Bounty !

It's out there, for anyone who can get the truth out of Hillary Clinton..from the NY Daily News blog "The Daily Politics":

The group 9/11 Families for a Secure America is poised to issue a press release today offering a $1,000 reward to:

"Any American who can get a straight answer out of Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on whether or not she supports New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's (D-NY) plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens."

The release goes on to say:

"The $1,000 reward will be granted in cash to any American who can prompt Senator Clinton to definitively say on record either: I support Governor Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens; or I oppose Governor Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens."

9/11 FSA has been extremely outspoken in his opposition to Spitzer's proposal, with its president, Peter Gadiel, who lost a son to the WTC attack, going so far as to say that Spitzer would "demonstrate abject stupidity and breathtaking disregard for the victims of 9/11 if he hands these powerful IDs to people who sneak across our borders."

More wiggling from the wife of the waffler:

Clinton's campaign said she supports "governors like Governor Spitzer" in trying to address a national problem that she will fix through comprehensive immigration reform when she becomes president. The statement did not say if she supports Spitzer's license plan.

How much of a loser is Governor Spitzer's illegal alien licensing initiative? Let's here from the Senate's loudest mouth:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer declined to comment on the license plan.

'Nuff said, I'd reckon.

Holocaust Deniers !

Who would have thought an innocent-sounding organization like the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) is really a front for rabid Holocaust deniers? After all, as the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman put it:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future....

Well, let's talk about the past, present, and future, OK Ellen? Better yet, I'll let COAPS do it:

Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy).
For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity than 2007. For the North Atlantic basin, Tropical Storm Noel is currently too weak to impact any of these results....

You can dig the chart here. Note the tremendous drop in the last two years, right around the time "global warming" alarmists and fame-seeking forecasters declared an inevitable onslaught of Katrina-esque hurricanes fueled by our lust for carbon-emitting energy sources.

Send in the clowns:

May 29, 2006 - Al Gore's new movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past.

With the official start of hurricane season days away, meteorologists are unanimous that the 2006 tropical storm season, which runs from June 1 through November, is likely to be a doozy...

"Meteorologists are unanimous"? That must mean they're right !

Let me throw it back to Goodman, and the sentences that preceeds her unfortunate "Holocaust" remark:

The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

Well, they were certainly wrong about the hurricanes, Ellen...and 90% ain't 100%. Just ask anyone who's ever played poker....

UPDATE: Of course, you can always Blame Bush !

I Want My Fluorocarbons Back !

...via No Pasaran! :

The one thing that’s obvious about the things that greenies always seem to find so pressing, urgent, risk-laden, around the corner, and so forth, have far more to do with a need to be liked while they act on their urge to dismantle any available pillar of a civilization they had no part in building.

Suprising, "global warming" is only the analogy in this case - the story here is really on our fabled "ozone hole"; you remember, the one that was so dangerous that we banned a myriad of different chemical compounds in order to prevent it from getting any larger? Turns out, of course that "ozone holes" are common to any planet that has, you know...an atmosphere. To wit: "It seems that they are a feature of planetary rotation rather then a defect..."

....better go back and read it all.

Final commentary:

As if a bunch of lit majors could even tell you what ozone even is. All they know is that someone told them that you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.

Yeah. That's why Al Gore refuses to even debate on the subject, you know...

Jihadi Propoganda Fails!

Well, at least the material that is coming out of Hollywood. Via James Taranto:

It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera--audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films. Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror.

"Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old. . . .Beyond the fiction features, the anti-Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight" (box office: $1.4 million) couldn't capture the indie crowd, beating a swift retreat to DVD next Tuesday despite glowing review.

Brandon Gray, president and publisher of boxofficemojo says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved.

"Many of these recent dramas fail on all those fronts," Mr. Gray says. "They're too heavy handed in their presentation."

Hmmm. Maybe they're not screaming "Bush Lied, People Died" loud enough. Or maybe they should start each feature with a "no blood for oil" chant!

Or maybe folks realize they don't need to pay $10+ to watch poorly written agit-prop...they can just turn on the network news....

Meee-ooow!

OK, so I will admit that the habit of calling any disagreement/altercation between two women a "catfight" is sexist and demeaning. It essentially states that no argument between two women can carry anything of substance.

Nothing can be further from the truth, as the following will demonstrate. But hey, I needed a catchy title for this post, all right? Jeez, touch-eee...

So anyway, the main event is Michelle Malkin taking on the lovely and talented Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton...we'll let the Senator go first, as she tries to deflect questions about how such a numerous amount of poor, possibly illegal (certainly undocumented) Chinese immigrants -most of them living in dignified squalor - decided to spend their meager savings on her Presidential campaign; most of them giving up to the maximum legal individual contribution:

"I'm going to keep reaching out to everybody in our country. I want to be a president to everybody," said a defiant Hillary in defense of her indiscriminate fund-raising. "Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American," Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, told reporters. "We do not ethnically profile donors."

Get it? Question Hillary, and you're a racist. Period. Better learn to obey....

Michelle Malkin will not. She will, eventually, lead the resistance. Here's the smackdown:

If it's "ethnic profiling" to be extra-careful of Chinatown donors who can't speak English, live in dilapidated buildings, have never voted, can't tell Hillary Clinton from Hunan Chicken or simply can't be found, then "ethnic profiling" should be the standard procedure of every campaign.

Ouch.

Incidentally - methinks Hillary has peaked. Like a car with no brakes, rolling downhill, her momentum will carry her to the Democratic presidential nomination. Then she'll run into a strong and unyeilding Republican brick wall - named Rudy Giuliani.

Can't wait to watch. Start poppin' the corn, ma !

Rudy's Plan to Save America !

Jeez, relax! Just a joke, OK?

Happy (early) Halloween !

The scariest Halloween trick of all; or perhaps just the most hideous costume...may I introduce the future President of the United States?




The whole terrifying gallery can be found here....

In the "mein" time:

Scarifying!

New Jersey's Fools...

Charles Krauthammer has a brilliant column in today's Daily News, where he dissects the sheer stupidity of the United States Congress in pushing their unnecessary "Armanian Genocide Resolution", and the potentially catastrophic events that are now unfolding as a result. He calls out in particular a New Jersey Congressman for inanity of historical proportions, and we regret to inform you that this Congressman is a Republican. Nevertheless, the story must be told.

First, some background if you haven't been following the strange machinations of Pelosi's inept Congress.

A House vote to label the century-old deaths of Armenians as genocide was in jeopardy Tuesday after several Democrats withdrew their support and sounded alarms it could cripple U.S. relations with Turkey.

....at least six Democrats withdrew their sponsorship of the bill ...they feared backlash from Turkey would cut off U.S. access to a critical air base.
"More than half of the cargo flown into Iraq and Afghanistan comes through Incirlik Air Base ...," the lawmakers wrote.

...In response to last week's approval of the resolution by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Turkey recalled its ambassador in Washington back to Ankara for consultations and asked the Bush administration to stop the resolution from passing in a final floor vote.

There are some (many, actually) who feel this is a back door way for Pelosi to force a troop drawdown in Iraq - namely, by engineering an elimination of their key supply route. Krauthammer will address that later, but first, he takes on the San Fran Nan:

How does this work? Pelosi says: "Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur." Precisely. And what exactly is she doing about Darfur? Nothing. Pronouncing yourself on a genocide committed 90 years ago by an empire that no longer exists is Pelosi's demonstration of seriousness about existing, ongoing genocide?

Indeed, the Democratic Party she's leading in the House has been trying for months to force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that could very well lead to genocidal civil war. This prospect has apparently not deterred her in the least.

Now here is New Jersey's shame:

"Friends don't let friends commit crimes against humanity," explained Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that passed the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.

Er...did some one bother to inform Smith that this genocide occured almost one hundred years ago? That there is likely no one alive in Turkey that took part in this atrocity? That the genocide was actually committed by the Ottoman Empire, an government that allied itself with America's enemies in WW I ?

How embarrassing. I realize that it is tough being an elected Republican in a blue state, and that all sorts of compromises must be made to maintain this position, but it is absolutely unacceptable to put America's soldiers in a position of losing all logistical support mid-war in order to gain brownie points with your constituents. Shame on you, Chris Smith! A Republican should know better...

Finally, we'll go back to Nancy Pelosi; and I'll let Mr. Krauthammer make his final point:

Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.

Ouch.

Captain America: A Gun Nut !

I am glad to see that the iconic Captain American will once again grace the pages of Marvel Comics, but how will the gun control lobby (not to mention the Democratic Presidential candidates - won't someone please ask them ?) react to his new...style:

From the Washington Post:

When Captain America returns to the pages of his comic book in January, it won't be his star-spangled new duds getting all the attention. Instead it will be what he's wielding in his right hand, the one once reserved for pummeling the jaws of evil. Come next year, he'll be gripping cold, hard steel.

That's right, Captain America will be packing heat.....

Truly, a hero for our times...!

New Jersey: The Polls Results Are In....

And they wield some interesting, and confusing, results. Via Rasmussen:

Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes....
....Clinton is viewed favorably by 58% of Garden State voters while Giuliani earns positive reviews from 59%.

Yeah, an 11 percentage point lead is undeniably sweet but it's quite early yet (right, Mr. Willie Randolph?), and with both of them sharing equal positive marks a lot may change based on who makes a better case for themselves.

Now this is funny:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say corruption is the top issue while 36% are more interested in property taxes. However, they don’t have much faith in either political party to address either issue.

Thirty-three percent (33%) say they trust Democrats more on the corruption issue while 29% prefer the GOP. Thirty-three percent (33%) don’t trust either party and 5% are not sure.

On property tax relief, 35% trust Republicans, 34% the Democrats, and 25% say neither.

Being that like some 80% of the corruption arrests in the state have been politicians of the Democratic persuasion, one might think that perhaps the Republicans may have earned the benefit of the doubt in this case. Except in liberal New Jersey, where the Democratic voters tend not to think much at all....

Thirty-four percent (34%) say Governor Corzine is doing a good or excellent job while 30% give him poor marks. In between are 33% who say he’s doing a fair job.

Seems like Corzine's barely held on to his hardcore base (that 34% probably represents the amount of registered voters that are on Corzine's - oops, the state's - payroll). Should the state Republican Party find a worthy candidate to oppose him, our very own Richie Rich may be in a heap 'o trouble down the road...

New Jersey: A Launching Pad for Al Qaeda

Liberalism is a suicide cult, at least the way Governor Corzine practices it...we've spoken at length about his efforts to protect illegal aliens within New Jersey; nevertheless I am sure the fact that some of them are plotting to massacre the legal citizens of his state will not cause him to bat the single eyelash...however, should such an attack occur, he can always blame the good people of New Jersey for "...a failure of us to be inclusive and holistically look to bring everyone into our society." (see The Newark Massacre).

Anyway - here's what's up:

Counterterrorism officials in New Jersey say they've quietly been cracking down on potential threats without public knowledge, taking aim at an Al Qaeda connection.

Between the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, chemical plants, and its many ports, the Garden State has many vulnerable targets for terrorists. On Monday the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in Newark revealed it has been cracking down on some of Osama bin Laden's associates in northern New Jersey, deporting them or disrupting their activities.

"Investigations of Al Qaeda like activities in the state are not a surprise. We know they do go on all the time," said Richard Canas, New Jersey's Homeland Security Director.

Passaic County Prosecutor James Avigiliano sits on the executive committee of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, also known as the JTTF.
"You cannot protect something 100 percent, but we are vulnerable if we didn't intercept certain things. [that's spying! So un-American! -ed.] But that's the function of the JTTF and intelligence -- to get a line on these things before they happen," Avigiliano said.
Avigiliano can't discuss any specific cases, but said federal authorities have kept a close eye on northern New Jersey. "You know at least four of the bombers who were involved in September 11 came through and had ties in Paterson," he said.

Folks, Richard Canas is on the job! Boy, I feel safer already, knowing a hand-picked Corzine hack is in charge of the state's security:

Investigators are trying to determine if the state's homeland security director tried to get two state workers who helped him move paid for their efforts, according to The Star-Ledger of Newark.
The probe of Richard L. Canas by state prosecutors has led to the suspension, with pay, of his office's chief administrator, Anita Bogdan...

Again, should another deadly attack originate from New Jersey soil (remember 9/11? Corzine doesn't), the governor should be held legally responsible by the federal government, although I honestly do not know if there is a way to do that. Gross negligance? Perhaps...

And where's our gallant governor today? Off proudly directing resources to proudly non-English speaking Latinos of New Jersey...sigh...
You know, America used to be a melting pot. Watch Corzine work the liberal experiment in New Jersey, as he encourages people (via financial incentives) not to integrate, and come see the results...no wonder al-Qaeda licks their chops every time our fool Governor opens his mouth...

New Jersey's Fausta has more details....

We've Got Headlines !

Oh, yeah !

No matter how hard we try, the Washington Post begrudgingly mumbles that -

The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.

Here's the money quote:

...it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.

Could have told you that a month ago, ladies.

Now, if I recall, it is a government health care program, and not a new techonological advancement, but the AP seems a bit confused:

Dems vow new bill if S-chip veto stands

"Isn't that sad for America's children?" said Pelosi

Depends on what the S-chip actually does....

The Times hedges its bets:

Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say

It should probably have read "Israel saves the world, again", but I won't go that far. But this far:

The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

The fact that Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabi, and Egypt haven't even raised a peep says a lot more than the "analysts" are telling you...
Is old-school Israeli deterrance back in style?

And from the wacko Guardian in the U.K.:

Al Gore wins Nobel peace prize. And this time, no one can take it away from him

Duh. I already knew he was going to bed clutching the damn thing...

How ideologically rigid are New Jersey's Democrats?

Polls: N.J. voters blase about corruption

New Jersey voters think their politicians are more corrupt than other states and link government corruption to the Democrats, but are no more likely to vote Republican....

So Jersey's Democrats find it preferable to be robbed by their leaders than to vote for a different party....does that make them blase, or stupid?
Give this state five more years of liberal domination, and it's going to look like the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max...think I'll start accessorizing my car now....

And I can't resist this one, either:

Massive Tag Body Spray Slick Spreading From Jersey Shore

And finally, Reuters reports something accurate, although it hasn't quite happened yet:

Rice sees no breakthroughs on Mideast trip

Hey! I can see the future too! The "peace initiative" does collapse, and Reuters blames....blames....

Israeli demands doom peace

Wait for it...

Not So Noble...

'ol Al Gore's got himself a Nobel Prize...and the Telegraph UK asks, "What has Al Gore done for world peace?"

So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?

More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?

There are so many reasons why Gore shouldn't have won the peace prize for his preachiness....I'd have liked to refer the judges to a ruling by Mr Justice Burton, a High Court judge who has criticised the Government for sending out An Inconvenient Truth to schools without a health warning. The reason? It's full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.

None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.

But there is a more fundamental objection to awarding Gore the peace prize that goes beyond issues of character. Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed

James Taranto will pick up on that thread:

But if you look at the list of Nobel Peace Prizes, you'll see that in recent years it has often gone to people or organizations whose work, while often worthy, has little to do with the promotion of peace per se.

One reason for this may be that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had reason to be disappointed in the results when it has given awards to more traditional peacemakers.

-In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize notoriously went to Yasser Arafat (along with Israel's prime and foreign ministers) for signing the Oslo accords--which, far from establishing peace, enabled Arafat to set up a terror statelet in the West Bank and Gaza.

-In 1973, the Nobel went to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Lu Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord--which, far from establishing peace, led to conquest, repression and mass murder in Indochina.

-In 1926, 1930 and 1931 the Nobel Peace Prize went to men involved in the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which "outlawed war." By 1939 it was clear how well that was working out.

When the Nobel Peace Prize was established more than a century ago, wars were largely fought between traditional nation-states over material interests. But the 20th century saw the rise of a series of aggressive ideologies--communism, Nazism, radical Islam--that render old-fashioned notions of war and peace quaint. Determined ideologues cannot be appeased; peace through strength is the only alternative to war.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee rejects strength as well as war--hence its failure to award a Nobel to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War (Mikhail Gorbachev got one for losing, in 1990), or, say, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for averting armed international conflict in Europe for half a century after World War II.

Taranto is right, of course, and I'll say what he doesn't - the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless, and thus perfect for a hypocrite who jets around the world scaremongering over a crisis that does not even exist.

He is equal to the "illustrious company" that he joins...

Just a reminder...

....from Ralph Peters, about exactly who we are fighting, why we must fight, and why the Democrat's foreign policy objectives would surely mean death for us all:

Religious fanatics can never be appeased. And the degenerate conditions in the Muslim heartlands only make fanaticism more virulent.

But we never learn. There are many in our own country who insist that, if only we didn't annoy Allah's assassins, we wouldn't have any problems with them. We just need to "respect their culture."
No matter that their culture is murderously intolerant, criminally vicious toward women and deadly not only to those of other faiths but even to fellow believers who don't measure up to the absolutist doctrines of the fanatics. If only we made nice, the world would live in harmony. All those suicide bombers are our fault.

Well, the historical fact is that the world has never lived in harmony. Never. Peace has never prevailed across the planet.

It would be lovely, if it were otherwise. But we need to deal with the facts we face today and the factual patterns of history...Our Western cult of negotiations produces no lasting successes for the simple reason that those ablaze with lethal faith never hesitate to break deals with unbelievers the moment they find it useful to do so.

Somebody want to show this to the UN?

An Homage To A Great American Philosopher

Regular readers of this miniscule corner of the mighty blogosphere know of my fondness for the works of Ayn Rand; although born in Russia, if there was anyone who understood the American ideal, it was Ayn.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of her crowning achievement, Atlas Shrugged - a fictional work of philosophy unequaled in the half-century since. Despite Rand's awkward prose and tendency towards ninety-page monologues, it stands as an intellectual masterpiece.

Rand did not just say "greed is good", she said selfishness is moral, and necessary. So very un-PC! Yet the only way to understand it is to "read it all" - all 1,100+ pages of it. Still selling over 150,000 copies a year, it is perhaps even more relevant today then when first published back in 1957.

In today's WSJ (subscriber only, alas), David Kelly writes of Rand's novel, and her capitalist heroes:

....the deeper reasons why the novel has proved so enduringly popular have to do with Rand's moral defense of business and capitalism. Rejecting the centuries-old, and still conventional, piety that production and trade are just "materialistic," she eloquently portrayed the spiritual heart of wealth creation through the lives of the characters now well known to many millions of readers. Hank Rearden, the innovator resented and opposed by the others in his field...struggled for 10 years to perfect a revolutionary metal alloy that he hoped would make him a great deal of money. Dagny Taggart is a gifted and courageous woman who leads a campaign -- not to defend France from England on the battlefield, like Joan of Arc -- but to manage a transcontinental railroad and, against impossible odds, to build a new branch line critical for the survival of her corporation. Francisco d'Anconia, the enormously talented heir to an international copper company, poses as an idle, worthless playboy to cover up his secret operations -- not to rescue people from the French Revolution, like the Scarlet Pimpernel -- but to rescue industrialists from exploitation by ruthless Washington kleptocrats.

Economists have known for a long time that profits are an external measure of the value created by business enterprise. Rand portrayed the process of creating value from the inside, in the heroes' vision and courage, their rational exuberance in meeting the challenges of production.
Her point was stated by one of the minor characters of "Atlas," a musical composer: "Whether it's a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one's own eyes. . . . That shining vision which they talk about as belonging to the authors of symphonies and novels -- what do they think is the driving faculty of men who discovered how to use oil, how to run a mine, how to build an electric motor?

The central action of "Atlas" is the strike of the producers, their withdrawal from a society that depends on them to sustain itself and yet denounces them as morally inferior. Very well, says their leader, John Galt, we will not burden you further with what you see as our immoral and exploitative actions. The strike is of course a literary device; Rand herself described it as "a fantastic premise." But it has a real and vital implication.While it is true enough that free production and exchange serve "the public interest" (if that phrase has any real meaning), Rand argues that capitalism cannot be defended primarily on that ground. Capitalism is inherently a system of individualism, a system that regards every individual as an end in himself. That includes the right to live for himself, a right that does not depend on benefits to others, not even the mutual benefits that occur in trade.

This is the lesson that most people in business have yet to learn from "Atlas," no matter how much they may love its portrayal of the passion and the glory possible in business enterprise.

At a crucial point in the novel, the industrialist Hank Rearden is on trial for violating an arbitrary economic regulation. Instead of apologizing for his pursuit of profit or seeking mercy on the basis of philanthropy, he says, "I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage -- and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner…"

We will know the lesson of "Atlas Shrugged" has been learned when business people, facing accusers in Congress or the media, stand up like Rearden for their right to produce and trade freely, when they take pride in their profits and stop apologizing for creating wealth.

I have been waiting my whole life for a Bill Gates, a Rupert Murdoch to stand in front of the nonproductive politicians of Congress (Rand's villians in Atlas Shrugged) and give Rearden's speech, or Galt's. In Rand's novel, opposition collapses (as well as most of the world) before the one man who dares to speak the truth freely, with no shame or guilt.

Does Rand's hero exist today? The increasingly socialistic bent of the leaders of our ruling parties would be defenseless before him; he would expose their scam. In Rand's novel, most people support the confiscatory policies of the government, thinking they may benefit by the soaking of the rich. Sure, they mouth inanities about "helping the poor", but it is really about helping themselves, as well.

In Atlas Shrugged, this way of thinking essentially destroys the technological ccomplishments of 20th century man, and reduces advanced civilizations to rubble. How sick would Rand be, today, at seeing her dark fictional prophecies come to life?

Oh, to think how she would spit at Hillary...!

America's Poor, And Some Food for Thought

I'm sharing this with little comment because I am still digesting it; it's something that I never really considered before.
The proposal before you: Have we in fact essentially eradicated true poverty in America?

Kathy Shaidle:

Are there even a thousand really poor people in all of America? Really poor. Dying-on-the-sidewalks-with-open-sores poor?

The so-called poor have cars and cable tv and free medical. They live in America in the 21st century, where school is free and libraries are free and a bus ticket to a better town costs less than a bag of crack. If they're "poor" it's because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on. Jesus had something to say about folks who didn't properly manage their money or other people's, and who squandered free gifts and good will. He told the adulteress to sin no more, not to find herself another baby daddy.

Jesus said "the poor will always be with you" and all the crooked exegesis on earth can't make that line read "you are ordered by Me to eliminate poverty forever using dubious economic theories and your own stubborn yet puny human will power."

Jesus told us to love the poor because he realized it was so damn hard to do. And the poor in His day were REALLY poor. They had no choices, no upward mobility, no capitalism, no education. The Western poor haven't been in that situation for a long time. This isn't Dickensian England.

Mark Steyn, posting on The Corner, follows up:

As Miss Shaidle points out, if you're poor today, it's almost always for behavioral reasons - behavior which the state chooses not to discourage but to reward. Nonetheless, progressive types persist in deluding themselves that there are vast masses of the "needy" out there that only the government can rescue.

An editorial in Canada's biggest-selling newspaper today states:

A total of 905,000 people visited food banks across the Greater Toronto Area in the past year.

The population of Toronto is about two-and-a-half million. Is the Star suggesting one in three citizens of one of the wealthiest municipalities on earth depends on "food banks"? Or is it the same one thousand people getting three square meals a day there? Or ten thousand people swinging by a couple of times a week? And, in that case, how many of them actually "depend" on food banks? Only the Star knows. But the idea that 905,000 Torontonians need food aid is innumerate bunk.

So, in the absence of real need, we've persuaded ourselves that we need to create more and more programs for the middle-class and wealthy.

Wow.

Could all those crocodile tears that the Democrats shed for the poor really be part of a plan to distract Americans while they pick our pockets, so as to be able to fund their myraid of unnecessary social projects? And could there in fact be no need for these massive social reforms that the Left claims Americans are crying out for; can it all be smoke and mirrors used to trick Americans into turning their nation into something it is not, nor was ever meant to be?

I don't know - certainly I see plenty of Shaidle's "really poor" people every day in New York ; complete with the vacant stares and the open sores that she alludes to. And I feel bad, I do, and I always wish those folks did not have to live the way they do.

But when the Democrats seem to suggest that I may not be allowed to improve my station in life until every poor person (whom I am expected to view as a personal reproach to my own "wealth") reaches what they deem to be a "fair living station", that in fact more of my money must be confiscated in order to achieve that end - well, that gets me really pissed off, not sympathetic. In holding a productive person back so that the non-productive may be given that which they did not earn, well - it seems to be...immoral. A scam, a reverse Ponzi where the bottom eats the top until...what? When eventually the bottom consumes itself?

And what of the moral imperative that Democrats demand that I am supposed to feel in this case?

Well, I'll take my cue from Jesus. The poor will always be with us.
I'll throw 'em a coin and pray for their souls. But I'm not gonna miss my train whilst tending their eternal ills. It is a Sisyphean task, and the JerseyNut doesn't do Sisyphean tasks.

Someone ought to tell the Left that guilt is a rope that can wear thin...

Liberals: Raise Taxes, Kill Puppies!

It's importance to reference San Francisco every now and again; it's a warped laboratory experiment in what happens when liberals have complete and unchecked control.

Regional officials are taking a close look at trying to increase the Bay Area's gasoline tax by as much as 10 cents a gallon and believe voters might agree to it as a way to help combat global warming, The Chronicle learned Thursday.

The Democrats are just hooked on monetary confiscation; and like any junkie, keep coming up with new excuses to explain away their indefensible actions. Today's vogue excuses, gobbled up and regurgitated whole by their allies and enablers in the media, consists of two phrases: "It's about our children", and "It's about global warming". Either way, it results in taxes going up while producing no discernable results (unless extending socialized medicine to the middle class, and lowering the global temperature by 0.0000000000000000000001 % are the results you are looking for).

And why do the San Fran Sicko pols feel they can get away with this? Well, let's hand the mic over the guy who who is in charge of formulating this policy:

"People will kill their puppies to stop global warming these days," said Dave Snyder with a smile. Snyder is transportation policy director at the San Francisco Policy and Urban Planning Association, a think tank.

Really? Have you been asking puppy owners if they would be willing to strangle their pets to help contribute to the aforementioned miniscule temperature decrease? Or is this a bit more liberal projection; is it really you, Mr. Snyder, that would kill people's dogs if it could save a tree somewhere (perferably in a less evil country than ours)?

What a nut. Imagine if a conservative lawmen had made this statement; would the San Francisco media have thrown in the hasty "with a smile" adjective? Doubtful; they may have added "with a malicious smirk", but it certainly would have been followed up by a call to PETA looking for "reaction"...

This is what happens when the fox guards the henohouse; God help us all should the Left take command in November...

Via Tim Blair.

It's Getting Ugly in Here...

Content advisory, folks...for both images and verbiage:

Barbara Walters' ears must have been burning Wednesday night. That's when Rosie O'Donnell mounted the stage at Roseanne Barr 's invitation during her late-night set at Comix on W. 14th. Rosie started off by saying, "When I was fired by Barbara Walters" - the first time she didn't stick to "The View's" spin that her departure from the show was by mutual agreement.

...Rosie also confided that she and the veteran newswoman were actually so close early on in her tenure as moderator that Walters recommended Rosie use Astroglide, which, she added, took her by surprise. "But she paved the way for women," Rosie allowed. "She interviewed Presidents ... ""Like Abraham Lincoln," snapped Barr.

And note the company these two fat ignorant slobs keep:

Rita Cosby was in the audience laughing, despite being served with a subpoena earlier at her own party at Pacha for her book "Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith's Death," which has hit the best-seller list. Howard K. Stern, Smith's former partner, has filed suit against Cosby in federal court. Also at the party: Dominick Dunne, Robin Byrd and Anna Nicole's unpopular mother, Virgie Arthur.

What a pair - a frothing liberal ignoramous and a self - hating Jew...

Bottom of the barrel, folks. No better than, or well-informed, than the lowest trailer park trash. Remember that the next time the media quotes them as authorities on foreign policy, or the Bush Administration...

Life...

...has been absolutely crazy lately (not all bad things, for a change!), and I haven't had a chance to even think about posting, no less even thinking about a post to post (?). Bad timing, I guess, with the Sitemeter hitting some all-time highs, but it is what it is.

I'll be back shortly, filled with rightous indignation about...something.

Liberals vs. the New York Mets, Part II

So on Monday I noted that the unwise decision to have reedy-voiced liberal politco Melinda Katz sing the Anthem before the 162nd (and last) game of the season could have directly contributed to the Mets downfall; today I will note some lessons that liberals have taken from this train wreck of a season.

In the Daily News, lefty columnist Richard Cohen talks about loss - his, the Mets, and hopefully ours:

What was happening to the Mets was called life, and it was good that kids were watching. They could learn from it. Victory teaches nothing. Defeat teaches everything.

Ah! So that's why the liberal shrieking to bug out of Iraq is hitting a glass-shattering crescendo; 'cause if we stay in-country too much longer, we are virtually guaranteed to secure a victory - and then what would we have learned? We must be defeated in Iraq, or at least manage to cause one, so that we stupid Americans can be taught something!

Stop cryin', kid! That nasty liberal is just trying to help!

More insights into the liberal mind via the "Met-astrophe":

I am no longer a fan of any team in any sport. The fan is a fool, a sucker, as much a mark as a drunk who flashes cash in a bar.

Whoa! What bitterness to harbor in one's heart! Good to know that the liberal elite feels free to spit on the tens of millions of Americans that enjoy following a particular sport franchise. No wonder Cohen glorifes in loss and defeat; what has he given himself to live for?

I sat back with the smug wisdom of age and watched the TV guys try to explain what was happening to the Mets, combing through the stats like prospectors panning for gold.

They tried to blame the coach or the players. It was about talent or motivation or some such thing. They needed to blame someone. They needed to make sense out of the nonsensical.

So, children, pay attention....

Sounds like a typical liberal projection; actually, it sounds like Cohen's precious 9/11 Commission. Sounds like the basis of this website, too. Well, I guess he would know...sorry, though, if us "children" choose to ignore your self-annointed "wisdom"...

If this is what the liberal ideology takes from the Met's collapse - a sneer, unabashed glee, and some cold-hearted name calling - then I know who the fools really are, and know that they have learned nothing from their numerous defeats...

And for the first time, I actually feel bad for them. To spurn "fandom" after a difficult loss is like forever turning your back on love after one bad relationship. Cohen calls sports fans suckers, not unlike the phrase a jaded loner would utter, when his gaze accidentally falls upon embraced lovers...

Have we at last found the true soul of the liberal? A person who has turned their back on love, on hope, on dreams, and derides those who still belive, who still have faith, who still believe victory can be achieved?

What a lonely, angry place the heart of a lefty is. Let us sit back in smug wisdom, and pity them...

Bad Karma

The New York Mets did not have a chance yesterday from the outset; and no, it wasn't just another vintage Tom Glavine (New York era) performance that did them in. No, they were doomed by their decision to give the coveted pregame national anthem slot to New York City councilwoman Melinda Katz (D-Queens); and they were bitten hard by the instant negative karma of liberal policies. The Daily News has her sob story; but even Melinda is saavy enough to know:

An appearance on the field when the Mets fans can still dare to believe will hardly hurt Katz's own hopes to become the next city controller...

She made clear yesterday that she harbors no illusions about why she was invited to sing.

"I have no doubt if I wasn't an elected official I wouldn't have the opportunities," she said. "I can hold a tune, but..."

Miss Katz is a nanny-state lefty par excellence...see here for an interesting attempt to place a Borg-like (or a Bender-like?) waiter at most nightclubs in the five boroughs; see here as she demands that Mayor Bloomberg use emminent domain to stop development projects that she opposes, and look here to see how she proposes Council oversight to help prevent the entrance of big-box superstores to neighborhoods that need them most.

Maybe a good person for the Mets owernship to have an "in" with? After all, if she wins the primary, she is a sho-in to become the next New York City comptroller in 2009, just about the time when the new Citi Field will be ready to open....

Well, Miss Katz must be pleased with the outcome, as it falls within her philosophical parameters - the Marlins, the weaker team, confiscated a win from a team who - while needing it to stay alive - already had plenty more "W's"than they did. And jeez, the media circus that would have come to Queens with another postseason run? Did the City Council have an opportunity to review this huge influx of business into the district? And my G-d, would there be enough Robo-waiters to watch every single beer-drinker in the stands?

Instant karma is a bitch, Mr. Wilpon. Next time, see if we can get that John Amirante fellow...

{Listen below...National Anthem at Madison Square Garden during Game 4 of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals between the New York Rangers and Atlanta Thrashers Apil 2007. Rangers win, baby!! Thanks to a powerful, conservative national anthem..!!}