would be used as fodder on the show, that he hanged himself with an electrical cord in his McMansion rather than face the ridicule. Now that's reality. At this time, the producers are pondering whether to air the show this season. That's Hollywood in a nutshell and I stress the "nut" part. My question to these now "famous" women is "Has your 15 minutes of fame really been worth it?"

Addendum: Just to ease your minds, I stopped watching the shows after they started with the obvious formulas, and scripted violence and table throwing. What was once and interesting study in human nature became an unwatchable mess. And it really was fascinating to watch someone without an iota of guilt, purchase a $16,000 hand-made leather handbag for no other reason than they wanted it! [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Future Democrats Of America

Two recent developments highlight the determination of Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to increase the rolls of the Democratic Party by making illegal immigrants legal. First, the Obama administration via the Department of Homeland Security, intends to "review the cases" of 300,000 illegals who have already been ordered deported.

Second, in support of this action using his Constitution-skirting executive power, Obama plans to grant amnesty to many of the illegals in that group, among others. These two actions are intertwined, and together comprise another stealth attack on the powers of Congress which has consistently defeated the left's DREAM Act. Still, this action goes beyond the intent of the DREAM Act in that it's a blanket form of amnesty where the DREAM Act was a ploy to keep college illegals in the country.

Why now? Well, among Latino voters, support for Obama has declined from 85% to 49% in just over a year. The assumption in the Obama administration is that all legal Latino immigrants and naturalized Hispanic-Americans support illegal immigration. The White House-Capitol Democrats have decided that since they can't get amnesty in through the front-door, they had better do something quickly to restore their popularity among Hispanic voters.

It has not occurred to them that Latinos are among those most negatively impacted by the Obama failure to energize the economy and their reasons for abandoning him may have very little to do with the issue of immigration. Illegal immigration itself has shown a small decline since new jobs are few and far between. Even among the nearly-monolithic Obama black vote, his numbers are slipping, and that also has nothing to do with immigration.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano sent a letter to the DREAM Act Democrats stating: "From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities [creating new Democrats?]. Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission--clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety." Oh, spare me!

First, if the issue is limited resources, why waste those resources on illegals who have already been ordered deported? Sure, that would sweep up a large number of criminals whose only crime is being here illegally and haven't committed any other crimes yet, but it would also spare the Department the time and effort required to segregate out those illegals who have committed other crimes. Every hour spent reviewing each and every case already ordering deportation is an hour wasted in going forward with future investigations and deportations.

Napolitano says the 300,000 cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a limited number of federal employees looking one at a time at 300,00 cases. That number alone says there's a major problem, and reviewing each case will make a bad situation far worse. Admittedly, some of these cases are at the final stages, and have not yet come to a final order of deportation, but that doesn't change the fact that 300,000 cases will have to be reviewed, leaving no time to process the thousands of new cases arriving at ICE and DHS.

Second, this is a purely political move. There is no legal or constitutional justification for this action. The claim that it is a security matter is pure nonsense. The administration has been taking heat from irredentists and open-borders advocates since it recently bragged that it had deported more illegals than the Bush administration over a comparable period of time. Taking voluntary self-deportation after arrest into account, that was a simple lie. But this attempt at proving its steadfastness in enforcing immigration law backfired. It convinced nobody who wants the law enforced, and it angered those who were already suspicious of Obama immigration efforts that looked very much like enforcement.

Napolitano herself inadvertently admitted that the political heat was the basis of her actions. Even the liberal Los Angeles Times saw through the subterfuge, saying: "They announced the review as the Obama administration has sought to counter criticism that it has been too harsh in its deportation policies." Since most open-border opponents think that the administration has been too lax, it is obvious that this move wasn't designed to satisfy their demands for true enforcement of immigration law. This move is not only reprehensible on its face, but it is an intentional attack on the power of Congress to enact immigration law.

The ploy is working within the Democrat immigration left. Says open-borders advocate Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois): "This is the Barack Obama I have been waiting for and that Latino and immigrant voters helped put in office to fight for sensible immigration policies. Focusing scarce resources on deporting serious criminals, gang bangers, and drug dealers and setting aside non-criminals with deep roots in the US until Congress fixes our laws is the right thing to do." Which non-criminals? Surely he doesn't mean those immigrants whose first act was to commit the crime of entering the United States illegally.

One of the arguments that has been used to claim that this action and the DREAM Act were not purely political is that even after the stealth amnesty, these people are not voters anyway. Aw, hooey. First of all, in many Democratic enclaves they're already voting. Lax registration rules in other states enables them to vote semi-legally. And the real purpose is to create future voters for the Democratic Party that enabled them to turn their illegal status into legal status by a simple wave of the Obama hand.

Immigration reform is one of the most important issues to be handled by the next administration and the next Congress. Those illegals who have volunteered to serve in the US armed forces during a multi-front war should be given special consideration (particularly those here illegally solely because they were brought here as young children by parents who entered illegally). But blanket amnesty, no matter how disguised and what it is called is both foolish and dangerous. To top it off, Obama's executive order is another power-grabbing end-run around the Constitution.

In response to our featured placard-carrier: "If you're here illegally, you are a criminal."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Minority Report (2002)

I want to like Minority Report, but I can't. It’s based on a Philip K. Dick short story, and I usually enjoy movies based on his stories (see, e.g. Blade Runner and Imposter), plus it’s got a strong cast, excellent pacing, an interesting plot and some deep themes. But there’s just something wrong with the film and Spielberg knows it.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Unions Believe Violence Solves Problems

What you are seeing is the peaceful picketing that unions would have you believe is as tough as they ever get. Anybody with an IQ higher than an armadillo's knows that this peaceful picture is not how unions are getting their way these days. Public sector unions and their supporters have occupied state capitols and roughed up their opponents. The SEIU has its resident thugs at any meeting where there might be heard a discouraging word.

And that's the gentle part of union thuggery. Let's take a look at a couple of these peaceful strikes. First, there was the United Mine Workers strike. Sure, there were picket lines and stirring speeches. Those covered up the real activities of the union goons. One non-union contractor named Eddie York crossed a UMW picket line and was rewarded for his bravery with a fatal shot to the back of his head.

UMW president Richard Trumka not only failed to discipline any of the strike organizers, but set aside major union forced dues for the defense fund for the eight strikers charged with the murder. Trumka's reward was to be elevated to the presidency of the AFL-CIO. In that position, he has proudly quoted the words of Karl Mark from the Communist Manifesto, advising his workers to rise and rid themselves of their chains (much like former SEIU president Andy Stern). He keeps the Bolshevik violence out of his public speeches, but not out of his union meetings.

Prior to the murder case, a Virginia judge had ruled in a UMW private property damage and criminal threats case that "the evidence shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of the union." The unions have slowly lost their hold over the working public, and their rhetoric convinces no worker to join their unions voluntarily. They have to convince them somehow. If the speeches don't work, the violence which had been on the down trend for several decades has come back in force. Intimidation and actual physical harm to both employers and employees is the order of the day.

The most recent example is the activity which has taken place away from the picket lines shown in the picture accompanying this article. The latest target of organized thug labor is Verizon. Says a spokesman for the Communications Workers of America: "There's nothing wrong, or un-democratic, or un-American about militancy. It's part of our tradition." That was a valid statement nearly a century ago when companies which practiced union-busting used goons of their own. With the advent of the NLRB, state laws, creation of OSHA, and other modern developments, the companies grew up. The unions are still like dangerous, angry, willful and ungrateful children.

There have already been 123 verified destructions of Verizon property, including at the homes of Verizon customers. One picket-line crossing Verizon employee had his arm broken in a very nasty melee. Fellow strikers from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers blocked the entrance to the home of a sixty-four year old semi-invalid woman's house after she called Verizon from a neighbor's house to repair her cut phone line. Verizon's security office is receiving hundreds of daily reports of sabotage, threats, or actual violence.

The most famous outrage occurred last week, when John King, an electrical contractor in Toledo (who was doing work for Verizon during the strike) was awakened to the bright lights of his home security system coming on as he heard loud noises in his driveway. He came outside to find a gang of union goons scrawling the word "scab" on his car. He shouted for them to stop, and one of the thugs came up with a gun and shot King in the arm. A few weeks earlier, the union goons had thrown a rock through his shop window inscribed with the word "kill."

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) have a long history of nefarious activities. It used huge sums of forced union dues for thug activities and political action, despite the wording of the National Labor Relations Act. In a landmark case, the union was heavily fined and required to produce records for any union member who requests them concerning how their forced dues were being spent. It turned out that somewhere between 50% an 60% of those dues were being used for non-permitted union activity.

The NLRB and finally the United States Supreme Court ruled that nobody could be forced to be a member of a union, but if they worked in a union shop, they had to pay a percentage of the full member dues for those activities permitted by the Act. In cases that subsequently went to court, CWA had told the protesting employees that their dues would be reduced by no more than 4% to 5%, since that was all that was being spent on union activities disallowed by the Supreme Court ruling.

In fact, when the evidence was produced in court, [pro-Democratic] political activity alone (unpermitted for forced dues for non-members) accounted for 40% to 55% of the union's spending. Huge refunds and penalties have been imposed, but CWA, IBEW, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and a myriad of other unions continue to lie about how their dues are spent.

For your information, the case is Communications Workers of America vs. Beck. Employees who choose not to be members of the union and request an accounting for how their dues are being spent are said to be "filing a Beck statement." They are always told they are giving up all the fabulous benefits of union membership and will still only reduce their dues by a minimal amount. But at least this is just union theft. It's when a "Beck employee" makes too much public noise about the dues that the intimidation and violence follows.

There is a hole in the Act that allows union bigwigs to get away with this highway robbery and violence. Union officials are exempt from personal liability as long as the violence they promote is in the name of "legitimate union objectives." That makes it very hard to tie the rhetoric to the actual physical violence. Jimmy Hoffa made this rule work for him for over a quarter of a century until the union turned on him after his federal convictions on other charges.

Right now, the situation is about as bad as it can be. The Obama campaign desperately needs the support of the unions, and Eric Holder's Justice Department is willfully blind to these union criminal activities. The NLRB is now loaded in favor of socialist hacks who will not take any stand that opposes union activity. Remember that Marx-spouting SEIU past president Andy Stern still holds the record for most overnight stays at the Obama White House.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

For Whom The Poll Tolls

My next article is up at Big Hollywood! Go take a look: (Linky, Linky)! (It's at the film site too.)

It never rains, it pours when reality intrudes into leftist fantasy worlds. And this week it’s pouring harsh public opinion upon the little world created by Team Obama and the Pelosicrats. Indeed, public opinion has decidedly rejected them forthwith. . .

Let’s do these in bullet point format:

● As you all know, Obama’s approval rating keeps hitting new lows. Gallup has him at 39% approval and 54% disapproval. He's even fading among Democrats, with only 85% of liberal Democrats approving and only 67% of “conservative” Democrats. Maybe he’s just unlucky?

● Not surprisingly, 54% of voters say Obama is more liberal than they are, with only 12% feeling he is more conservative. Another 26% share his ideology. Thus, 38% of the country is stupid. These numbers are virtually identical for Congressional Democrats as well, thereby confirming the stupidity of the 38%.

● And the “generic Republican candidate” continues to beat Obama in a head-to-head match up for the fifth week in a row. Fortunately, we have plenty of generic Republicans hanging around.

● The generic ballot too continues to strongly favor Republicans, 44% to 37%.

● Even worse for the Obamacrats, the public rejects all their plans to fix Obama’s “bad luck” with the economy:

● A vast majority of voters (62% to 20%) say that cutting taxes is better than government spending when it comes to creating jobs. Ironically, that’s the one thing the Democrats won’t consider unless it’s targeted taxes to help certain industries. . . BUT

● 66% of Americans oppose giving targeted tax breaks to help certain companies or industries. They want the government to treat all companies and industries equally. Yeah, the public's funny that way.

● Similarly, Americans now firmly oppose the K Street/Establishment plan of tax code carve outs. Indeed, 64% of Americans want lower tax rates with fewer deductions. Only 16% want higher tax rates with lots of deductions. Somewhere lobbyists are crying right now like that 1970s commercial with the Indian. This is not good news for the establishment and the Democrats who see the handing out of goodies as a means to enrich themselves, and this gives a boost to the Republicans who have been trying to change this (like Sen. Coburn).

● Most Americans also say they are overtaxed. A full 74% say Americans should pay no more than 20% of their income in taxes. Another 55% favor a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage tax on their incomes. The one caveat on this is that 49% oppose eliminating the home mortgage deduction, although 47% favor limiting it to the “size of the average home mortgage.”

● The one good bit of news for the ObamaCrats appears to be that class warfare continues to work to a degree, with 64% of adults wrongly saying that the middle class pays a larger share of its income in taxes than the rich and 50% saying they are more likely to vote for a politician who promises to raise taxes only on the rich. But those results may not be as comforting for team Obama as they seem as they may be a reflection of the public’s anger at the K-Street manipulation of the tax code, with companies like GE managing record profits and yet paying $0 in taxes.

All in all, none of this is good news for the Democrats. The public sees themselves as overtaxed and unfairly taxed. Their solution is not more liberalism, but a flat tax stripped of K Street influence. They see tax cuts as the means to economic success for the country, not dependence on government spending. And they don’t seem to like the Democrats very much.

So much for the Democrat’s 2008 dream of a hard left turn for America.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

"Free Speech" Stops San Francisco Trains

I often wonder what San Francisco would be like if it didn't have its large community of wingnuts wildly indignant about nearly everything. For one thing, rush hour commutes would be a lot faster and a great deal safer. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which daily transports thousands of working people to and from their employment in The City, has been crippled at rush hour twice in the past week.

First, the background. A few weeks back, BART police shot and killed a knife-wielding man in one of the BART underground stations. That would have been good for a one column news report. But the knife-wielder was black. That immediately resulted in the "no justice, no peace" crowd demanding the heads of the BART officers involved in the shooting. Street demonstrations began to build amidst the usual cries of police brutality and racism. But when BART officials heard that the phenomenon of "flash mobs" was about to close the downtown stations, they turned off the grid that allowed cell communications in the BART underground stations.

The word to the potential mobs had partially gotten out before the cell communications shutdown, but the number of potential demonstrators was cut considerably, resulting in a fizzled first demonstration. BART had successfully thwarted a major demonstration which in its smaller manifestation had already started to turn violent. This initial "no justice, no peace" demonstration concentrated on the shooting incident, comparing it (entirely untruthfully) to the shooting of an unarmed and subdued young criminal on the Oakland side of the Bay over a year ago.

Recognizing that even San Franciscans, for all their pathological liberal guilt were not buying this "innocent victim" agenda to support rioting, the troublemakers and their allies decided to take a new tack. Where the first demonstration was designed to stir up racial resentment and anti-law enforcement hatred, the second and much larger demonstration on Monday revolved around BART's supposed suppression of free speech when it shut down the cell phone service. Interestingly, on the day of the second, bigger mob activity, BART did not shut down the underground cell grid. This was a result of all the hysterical negative publicity it received over the prior shutdown fomented by leftist organizations and the ubiquitous ACLU. Needless to say, the demonstrators drew a moral equivalence between BART's action and the complete communications shutdown used by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to squelch criticism of and demonstrations against his government.

The left must keep hatred alive, so when the "innocent victim" trope petered out, they had to find another cause to disrupt normal activity and set citizen against citizen. Knowing that most San Franciscans and all liberals are incapable of distinguishing between free speech and free rioting, they organized their functionally-illiterate gangs to trot out the First Amendment.

Did BART shut down cell communications which said "we must stop police brutality?" No. Did it shut down communications which said "we must convince our public officials that black victims are being killed because of their race?" No. Did it shut down communications which said "organize now to get your elected officials to change the murderous policies of the BART police?" No. They shut down communications when they said: "No justice, no peace. We are going to shut down the BART trains at rush hour, and stop the police and the white power structure from ignoring racism and violence against black folks. Join us in bringing the system to a crashing halt at the following BART stations this afternoon. Be prepared to push a few people around."

That is not a call for free speech or peaceable assembly. It's a call to disrupt civil law and order, prevent non-participants from going about their daily lives, shutting down a major public operation, with a strong hint of potential violence and harm to innocent bystanders. BART did exactly what it needed to do to keep the call to civil disturbance from going any farther. It turned off the grid.

Of course by the time of the Monday demonstrations, there was no need for the agitators to use the underground cell grid. They had a week to organize above-ground to get their mobs into the BART underground stations. And they succeeded rather well. Thousands of hard-working commuters who just wanted to get home to their families were prevented from doing so by walls of angry "free speech advocates." Holding up a sign promoting free speech is, indeed, free speech. Holding up that same sign while aggressively standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a mob while blocking train platforms is not free speech.

The whole mob was quite well-organized by this time. They first gathered at the Civic Center station, and effectively shut its operation down. Sensing the growing potential violence, the police (BART and SFPD) removed the demonstrators who then gathered outside. That meant one important hub was already unable to load and unload passengers. Once the station was effectively shut down, the growing mob then marched down east on Market Street, leaving skeleton demonstrations at Civic Center so it wouldn't re-open. By the time they were done, they had stopped all trains from picking up passengers at the four busiest downtown stations.

Shouting "no justice, no peace" and flashing the black power salute, the mob intimidated those who would have attempted to cross their lines and enter the stations. That inevitably led to the police blocking the entrances to the stations in order to prevent violence down in the four underground stations. But don't forget, the Monday demonstration was only tangentially about the alleged unjustified shooting. By now, it was about free speech. If you believe that, I have this really big orange bridge located in the same city that I'm wiling to sell you, cheap.

For the safety of the public, demonstrations are forbidden by law on platforms and trains in the underground portions of the BART system (which is a level below the MUNI underground city trains). If they follow simple rules for public demonstrations, these demonstrators are allowed absolute free speech rights on the surface, including each and every BART station.

The spokesman for the ACLU came up with this spurious logic: "Governments don't have to build parks, but once they do, they can't lock out speech they disagree with." Yeah, but if the demonstrators block access to the park, or prevent people from the use and enjoyment of the park, they can be removed. It's about the activity, not the speech. And there is still the issue of obtaining a pro forma demonstration permit. Individuals can do their thing as they choose, but groups must obtain the permit for the sake of the public. The permit cannot regulate the speech or its content, but it can determine the reasonableness of the time, place and manner of the demonstration. That is a rule which has consistently been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

In the case of "spontaneous demonstrations" in the underground stations, there has been a longstanding prohibition based on public safety. The cell phone cutoff did not interfere with the demonstrators' free speech rights, it merely inconvenienced them by requiring that they go outside to organize their permitless protests. The government has the right to limit free speech when the accompanying activity could reasonably be considered dangerous to the public ("compelling state interest" test).

BART's fear was not unfounded. A few years back, demonstrators in the underground clashed with counter-demonstrators, and a bystander was shoved onto the tracks of an oncoming train. No serious injury occurred, but it was narrowly avoided by quick BART personnel action. Flash mobs, regardless of their purpose, are not exempt from rules protecting the health and safety of other citizens. If you want to use your cell phone and social networking, don't expect to be able to use them to flout the law and create an inherently dangerous situation.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

People Prefer Spoilers? No Way

Here’s a fascinating tidbit. According to a recent study by psychologists, humans enjoy movies, television, books, and even sporting events more when they are given spoilers exposing twists and giving away the ending before they start to watch/read. I don't buy it. Let’s see what you think.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Paul Ryan for President 2012?

We interrupt this regularly scheduled column for something possibly much more interesting. According to the Weekly Standard and the vastly-overrated Karl Rove, there MAY be exciting news afoot. Paul Ryan is considering jumping into the field of GOP contenders to replace Obama in 2012.

According to the report:

“Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan is strongly considering a run for president. Ryan, who has been quietly meeting with political strategists to discuss a bid over the past three months, is on vacation in Colorado discussing a prospective run with his family. Ryan’s concerns about the effects of a presidential campaign – and perhaps a presidency – on his family have been his primary focus as he thinks through his political future.”

Wow! Ryan originally said he wouldn’t run three months ago, but according to a source close to Ryan, “He’s coming around.” Apparently, Ryan chose not to run when it looked like Mitch Daniels would run. When Daniels opted not to run, Ryan began to change his mind. Also, apparently, he (correctly) believes that none of the current candidates are talking seriously about economics.

So what hurdles does he face?

Well, he already has strong name recognition within the party, that’s vital. Moreover, he has a strong following among fiscal conservatives. Indeed, no one else in the race can claim anything similar to the reputation he has among fiscal conservatives, who would likely flock to him. Whether this would include Tea Party supporters I cannot say as Ryan does not strike me as having openly courted the Tea Party. But he shares their principles better than any of the other candidates.

Ryan also has strong connections to religious conservatives, who have yet to pick a candidate. Bachmann, Perry, and Pawlenty all made appeals to those voters, but so far they seem to be a group without a home.

Ryan gets a lot of love from conservative talking heads as well.

That’s a pretty strong base for a Republican Primary contender. His immediate competitors would be Perry and Bachmann. But both of those have flaws he doesn’t. Perry seems to trouble people for reasons they can’t articulate and Bachmann has serious organizational problems and keeps putting her foot in her mouth. Ryan isn’t as inflammatory as Bachmann or as accomplished a glad-hander as Perry, but he brings with him an earnestness that seems to work.

The biggest hurdle he faces, according to conventional wisdom, is that this is late in the game to start raising money. But is that really a concern? Probably not. Most of the candidates have been bringing in around four to five million dollars per quarter, with Romney bringing in around three times that. Perry too is prepared to bring in Romney-like numbers. But the vast majority of large donors have so far refused to commit themselves. Thus, there are literally hundreds of millions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting. Ryan could tap into that fairly easily given his support among both fiscal conservatives and the conservative intelligentsia. That would make him a match for Romney/Perry.

What about waiting this long? Well, Perry just jumped into the race this weekend and probably became the presumptive frontrunner or runner-up in the process. There’s no reason to think another week or two would be fatal to Ryan, as support clearly hasn’t solidified around any candidate or candidates at this point.

Also, let us not forget that Bill Clinton didn’t jump in for the 1992 race until October against a similarly uninteresting field. Indeed, the media dubbed them the Seven Dwarves at the time.

Just as interestingly, most conservative heavyweights have been waiting to give their endorsements. For example, Iowa heavyweight Rep. Steve King was expected to endorse either Pawlenty or Bachmann (with whom he is a personal friend). With Pawlenty gone, it seemed obvious he would endorse Bachmann. . . but he hasn’t. This is pure speculation, but he could be waiting for Ryan to make up his mind. Or he could just be waiting to see how things go. Indeed, according to numerous recent reports, very few heavyweights have agreed to endorse anyone at this point.

So between (1) the lack of a true frontrunner or frontrunners, (2) the lack of commitment by the money men, and (3) the lack of commitment by the heavyweight endorsers, the field essentially remains open at this point. Thus, being late should not hurt Ryan.

Finally, the million dollar question is this: given that Republicans are telling pollsters they want a candidate who can win more than anything else, how would Ryan do against Obama? Ryan crushes Obama. On the one hand, I think almost any Republican can beat Obama. But even beyond the public’s desire just to see an end to Obama’s reign of error, Ryan has shown himself to be more than a match in verbal debates with Obama and he has shown himself to be a talented, honest speaker of great skill, as well as a great thinker on economic issues. TOTUS is simply outclassed by the Wisconsin kid.

And while the Democrats think they have spotted a weakness because he proposed privatizing part of Medicare (an issue they used in an upstate New York House race), that is unlikely to be a problem. Ryan largely kept his nose clean during the brutal debt ceiling debate and Obama himself tossed entitlement reform on the table since that time.

What do you think? Good? Bad? Who’s Ryan?

I’ll do a contender profile on him next week.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democrats Convicted of Voter Fraud

Democrats have never shied away from voter fraud. It’s in their blood. Their communist intellectual ancestors routinely faked election results, first to grab power and then to hold it. In the US, Kennedy beat Nixon because of fraud in Texas and Chicago. In Chicago, the dead vote. ACORN registered Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys. And prior to the Hatch Act of 1939, the Democrats rewarded their voters with government contracts and jobs. Now we have more proof of the Democrats’ love of voter fraud.

In 2004, evidence was presented that military absentee ballots were fraudulently voted by people other than the voter, often against the wishes of the soldiers involved. No action was taken. Evidence was presented of people voting in New York and Florida on the same day. No action was taken. Evidence was presented of liberals filling out ballots at old folks homes without the knowledge (and even against the wishes in several cases) of the voters. No action was taken.

Then in 2008, ACORN was caught in multiple states filing fake voter registrations which would let them vote fake people. This was finally the bridge too far and action had to be taken. Fifty-four ACORN workers have since been convicted of voter fraud.

Now we have more evidence.

Last month, Lessadolla Sower, the head of the NAACP’s Tunica County, Mississippi Executive Committee was convicted of 10 counts of election fraud. This stems from Sower casting false absentee ballots in 2008. She was convicted of voting in the names of six live voters and four dead people. She was sentenced to 5 years on each count, but the sentences are running concurrently, so her actual sentence is 5 years.

Sowers, by the way, tried to play the race card during a prior run-in with the law, blaming her crime (forgery) on “an attempt by powerful whites to silence” her.

Of course, the NAACP is trying to counter attack. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous (a perfect name if ever there was one for an organization which thrives on jealousy and spite) is attacking a new Mississippi state law that requires voters to show a valid ID before voting, claiming this is an attempt to “disenfranchise minorities through some of the last existing legal pillars of Jim Crow.” He also claims that these laws are the result of “the worst and most racist elements in conservative Tea Party groups.”

Even if that were true Ben (and it's not and you know it), you’ve brought this on yourself because leftists have shown they can't be trusted. Indeed, this isn't even the NAACP's first problem with election fraud. The NAACP National Voter Fund registered a dead man to vote in Lake County, Ohio, in 2004. That same year, out of 325 voter registration cards filed by the NAACP in Cleveland, 48 were flagged as fraudulent. And you can be sure there are many more. This is simply part of the leftist game plan.

And there's more. From last week: three North Carolina Democrats (Kierra Fontae, Shelia Romona Hodges and Brandon Earl Mclean) admitted to voting twice in 2008, each time for Obama. Again, this was made possible by the Democrats setting out in the 1960s to make it impossible keep genuine track of who had and who had not voted. Specifically, they eliminated the requirement that voters show identification. This opened the door to all kinds of leftist chicanery.

No word yet on the sentence the three will receive.

In response to people like these three and other evidence, the legislature of North Carolina like Mississippi passed a law requiring voters to present an ID before voting. However, Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed it, claiming it presented an “obstacle to constitutional principle.” This is, of course, an idiotic lie as the Supreme Court has already said that such laws are perfectly legal.

Said North Carolina GOP chair Robin Hayes of this veto:

“The reason why Republicans have fought to promote proper voter-identification laws is to prevent fraud like this from happening. While Republicans are fighting to protect the integrity of our democracy, Governor Perdue’s veto fights to protect criminality in our election process. I know she embraces her ‘fighter’ image, but it’s clear that the only thing she fights for is fraud.”

Well said. Let’s hope the tide is finally turning against Democratic voter fraud. At least people are staring to change the laws and starting to prosecute the Democrats who partake.

* * * * * * * * *

Finally, as an unrelated aside, I had to mention this hilarious piece of news. Huffington Post apparently held a contest asking readers to submit suggestions for a new logo. My suggestion is on the left. The winner gets credit but no cash. Naturally, this has outraged various unions, including a group of graphic designers who are claiming Huffpo is trying to get "free labor." What a crying shame. . .

* * * * * * * * *

P.S.S. I've got another article up at BH. This one isn't the normal type, it's news related (the Corey Feldman molestation allegations). So here's the link. LINK. Hopefully, my other (more typical) article will post tomorrow.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bye, Bye, Berlin Wall

On August 13, 1961, the citizens of Berlin awoke to the sound of Soviet tanks approaching the Brandenburg gate in support of construction workers who were about to build one of the most palpable symbols of communist repression yet seen. The wall was built to stem the tide of freedom-loving Germans in the Soviet sector fleeing to freedom in the West.

On August 13, 2011, fifty years after the Soviet tanks, soldiers and wall-builders arrived, Germans and international visitors rallied at the Brandenburg Gate to memorialize the 136 Germans who died attempting to circumvent, tunnel under or climb over the wall to the freedom of West Berlin. One of the prices of freedom is having to put up with the lunatic fringe. During the minute of silence being observed during the ceremonies, German leftists who long for the days of communist repression, noisily disturbed the peace.

Like the language-twisting leftists in the West, the Soviets were also very good at using words that hide the truth. The East German police and the Soviet occupiers called the Wall "the anti-fascist protection rampart." A wall is generally built to keep people out, but there was no mad rush of "fascists" attempting to flee to the worker's paradise in the East. The escapes all went one way--West.

Until the wall was built, the choke-point at the Brandenburg Gate and the nearby environs were the path to freedom for 144,000 freedom-seekers in 1949 alone. In 1960, the year before the wall went up, the number was 199,000. In the final year of 1961, before the wall finally stopped the flow, over 207,000 made the perilous journey.

East Berlin looked very much like it did right after the second world war was concluded. Hundreds of thousands of Germans lived in the ruins and Soviet-style blockhouses put up after the war. But the work was in the West. When the Wall went up, many German families were left without their jobs to which they commuted each day. If life was bad before the Wall, it became unbearable after. Starvation was at the door nearly every day for thousands of families.

Meanwhile in the West, the rubble was removed, and all-new houses, apartments, shops, and office buildings sprang up like mushrooms. Growing wealth and freedom were everywhere in the western part of the city, and the East Berliners could see it. It was a constant reminder of their miserable, enslaved existence, and many chose to risk their lives rather than live like rats in a cage.

As amazing as it may seem, Germany's Left Party holds 76 of the 622 seats in the Reichstag. Nothing will deter their socialist dreams. They are blind to history, reality and plain common sense. The deaths of brave young men and women risking everything to get to the West means nothing to them. Left Party co-chair Gesine Lotzsch said the Wall was a logical consequence of Germany's attack on Russia, ignoring the fact that the Wall went up six years after the war was over, twenty years after Hitler invaded Russia, and during a time when Germany had no serious military of its own to attack anyone.

Like those in the United States who are convinced that warmonger Ronald Reagan was maneuvered into peace by democrat Mikhail Gorbachev, Left Party members believe that the Wall prevented a war between the Soviet Union and the United States. And all of the party's members agree that World War II and Germany's expansionism justified the securing of the borders of the East German Soviet puppet state. What we saw as a blight on the human environmental landscape, they see in fond remembrance as an island of Stalinesque tranquility.

Fortunately that is by far the minority view in Germany. The majority view is well-stated by Jurgen Litfin in Der Spiegel. "The deaths of the martyrs who tried to escape to freedom show that we are not defenseless in the face of tyranny, and that freedom is one of the most valuable things that we possess." Not quite as stirring as Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall," but equally meaningful.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

Last week, the official White House site made a subtle but important change to one of the pictures it has been displaying. Previously, there was a shot taken in "Jerusalem, Israel." "Jerusalem" is now an island without a country, and "Israel" has been deleted from the photo. If Obama can make the victims of Fast and Furious into non-persons, I guess they can turn Jerusalem into a non-capital.

There has been a two-administration battle between Congress's insistence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the administration's insistence that such a determination belongs to the executive branch through its constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. As far as the executive branch is concerned through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.

Fair enough. But the White House website has always shown the picture of Jerusalem in conjunction with the word Israel. The photo was a picture of Vice President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2010. It was entitled: "Biden and Peres meet in Jerusalem, Israel. Suddenly, Biden met with Peres in Jerusalem, (fill in the blank). Either that, or they met in just-plain-Jerusalem.

The whole brouhaha was set off when American naturalized citizens wanted their passports to read: "Birthplace--Jerusalem, Israel." Before removal of the word "Israel" from the photo, the state department issued a brief statement reiterating the administration's position that "US citizens born in Jerusalem may not have 'Israel' listed in their passports as their place of birth." Yet in another photo, still extant on the website, there is a story about a trainee foreign service officer whose "first assignment will be in Jerusalem, Israel, beginning August 2011."

The closest historical parallel I can think of is the airbrushing out of Nazis loyal to Hitler and communists loyal to Stalin when those same dictators decided that the loyalists had become a drug on their respective agendas. In 2002, Congress passed a law allowing naturalized American Jews to include the word "Israel" on their passports if they chose to do so. The representatives who supported the move claim it had no foreign policy significance whatsoever, and merely addressed the concerns of naturalized American Jews that a simple elementary truth be imprinted on the passports.

There's an old Borscht-belt comedian's joke that somewhat fits the situation. An angry husband comes home to find a man hiding in his wife's closet. He asks: "What are you doing in there?" The man replies: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere." Likewise, every city has to be somewhere. So where is Jerusalem--Mars? The State Department is consistently inconsistent. Its address for the US Consulate is officially in zip code 91002--no country. But in applications for social security deposits and its official guidebook to Jerusalem, it gives "Jerusalem, Israel" as its address.

The department has not been nearly so scrupulous about its unitary authority on diplomatic documents when it comes to other disputed homelands. Since 1994, naturalized Americans from Taiwan have been allowed to state their birthplace as simply Taiwan, or alternatively, Taiwan, China. It seems the State Department is less worried about offending a superpower than it is about offending Jihadistan and the Palestinians. China has never acknowledged Taiwan as a separate nation, and continues to deem it an unlawful breakaway province. Officially, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a formal state or country either, but it's a whole lot looser about what can be written on a passport.

To put another exclamation point on the silliness, the State Department is not nearly so doctrinaire about certain other "disputed homelands" in the Middle East. Naturalized American citizens from the Golan Heights are free to declare Syria as their birth nation. This is in spite of the fact that the Golan Heights have been under Israel's control since 1967, and were formally annexed into Israel in 1981. Before that time, the Golan Heights were Syrian for only twenty-three years, previously having been a French protectorate and part of the Ottoman Empire.

So now the question becomes, "is this change on the White House website a reflection of a genuine difference of position between the executive and legislative branches, or merely a prelude to another Obama apology tour of the Middle East?" It also raises the question "why now?"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.

The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.

Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.

Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.

But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.

Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.

So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Are Corporations People?

Just prior to the Iowa Republican debates, Mitt Romney was ambushed by an organized left-of-center Democratic hit squad. At the event, well-subsidized agitators had bought front-row seats for the speech at the Iowa State Fair in order to heckle the Republican candidate. As he began to speak, they began to shout “Corporations! Corporations!” Uncharacteristically, Romney temporarily lost his cool and shouted back “Corporations are people, my friend!”

Romney had fallen into the trap (although I believe he recovered well). The claque was merely restating Obama's class warfare "corporate jet" mantra in a slightly different form. The trap is to toss out buzzwords that resonate among people who have a minimal understanding of a complicate legal concept, knowing that no simple one or two sentence response can possibly counter the concept that has already been planted in advance. That concept is "coporations are rich machines that steal money from the people to pay for perks like corporate jets." When leftists say "the people," you can take my word for it that they aren't talking about you.

Since I'm not trapped making a political speech while being heckled, and further since we have more time and space to reply, let me discuss the whole misguided effort to demonize corporations in light of the claims of the left and Romney's reply to the hecklers.

Are corporations people? Poor Romney only had enough time to respond to simplistic heckling with a simple answer. On its face, the statement he made is correct, but incomplete. At least he didn't fall into the trap of arguing a complicated intellectual/legal/political/social/philosophical concept with leftist simpletons. Corporations are indeed made up entirely of people. They are not alien machines which dropped out of the sky to suck the life out of the poor and easily-deluded masses.

Romney's full reply included: "Of course they are [people]. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?" That's part of the trap. A good demagogue knows that among those "people" are pampered executives who do indeed fly around in corporate jets, and that's the picture the left wants to paint. Rich (and occasionally overpaid) corporate executives are easy targets, if you ignore all the common shareholders who would be a much larger and more sympathetic target.

As a corporate executive and business owner, Romney is the most vulnerable Republican candidate to this kind of attack. He lives a very cushy life, and the resentful redistributionists think that's evil. The point of this kind of heckling is that if the victim of the heckling isn't careful, he'll be drawn away from the real topics at hand by having to defend his own wealth. And God forbid anyone should be that wealthy when there are poor and starving innocents out there to be saved by government redistribution. The hecklers continued to attack: "The money goes into corporate pockets." Romney shouted back: "Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." They of course believe that all pockets should be of equal size with equal contents.

And that was about it for the Iowa State Fair. But it was only the beginning for the demagogue Democrats. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she of the kinky-haired 60s look, immediately jumped on Romney. As DNC chairman, she opined: "It is a shocking admission from a candidate and a party that shamelessly puts forward policies to help large corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class, seniors and students." Lots of rhetoric, no facts. David Axelrod, Obama's joined-at-the-hip buddy in Chicago said: "I guess the next time you see a corporation you should take them out to lunch." Obviously the simpletons aren't confined to the Iowa State Fair.

The DNC immediately put out a video that showed Romney, corporate jets (not to be confused with Air Force One) and post offices--all to the background singing of Barbra Streisand's "People." Pure simplistic demagoguery. Class warfare is alive and well in the Democratic Party, and corporations are their poster boys. The real trick to this form of attack is that telling the truth can get you into big political trouble among the legally/politically ignorant. Unlike Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" which is actually a lie, Romney's truth is actually, well, true.

Even Hillary Clinton has been embarrassed in the past by stating the truth when it disagreed with the leftist line. "A lot of these lobbyists you're attacking, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers, and yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people." Naughty, naughty, Hill.

Romney tried to get out his message that he was actually in favor of closing corporate tax loopholes, but unalterably opposed to raising corporate taxes. He supports lowering those tax rates as a genuine stimulus for business. But a determined crowd of hecklers was not about to let him state that position.

From the legal point of view, corportions are "people" of sorts. Romney had the good sense not to try to explain that to an unwilling audience that would hoot at his every word. The very word "incorporation" means that an entity created by law has a legal existence similar to a human being in many ways. It is born, it lives, eats, and dies. It can sue, and it can be sued. In a certain sense, it can even reproduce (spinoffs). "Incorporation" essentially means "to create a body."

The two underlying concepts of incorporation are freedom from individual liability for mistakes, and survival of the entity. The method of creation and survival is to get lots of people (yes, people) to invest in the corporation with funds that would be difficult or impossible for an individual to raise. Then produce a product or service that will produce more money than was originally invested, in an ongoing manner.

Of course it doesn't always work that way. Like any business, a corporation can fail. But the left concentrates on the most glaring examples of how a few corporations out of thousands can go wrong. Enron, Bernie Madoff, the Savings and Loan scandals, GM, Chrysler, AIG and others are held up as the standard-bearers for corporate America. They tend to downplay Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the corporate failures which precipitated the housing market crash. After all, they were underfunded and overrated because they were "helping poor potential homeowners" with no credit and no means of repaying their loans. In other words, another Democratic redistribution scheme gone wrong.

There are examples of corporate greed, and anybody who denies that is living in a dream world. But that's only the straw man that the left uses. In fact, they are playing on class resentments to make all highly-paid corporate executives into villains. Why should a corporate executive in charge of managing billions of dollars in investments, production, employment, and sales be paid more than the guy who turns the bolt the wrong way on a wheel at Government Motors? I don't know. You'll have to ask Karl Marx.

And speaking of that, where's the left's indignation over GE chief executive and jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt? His corporation sent thousands of jobs to China, made billions in profits, and paid not a dime in taxes. But then he is part of the Obama inner circle.

Ambush politics are tough to deal with. I have to give credit to Romney for handling it about as well as could be expected. If he had tried even as brief an explanation and defense as I just did in this post, the hecklers would have won by default. I haven't even scratched the surface of the moral and political issues involved in corporate decision-making, and it would put you all to sleep anyway. And that is exactly what the left is counting on.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 2

Let's continue our Great (Film) Debates series. . . sponsored by CommentaramaFilms and the good people at Dead Weasel Gulch Eatery. Today's issue:

What is the saddest moment in film?


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

[-] Collapse Post...

Mayor Nutter and Flash Mobs - From Joyful Silliness to Disgracefully Sinister

When flash mobs first came on the scene a few years ago, they were meant to be seemingly spontaneous moments like one of the first in Grand Central Station in 2008. With the used of social networking sites and cellphone text messaging, they've been staged in malls during Christmas to sing the "Hallelujah Chorus" and public squares around the country to perform dances that look just like something out of a movie musical. Even Oprah was the "victim" of one of the biggest and most fabulous flash mob events staged during an outdoor performance by the Black Eyed Peas. All that was needed is a large group of willing participants, a cellphone, lots of surruptitious rehearsals, and the reward could be that 15 minutes of fame on YouTube and smiles from the crowd. Just plain joyful silliness.

But what started out as just plain joyful silliness has now turned into something more sinister. By using the same social networking sites and cellphone text messaging, others are staging spontaneous thefts, robberies, beatings, and even attempted murder. In Wisconsin, Washington DC, and other places around the country, fast food joints, department stores, convenience stores, and state fair goers have been robbed, punched, kicked, and worse for no other reason than the perpetrators could. And, most interestingly, when reports appear in the news, they fail to report that most if not all of the perpetrators are black teens. [I know, not very P.C. of me to notice].

In response to the recent this recent turn which has hit Philadelphia particularly hard, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter made a very honest speech [see below] at the Mount Carmel Baptist church in last Sunday. This was right before he gave another official speech announcing that the city will imposed a 9pm curfew for anyone under 18 years old that will include increasing fines to parents of children repeatedly caught out after the new curfew. I know it’s a long speech, but it needs to be read in its entirety. It is strongly worded and, sadly, the kind of speech that only a black community leader can make, but rarely do. Needless to say, the usual suspects in the black community – Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangel, James Clyburn, heck, even President Obama - have remained uncharacteristically silent by not showing either support or resounding rebuke. Just the {{sound of crickets}}.

Well, that's not entirely true. There was one response from Annette John-Hall, a black columnist at the Inquirer published on philly.com. In her rebuke, she complains “that Nutter expressed in no uncertain terms the sentiment that so often shackles black people - that the unlawful actions of a few smear everyone else. Something whites never have to fear.” Ah, yes "shackles black people". You know, Ms. John-Hall, it "shackles" us all when we deny that there is a problem. The first step to recovery is recognizing there is a problem and the problem is people who continue to "shackle black people" in the chains of ignorance and continuing to justify random violence. I am not sure where Ms. John-Hall grew up, but in the community where I grew up (overwhelmingly white), we had a code of behavior that we had to uphold or fear disgracing our family. So, Ms. John-Hall you are just plain wrong.

I applaud Mayor Nutter for recognizing there is a problem and the problem is adults who are allowing kids, ANY kids whether black, white, asian, hispanic, martian or whatever, to run amok like feral animals and excusing their behavior because of [fill in the blank]. Enough is enough.

Mayor Nutter's speech in its entirety:

Now I must say first: two things. One: Some of you may know that 30 Americans died overseas, an elite unit of our military. Whether you agree with our foreign policy or not, I certainly ask that you would pray for the men and women who risk their lives each and every day to make sure that we can enjoy the freedoms, as Americans, that some of us seem to take for granted. They’re serving their country. Other people make the decision about what they do and where they go, but they’re doing their job. And unfortunately, one of those 30 is the son of a Philadelphia police officer. So I would ask that you would keep all of them, but especially that Philadelphia family that’s been affected, in your hearts.

Now, I’m gonna say some things this morning that I know, from time to time, many of you think but may not say. It will not be PC, but I told Reverend Campbell that I will recognize that I’m in church and I’m in his pulpit, so I will certainly be respectful. On the other hand there are some words that we know that are also found in the Bible, and I may use a few of those. Pastor mentioned that we’ve had some incidents in Philadelphia, the most recent of which was the Friday before last, 20, 30 kids running around Center City, and it’s happened in other parts of Philadelphia as well. A 16-, a 17-, a 19-year-old, and yes, an 11-year-old. And while I may have been out of my office, I was not out of communication. And I sent a message to Police Commissioner Ramsey first thing that morning, as soon as I heard that report, read that report, that we have to do something, and we put our team together that day, to start working on some things, and so I want to share my thoughts.

The first is, this nonsense must stop. It must stop. If you want to act like a butthead, your butt is going to get locked up. And if you want to act like an idiot, move, move out of this city. We don’t want you here anymore. First, I want to apologize. I want to apologize to all the good, hard-working, caring people here in this city, and especially our good young people, here in Philadelphia. But I have to tell you this morning, that I am forced by the stupid, ignorant, dumb actions of a few, that we will announce tomorrow actions that we will take that, unfortunately, will affect many here in our city.

Parents, get your act together. Get it together. Get it together right now. You need to get hold of your kids before we have to. Parents who neglect their children, who don’t know where they are, who don’t know what they’re doing, who don’t know who they’re hanging out with, you’re gonna find yourselves spending some quality time with your kids, in jail, together. Together.

Now this stupid behavior requires a strong response. But I can assure you that we are not just going to be responding. We’re going to be much more proactive in our activities, and we’re going to try our best to anticipate some of these senseless, teenage, insane acts that we’ve been seeing over the past few months.

Parents, mothers, and fathers. Now I happen to know that raising children is kind of tough. I’ve got two kids, one of whom is a teenager right now. If you need help, we have help for you. The department of human services, community behavioral health, and many other social-service agencies. Do not be afraid, do not be ashamed, to reach out and ask for help, counsel, guidance, or support. But you need to get the help now, before it’s too late for the help to help you. Get some help.

Fathers, fathers. Fathers have a particularly important role to play. Not more important than mothers, but just as important. You know you’re not a father just because you have a kid, or two, or three. That doesn’t make you a father. A father is a person who’s around, participating in a child’s life. He’s a teacher who helps to guide and shape and mold that young person, someone for that young person to talk to, to share with, their ups and their downs, their fears and their concerns. A father has to provide a structure to a young boy, on how to become a good man. A good man. A father also has to be a good role model, and help a young girl be a strong woman.

Now let me just say this, if you’re not doing those things, if you’re just hanging out out there, maybe you’re sending a check or bringing some cash by, that’s not being a father. You’re just a human ATM. You’re just an ATM. And if you’re not providing the guidance, and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor. You’re just a sperm donor. You’re what the girls call out in the street: “That’s my baby-daddy. That’s my baby-daddy.” That’s not good enough. Don’t be that. Don’t be that. You can do better than that.

And you know something, that’s part of the problem in our community. Let me speak plain. That’s part of the problem in the black community. And many other communities. But a particular problem in the black communities, we have too many men making too many babies that they don’t want to take care of and then we end up dealing with your children. We’re not running a big babysitting service. We’re running a big government and a great city. Take care of your children. All of them. All of them.

You know, you’re sitting around with your jaws tight, oh she got two, three other guys around; well, if you were doing what you were supposed to be doing she wouldn’t be with those two or three guys in the first place because you would be there, taking care of all of your children. Now, you are around for the sex. Now be around for the parenting. Be around for the parenting. Because let me tell you something — the immaculate conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia. So, every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. You need to be around now. There ain’t no immaculate conception happening up in here.

Parents, you need to step up, before we have to step to you. Now tomorrow, at twelve noon on Dilworth Plaza, we’ll be making a series of announcements. Got a ton of folks involved in this effort. It’s not a one-time thing, it’s not a summertime thing. I heard a child say “Amen.” Some of them smarter than some of these adults running around here. Tomorrow we’re going to announce a series of steps and actions that will be taken. Some will be positive, and some you won’t like. Unfortunately, that’s the way it goes. But some of the more positive things we’re looking at is programs and services and activities at our rec centers, other supports we may be able to provide, we’re going to get our social-service agencies involved, but also the D.A. will be more involved, and the courts will be more involved. We took a whole lot of stuff, a couple years back, and by the way, every one of those libraries is open. Tell your children: Get a book. Read a book. Learn something. Schools open September 6, on Tuesday, the day after Labor Day. Spend the next month reading. I’d like to try that for a change.

And whatever you do, just stay out of trouble. Think for yourself. Don’t do stupid stuff. Now, some of you know, I grew up nine blocks from here, 5519 Larchwood Avenue. I’m gonna be West Philly, no matter where I live, no matter what I do, for the rest of my life. But before I ever heard of the Philadelphia Code or the Pennsylvania Code or any other code, I was very familiar with the Basil and Catalina Code. That was the code of my parents. Now, I have to tell you. When I heard this particular report, and we’ve had other instances, but it is inconceivable to me, inconceivable to me, that in my teenage years, that I would be out somewhere, let alone downtown, at nine o’clock at night. Impossible for me to fathom. Because my mother said: “Boy, I know you have a watch. But if the watch stops working, if you forget to wind it, if the battery breaks, there’s only one thing you need to do. Look up. When that light goes on, have your butt on the steps. I don’t care whether it’s Eastern Standard Time, Daylight Savings Time, Pacific Time, Mid-Atlantic Time, North Pole time. When that light goes on, have your butt on the steps. Don’t let me have to look for you.” Now, that’s what she said. It was really easy. Real simple. And you know, I know a lot has happened in the 40 years since I was an early teen. I know that some things have changed. But now there are a few things that don’t — or shouldn’t — change. Respect other people. Keep your hands to yourself. Don’t touch what doesn’t belong to you, or what you didn’t earn. Keep your butt in the house, or on the steps, until you’re told otherwise. And mind your manners. Now, my parents made it very clear that these were their rules, and that as long as I lived in their house, that was it. See, because I didn’t own anything in that house, and I had a job, and I bought stuff with my own money, but when I crossed that threshold, it was theirs. That room — we’re letting you sleep in that room. This air conditioning — we let you have some of that air conditioning. That heat that I paid for, we let you have some of that heat. Those clothes on your back, I bought those clothes. I brought you in here, I’ll take you out of here. So let’s be very clear about the rules. Now, when you get old enough, and you move out, then you can do what you want to do. But as long as you’re living in this house, you do what I tell you to do. And that’s the way it was.

Well, that’s the way it needs to be.

Now, parents, please talk to your children. Talk to them today after service, talk to them tonight, talk to them tomorrow, because things are going to change. This is some serious stuff. This is not a joke, this is not a game, we’re not funning. Curfew is going to be enforced. Other things are going to happen. And they need to understand that there are serious consequences to aggressive, violent, idiotic, stupid behavior — not only for the teen, but also for the parents and the guardians. Everybody is going to be held accountable in this one. We’re taking these steps for the safety of all of our citizens, and our teenagers. And out teenagers. We want to make sure that they don’t either do something that’s going to get them in trouble, or be somewhere where they may get hurt. This is about all of us. It’s about everybody. And so let me say it again. The bottom line: This nonsense must stop. Right now. Right now.

And lastly, to our teenagers, you know, young people always talk about “Well, I gotta get respect.” You get respect when you give respect. That’s how you get respect. And I believe in my heart and in my soul that 99 percent of the young people here in this city of Philadelphia are good and have good intentions in their heart. So I don’t want anyone to think that we’ve got thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and untold numbers of bad young people running round, because we don’t. We have some really great young people in this city. They go to school. They try to get good grades, they try to graduate and go on with their lives. They participate in sports, art, music, poetry, cultural services. They’re out tutoring. Some of them have jobs and are working. Some are taking care of their siblings, parents, and even grandparents. Unfortunately, there’s a few — could be a hundred, could be a couple hundred, could be a thousand (that’s still less than 1 percent) — but there’s some really bad ones. And, unfortunately, they engage in violent behavior. They’re lawless, they act with ignorance, they don’t care about anybody else, and their behavior is outrageous.

Well, we’re not going to tolerate that. We won’t tolerate it, and we’re not going to excuse it, because there is no excuse for it. Sense and nonsense cannot exist in the same place, in the same city, in the same world, and is not going to happen here in Philadelphia. You can’t have both at the same time. Can’t have both. And so, this behavior could have actually resulted in even more injuries, or worse. They could have killed somebody. Oh, then they’d really be in a world of trouble. Then all the sudden, they’d be crying: I want my mom, I need my dad, I need somebody. No, it’s too late then. No, no, we’re past that. It’s too late. It’s too late. You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers, and quite honestly you’ve damaged your own race. You damaged your own race. So, to our young people. If you want black folks, if you want white folks, Latinos, Asians, or anybody else to respect you, and not be afraid when they see you walking down the street, then leave the innocent people who are walking down the street, minding their own damn business, leave them alone. Stop it. Cut it out. We’ve had enough of this nonsense going on. We’ve had enough. Some of them should be ashamed of their behavior. And some of them have made shame on our race. I’m speaking plainly. I’m telling you what’s on my heart. It’s a disgrace, what’s going on. Not one of these victims, not one, did anything to any one of those young people. They weren’t bothering them, they didn’t say anything to them, they were minding their business, some were out enjoying themselves, some were just coming from work, they didn’t do one thing. And then all of the sudden, for the cowards that some of them are, in the crowd, thought they were anonymous, jumped up and started beating on people, assaulting them, in the streets of this city.

Well you know, now, if that was one of their friends, if that was their brother, if that was their sister, their moms, their grandmoms, somebody, they’d say, “Oh, that ain’t right, that’s wrong.” Well, it’s wrong when you do it too. It’s wrong when you do it too. And so if you want to be aggressive, we’re going to be aggressive. And let me just share this with you: We got the biggest, baddest gang in town — a committed group of citizens and a committed government and we’re working together and we’re not going to have this nonsense anymore. And lastly let me say, some of those young folks are lucky. They’re lucky that one of those citizens didn’t jump up and start whipping their butt, which, clearly, they did not have enough of when they were young themselves. They’re lucky they didn’t get themselves beat up with this nonsense. So, let me close. We want a safe city. We will not tolerate ignorant, stupid, out-of-control behavior. It hurts our citizens, damages property, and besmirches our reputation as a great city. And so to all of our young people, but a particular message to our young African-American boys and girls, let me say this:

If you want all of us — black, white, or any other color — if you want us to respect you, if you want us to look at you in a different way, if you want us not to be afraid to walk down the same side of the street with you, if you want folks not to jump out of the elevator when you get on, if you want folks to stop following you around in stores when you’re out shopping, if you want somebody to offer you a job or an internship somewhere, if you don’t want folks to be looking in or trying to go in a different direction when they see two or twenty of you coming down the street, then stop acting like idiots and fools, out in the streets of the city of Philadelphia. Just cut it out. And another thing. Take those doggone hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody. Buy a belt. Buy a belt. Nobody wants to see your underwear. Comb your hair. And get some grooming skills. Comb your hair. Running round here with your hair all over the place. Learn some manners. Keep your butt in school, graduate from high school, go on to college so you can go and make something of yourself and be a good citizen, here in this city. And why don’t you work on extending your English vocabulary. Extend your English vocabulary beyond the few curse words that you know, some other grunts and grumbles and other things that none of us can understand what you’re saying. And if you go to look for a job, don’t go blame it on the white folks, or anybody else. If you walk in somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arm, on your face, on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you. They don’t hire you because you look like you’re crazy. That’s why they’re not hiring you.

So, you do those things, and act like you got some sense, and you’d be surprised what opportunities will open up to you. That’s what was on my mind. That’s all I’ve got to say.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Victimizing The Victims Of Fast & Furious

Shown are some of the beneficiaries of notorious Operation Fast and Furious. The same administration that regularly attempts to hogtie the Second Amendment for American citizens is also the one that helped create a well-armed militia in Mexico. After arming Mexican drug cartel members to the teeth, resulting in deaths on both sides of the border, the administration now chooses to deny assistance for victims of their boondoggle.

Several decades back, the states and the federal government decided to assist victims of violent crime and family members by granting certain monetary compensation. In many cases, the compensation was a simple administrative act, but many others first required a formal showing of a direct link between the harm caused and the defendant charged (considerably less than a conviction in open court). As time went on, more "victim's rights" were legislated, including the right of the victims and their families to be notified of all court proceedings, to meet with the prosecutors, and to testify at sentencing and parole hearings. This latter expansion of victim's rights has had a recent unintended consequence.

So long as compensation to the victims' families was purely monetary, it had little effect on any pending criminal investigations or court proceedings. But once the victims became actual participants in the judicial process, the game plan for prosecutors changed. Honest and ethical prosecutors would proceed without regard for any possible negative effects the trial participation (active or passive) of the victims might be. But highly-politicized prosecutors often began to look at another factor. Could bringing this victim or his family into the proceedings by way of the victims of violent crimes statutes harm their position or that of the political party to which they have fealty? And thus it is with Operation Fast and Furious.

The operation has already become a major scandal for the Obama administration, and federal prosecutors under orders from their Attorney General are doing everything in their power to keep the botched and deadly operation from leading directly to the White House. We have discussed the operation and its deadly results in several posts at this site. Now a new twist to the nefarious activities of the government has been added. Federal prosecutors are denying victims of violent crimes protection and assistance to the family of Border Agent Brian Terry. Terry was killed by cartel member Jaime Avila using a high-powered rifle purchased during Fast and Furious.

Compensation that would in the past have been treated as a routine court/administrative matter has now become a political hot potato because compensating Terry's family and allowing them participation in the penalty phase would be a tacit admission that a thug murdered a law enforcement officer on American soil using a weapon purchased and reimported into the United States as a result of the government's failed operation. Attorney General Eric Holder is not going to allow that to happen without putting roadblocks in the way of the wife and children of the slain officer.

Even though Brian Terry's horrible death was the final blow to Operation Fast and Furious, federal prosecutors have decided that until the murder weapon is linked to both Avila and Fast and Furious beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the Terry family will just have to fend for itself. There is very little doubt that Avila committed the crime and that the weapon used was part of the botched operation, but if the prosecutors can put off actual trial until after next year's elections, the taint of government participation in a resulting death would not be in front of the American voters. So the grieving family can simply wait to get that one small piece of justice that the victims of violent crimes acts provide.

The prosecutors went before a federal judge specifically to deny victim status to the Terry family, arguing that it has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Avila and the operation "directly and proximately harmed Terry (and his family). Although the same prosecutors have charged Avila with conspiring to deal in firearms without a license, dealing firearms without a license, and lying to federal investigators, they have held off charging him with unlawful homicide and use of an illegal weapon in Terry's murder. Thus they can use the reprehensible argument that "the victim of the offenses is not any particular person, but society in general."

The government's CYA tactics were bad enough before they pulled this one. Denying a widow and her now-fatherless children of satisfaction to gain a political advantage is beneath contempt. Said George McCubbin, president of the National Border Patrol Council: "I think it's pretty bold of the government to take this position. It's the government trying to cover its backside and minimize the embarrassment over a failed gun investigation. There is no other reason for this."

If there is any justice in this world, the DOJ attempt at a further coverup will backfire. As word gets out that Mrs. Terry and the kids are being told that their husband/father was just an insignificant casualty of war, mere collateral damage, the public is likely to be even more outraged than they were at the earlier revelations about the disaster that was Operation Fast and Furious. No thanks to Eric Holder and his department for even those revelations.

Terry's family is the victim of a violent crime, regardless of what is or is not proven later at trial. He wasn't struck by lightning. He didn't fall off a cliff. He was shot and killed while on duty by a criminal or criminals during the commission of a violent act. The statutes require compensation, now. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...