Tuesday, June 30, 2009
...Staffers have joked about the menacing glance, which comes when the president meets with world leaders who are not aligned with his progressive view.
White House photographers have captured the "evil eye" in recent weeks, during sessions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Colombia's Alvaro Uribev.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got hit with the commander's malocchio last week in the Oval office.
And at least one White House reporter has been on the receiving end of the daggers during a press conference.
It's a look I usually see from street thugs, perhaps those on the subway who didn't like me telling them to watch their language around women or children, or those who simply think they are so tough that their cliched bad-ass scowl will earn them automatic street cred.
To world leaders who encounter Barack Obama's immature thuggery, I recommend a stare-down, not a back-down. Like the pathetic street punks he models himself after, Obama is weak, cowardly, and afraid of conflcit, and will wilt before a tough and reasoned response.
Did I mention how proud I was to have a president who comports himself thusly?
What else has been proven? Well, that the Democrats will resort to thuggery to maintain power if they lose popular support - see here for how the Dems enlisted ACORN thugs to attack Republican lawmakers...
But that's not the end of the banana republic tactics of the Democrats, oh no. Check out the video below, as we see the Democrats grab and surround the podium so that no Republican (technically now the new leaders of the Senate) can stand before it and conduct business.
And that's not even the best part! Just past the :40 second mark, check out how the Republicans finally start the session off with the Pledge of Allegience, and not a single Democrat stands! Oh, wait, one tries to show respect for his state and nation, but he is forcibly pushed down by his fellow liberals:
Gateway Pundit seems to hint this all reminds him of someone else....
Monday, June 29, 2009
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Ginsberg twists the phrase "rights" here into a pretzel to try to justify the discrimination against whitey:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
"No vested right"? Maybe, but when you're told there are promotions up for grabs, and you achieve a top grade, only to be denied said promotion due to the color of your skin, isn't that discrimination, regardless or not anyone else was promoted? Or are "rights" variable, dependent upon skin tone?
Sotomayor's incompetence, clearly displayed in this reversed decision, as well as her ideological affinity with the bizarre, one-sided social justice of Ginsburg, makes her unsuited to sit on the court. If justice is not blind, but is weighted by race, wealth, and individual conceit, then the foundation of this great nation turns to salt, and the House itself will crumble.
I hope the Republicans in the Senate give her holy hell this July 13th....
Update: More here -
This ruling is the latest in a series of steps the Court has taken to strike down race-conscious actions that violate individual rights—and thus is a blow both to the Obama administration (which sided with the city in Ricci) and to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Those who bring cases before the courts deserve much more than empathy or even “sympathy”—the word Justice Ginsburg uses in her dissent—they deserve equal treatment under the law.
And it's not just the decision making, it's Sotomayor's whole judicial "process" that's unworthy:
Judge Sotomayor thought it appropriate to use an unpublished summary order to dispose of the claims of the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano. Today the Supreme Court issued 93 pages of opinions in the case that Sotomayor acted to bury.
Further, although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.
Gallup shows the president's ratings at a 57% approve/35% disapprove. Not denying the strength of that first numebr, but it marks almost a 20% decline since Obama's inauguration. That's a trend, folks. I have a few friends that are pretty serious gamblers, and they tell me to always bet on a trend continuing, and never assume that someone is "due" for a turnaround. If what's true in football and roulette is good for politics, expect to see a number below 50% by Labor Day.
And the president's policies, which have always had a disconnect from his persona, are also showing increasing weakness among the public.
Rasmussen reports that forty percent (40%) of U.S. voters now say President Obama has not been aggressive enough in supporting the reformers in Iran protesting the results of the presidential election. That’s a five-point increase from a week ago. Maybe it's because of stories (and videos) like this?
More from Rasmussen:
....voters now regard North Korea as a bigger threat to the United States than Iran....
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters say Iran should be required to stop developing its nuclear weapons capabilities before a meeting is allowed between the Iranian president and the president of the United States....Eighty-one percent (81%) agree with Israeli President Benjamin Netanhyahu that Palestinian leaders must recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement.
Maybe if the Republican party did a better job in tying Barack Obama to his policies (and those of his Demcoratic Congress), people would realize the disconnect between who Obama says he is and who/what he really is.
It's not like the media is going to help make it happen...
Friday, June 26, 2009
Pictures of Sarah Palin in a flight suit.
Sarah is on board the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis....
She looks just poured into that flight suit, incidentally. And why does she look so much more convincing in miltary garb than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden?
Maybe, because unlike the other two, she knows how to handle a weapon. And maybe, because unlike the other two, she has actually fired a weapon.
But mostly, it's becuase it seems like she is enjoying herself, and is comfortable with the trappings of the military. Barack and Silly Joe B. seem so out of place next to our armed services that you can see the discomfort on their faces, and hear the impatience in their voices. After all, they are busy men, what with all the taxes that need to be raised....
Sigh...she could have been ours, but we blew it.
Sorry, Sarah. I miss you. Won't you please give us another chance to do the right thing?
But it was a setup for a partisan attack on a popular candiate. Alas, the Dems - and especially comitteee chair Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) learned what happens when you mess with Jersey. The transcript:
"No, in fact sir, the complete answer to that…” Christie began.
“That’s the complete answer to that,” Cohen interrupted.
“No, no it’s not, sir, it really isn’t,” replied Christie.
Cohen pushed on.
“You made an offer they couldn’t refuse,” he said.
Christie objected, and the two ran over each others’ words until Cohen said loudly:
“I’ve got the microphone.”
“Sir, you said that I made them an offer they couldn’t refuse,” Christie said, earning a “That’s right” from Cohen.
“First of all, it’s an ethnically insensitive comment by you, first of all, to an Italian-American and secondly…”
Cohen interjected, “I had no idea were Italian-American…”
Christie again cut him off.
“And secondly, sir, you were not in the room when those negotiations took place, sir,” Christie said. “I was.”
...The microphone eventually passed to Rep. Bill Delahunt, who prefaced his own acrimonious exchange with Christie by claiming to have had “no idea” Christie was running for governor until Thursday.
The two-and-a-half-hour hearing ended with a flourish—Christie abruptly walked out to catch a train, over the protests of Cohen and amid counter-protests from subcommittee Republicans.
Seems like Cohen may have had another reason to go after Chris Christie, a personal one: Apparently, Cohen steered a high-six-figure earmark to a firm that Christie investigated and is currently charging with conspiring to violate the federal anti-kickback statute...
So a high profile attack on Chris Christie with the intent of helping Corzine's re-election bid and protecting Steve Cohen's earmark abuses was turned on its head as Christie walked away from the circus as the donkeys brayed. Much was learned here, about the strength and good character of Chris Christie to the craven lengths the Democrats will go to in order to help Jon Corzine and hide their own politcal malfeasence.
Can't wait to see the next set of polls...
Incidentally, Steve Cohen should watch the racist remarks. We wrote about him recently - and somewhat sympathetically - as a "good liberal" who's about to lose his seat in a primary chiefly because of the color of his skin. One would not be suprised to see Christie's hints of Cohen's racism make the rounds in Memphis...
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Nothing. Which meant it could not have done very well, for every minor success of the Obama administration is greeted with a herald of trumpets by the media. Finally, after some searching, I came up with this:
The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour. The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.
That's not a lot of viewers for a nation with around 300 million citizens (1.5%). Guess the other 98.5% recognized state-issued propoganda when they see it. After all:
...the network consistently presented the event as part of the need to fix a "broken system." When asked, every one of the 164 hand-picked audience members said they felt that health care needed to be changed.
...The network also allowed him to dominate the program with long-winded and vague answers. Out of the 75 minutes the network dedicated over the two programs (commercials excluded), the president managed to take 60 percent of that time: 45 minutes to give 19 vague responses – not exactly the “dialogue” advertised by ABC...
'cause, as always, it's about Obama first, last and always. We're just a means to his ends, and if we don't agree, we are to be ignored or attacked (unlike, say, terrorists, who are to be respected and coddled).
And sometimes ABC, willing puppy dogs that they are, did the attacking for the president. When Aetna Insurance president Ron Williams got up to ask a question, he was ambushed by Diane Sawyer first:
"Mr. Williams, Aetna, to take one, an insurance company. We hear people all over the country people see their premiums going up 119 percent in the last several years. They see the profits of the insurance companies, the billions and billions of dollars, even in a lean year. They see profits in the billions of dollars. Is the President right – that you need to be kept honest?”
So much for the "fairness" and "balance" that ABC promised. Seems like 98.5% of Americans were too smart to take the bait. The rest are likely already on Medicaid or Medicare anyway (Primetime Live skews much older than most standard programming).
Impact on ObamaCare: Negligible.
Impact on ABC's credibility: Possibly fatal.
But yes, Virginia, their is a law of cause-and-effect, and you can tax people right out of a livelihood, or, in this case, work towards destroying an industry completely:
Tampa will lose part of its cigar heritage in August when Hav-A-Tampa shuts its factory near Seffner and lays off about 495 employees, closing a factory that has been operating since 1902.
...the company couldn't cope with a steep drop in consumer demand, brought on by the recession and a large new tax on tobacco products....
Work that had been done in Tampa will now be performed in an Altadis plant in Puerto Rico, where it has extra manufacturing capacity...
...the company attributed much of its trouble to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, a federal program that provides health insurance to low-income children. It is funded, in part, by a new federal tax on cigars and cigarettes.
So what hath SCHIP wrought? Loss of corporate and indivdual tax revenues fron Hav-A-Tampa and it's employees, and additional government expenses (unemployment, mortagage relief) for the 500 (predominately minority) now-unemployed workers at the Tampa plant.
And the carnage has only just begun....
Keep this in mind, when Obama and his Democratic Congress try to sell us on how "Cap-and-Trade" will be a boon to the economy....
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The media's meltdown is in full swing, and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post ridicules his peers and his profession, especially when it comes to the planted question from the far-Left HuffPo at yesterday's love-in/news conference:
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.
Well, based on your follow-up, the press here obviosuly isn't as free as advertised. But love is a handcuff that the smitten would rather be dragged around by, rather than set free of:
Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. " As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.
A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. "Mr. President!" yelled Mike Allen of Politico. "May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?"
Sorry: Those weren't prearranged.
Milbank confesses that his compatriots are no longer news gathers, but willing players in prefabricated "news" conferences where issues not comfortable to power are either ignored or laughed off.
Of course, ABC is the most "willing player" in news fabrication that has yet to come along in Obama's brief reign (but it's early, folks). This morning, in the beginning of the network's partnership with the president on nationalizing health care, this outlandish claim went unchallenged:
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous federal deficit and debt that is largely driven by health care costs. So, whether it's families, business or government, we know that we're going to have to reform this system," he said.
What about the $1 trillion plus you added on the the $300 billion left by Bush, none of which had any relevence to health care whatsoever?
But don't worry, ABC will be on the case! We know, because they say are "promising" a:
"...thoughtful, respectful, and probing discussion of some of the issues raised by the calls for health-care reform.”
“We will include a variety of perspectives coming from private individuals asking the President questions and taking issue with him, as they see fit,”
Doesn't seem like you've taken any issue on the first big whopper served up by the president.
But hey - we understand. Got to follow the script....
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama also delivers pitch for the legislation he wants to "spark a clean energy transformation."
Translated: pass the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill, 'cause I need the tax revenue to pay for my nationalization of health care. And who called it a 1201-page economic suicide note, anyway? ACORN's gonna find you, brother...
Obama also calls for enactment of comprehensive health care reform,. and says he hopes for quick congressional progress.
Translated: We need to do this stimulus-style. A bill so big nobody can read or understand it, but will be voted for based on ideology rather than reality. By the time anyone reads the damn thing, we'll control 20% of the economy!
Obama disputes that it took him a long-time to express outrage at situation in Iran. "I don't think that's accurate," he said.
Translation: I hate 3AM phone calls! I just hide under the covers until the phone stops ringing..
If government offers public health care plan, Obama says "why would it drive private insurance out of business?".
Translation: Obama translates this himself: Obama says the public plan is an "important tool to discipline insurance companies."
Which also translates this remark: Obama insists: "our position is that a public plan makes sense." After all, if you are trying to "discipline" insurance companies, what better way than to set up a competitor with ulimited taxpayer funding?
Obama says in the absence of his first econ stimulus – the recession would have been much worse; more layoffs.
Translation: Think of how bad things would be for my friends, cronies, and political connections if I didn't funnel them $787 billion in taxpayer monies!
Obama says "there are significant questions about the legitimacy of the Iran election..."
Translation: Questions that will be resolved in the affirmative as soon as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stops playing hard to get and finally agrees to a date with me.
I hope this proved to be a valuable service to you. If there are any questions about the translations provided herin, or if you feel some pjrase or wording has been incorrectly or incompletly translated, please feel free to note them in the comments section below...
Let's see how many rounds this fight goes....the occasional quote from the great Ayn Rand will be juxtaposed with some pearl of wisdom from The One (like this one, I guess), and we'll discuss the merits of each.
Other times, it will stand alone as a self-evident rebuke of the policies of our Socialist president and Congress...like this one:
"The skyline of New York is a monument of a splendor that no pyramids or palaces will ever equal or approach. But America's skyscrapers were not built by public funds nor for a public purpose: they were built by the energy, initiative and wealth of private individuals for personal profit. And, instead of impoverishing the people, these skyscrapers, as they rose higher and higher, kept raising the people's standard of living ..."
What has socialism ever built, besides legacies of hopelessness, poverty, and despair?
Round 1 to Rand....
Monday, June 22, 2009
The New York Times, alway a bastion of liberal thought, has gone so far as to create wildly skewed polls in order to suggest that Barack Obama has massive support for his nationalization of Americ'a health care. With a headline shrieking “Wide Support for Government-Run Health”, we read:
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind [72%] one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Here's the skew:
73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.
And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?
So much for the truth. ABC can't be bothered with such trivialities, they need presidential access !
ABC crosses the line from journalism to advocacy in turning its coverage of health care over to the White House.
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
ABC insists it will present a balanced picture — as balanced, we suppose, as the political contributions of ABC News employees who gave 80 times more to Obama's campaign ($124,421 to $1,550) as they did to his opponent, John McCain.
With numbers like that, it doesn't take a genius to know what ABC's political atmosphere is like. In any case, ABC's output speaks for itself. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute has shown that in the first half of 2009, ABC sources quoted in health care stories shilled for ObamaCare 55 times to its opponents' 18 — a 3-to-1 margin.
The best proof that the public is getting propaganda is that ABC is refusing to take ads from critics who are offering to pay for them. Among those turned away: the Republican National Committee and a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
Amazing. What are the chances they will present balanced reporting, when they won't even allow opposing forces to pay to tell their side?
I guess I thought we were made of sterner stuff, and would fight off facism with every bone in our American marrow. Instead, the institutions most critical in spreading truth to the population have instead chosen willingly to abdicate their freedom (and ours as well) so that they may fare a little better than the rest under the current regime.
The media has gone to working for us to serving him. Worse than their betrayal of our citizens is their abdication of their own primary value - freedom - in the hope of being granted "favored "status. Like all who toss aside their morals in the hope of gaining momentary advantage, they are not to be trusted -or believed - again.
Thus is the fate of all traitors...
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Well, we all know this one:
U.S. guns bolster Mexico violence
... Combat-style rifles are pouring into Mexico, thanks to the end of the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban in 2004
Bored of that old saw? Well, here's a "new" one, kind of - the location has changed but the song remains the same:
Guns from America fuel Jamaica's gang wars
...like Mexican smugglers, Jamaican ones depend on lax U.S. gun laws, corrupt customs inspectors and front men acting as buyers.
Florida gun laws make it relatively easy to buy a legal firearm....
I'm waiting for this:
Guns from America cause global warming
No, not quite, but we do find a kernel of truth there:
For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving SUVs); we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling); we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the "we" in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.
That's right! After all, this doesn't sound dogmatic, does it?
Arming teachers is also a bad idea. Do we really want teachers shooting at students?
But this does:
A reckless amendment that could allow people to carry loaded guns, including AK-47s, in national parks was passed by the Congress....
Nice attempt by the elites to tie potential domestic violence (against trees and bears) and unrelated drug-related violence together into a big anti-2nd Amendment push.
Won't work. What do they say again about "cold, dead hands"?
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Hey Obama, you sniveling, stinking, cowardly son of a bitch - this is the face of courage:
This is no Palestinian stone-thrower facing a minimal-pushback Israeli. No, this brave women knows she can be dealt the fate of this girl - shot and killed in cold blood by the Basij for standing up for her freedom:
(WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC)
So Barack, ready to "reconsider your carefully calibrated tone" yet?
I sit, ashamed of my country and my president. Is Barack Obama so involved in his own narrative as The Neogitator that he will allow evil to triumph over good, in order to fulfill what he believes to be his own messianic destiny?
Or is he simply more sympathetic to the Iranian regime than those who would topple it? Remember, this is a man who high-fives Hugo Chavez and bows to Saudi kings, but gives a continued cold shoulder to the British, French, and Germans as he abuses the Israelis...
I don't know which is worse, and the thought of crawling around Barack Obama's mind is sickening. But I would ask liberal Americans: What is the greater moral failing - the alleged torture of al-Qaeda thugs engaged in destroying America, or to watch a desperate people fight for freedom against a terrorist regime - only to turn our backs as they die in the street, waiting in vain for a word of encouragment from the beacon of liberty?
Obama claims Bush hurt our moral standing in the world. As an antidote, he has chosen to eliminate it entirely.
Shame on him - and us.
Well, maybe not. Because as we are beginning to learn about the president, it's always about him. The New York Times reports on our paralyzed president:
With Iran on a razor’s edge after a week of swelling protests, the Obama administration has fended off pressure from both parties to respond more forcefully to the disputed election there. But if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown, the White House would reconsider its carefully calibrated tone, officials said Friday.
So Obama won't even offer a more strongly-worded statement until there is Persian blood filling the street of Tehran, and even then he will only consider changing his tone. Why?
The administration still hopes to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on its nuclear program.
Oh, right. So Obama's desire to prove that he can talk a psychotic messianic leadership out of building a doomsday device that would fulfill their prophecies is so strong that he will allow a democratic revolution to be hacked to pieces so that he may fulfill his destiny of being "The One".
Who is crazier?
But that's not my point. The question is, what happens if the democratic revolution in Iran actually wins out and takes power? How will they feel towards Obama and the United States, who stood meekly by and refused to offer even words of moral support as they fought in the streets for freedom? Will we once again be enemies of a new Iranian Republic, this time because we are seen as supporting the Mullahs over the mainstream?
Obama is betting that the Mullahs will prevail, and is so hell-bent on proving they are simply liberals in black robes, that he will allow the flower of Persian freedom to perish so he can prove his own intellectual might.
But if he's wrong - and the revolution succeeds - he will have alienated America from Iran for another generation, as they fly to Europe/Russia/China in search of new allies.
It's a risky bet, with virtually no upside, win or lose. But it's not about freedom for the enslaved, and it's not about America's interests. It's about Barack Obama, who appears to be feeling a bit of pressure to prove his own messianic standing.
And we all will suffer for it.
See here as well: Giving Freedom a Black Eye
Update: It's on, via Twitter: Tweets report shooting as well and explosion at Khomeini tomb....Several tweets from inside Iran report heavy clashes with security forces, tear gas, batons..
But aren't they afraid of a "different tone" from Barack Obama?
Friday, June 19, 2009
House Democrats on Friday unveiled legislation they said would cover virtually all the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.
Major provisions of the draft bill would impose new responsibilities on individuals and employers to get coverage, end insurance company practices that deny coverage to the sick and create a new government-sponsored plan to compete with private companies.
But it remained far from clear how the Democrats intend to pay for their plan, even as they vowed to take the legislation to the House floor by the end of July.
Oh, they know how they are paying for it. It's not clear because they're not telling us what they've been discussing in back rooms:
The list of options being weighed by the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, and obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, aims to raise some $600 billion over 10 years to partially pay for President Barack Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's health care system to tame costs and cover the 50 million uninsured.
The tax options include:
- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.
- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running.
Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more.
And this is on top of the "tax-and-trade" proposals being floated through Congress that will likely cost every family at least $1200/year in the name of "the enviornment" , but with the real goal of giving the political class more of your money to spend as they wish...
Don't think it will happen? White House press secretary Robert Gibbs guarentees it will:
"The president is not going to sign a health care bill that increases the size of the deficit."
The only way to keep the deficit at a mere $1.6 trillion would be to sign the bill with all of the above taxation measures...allowing the president to keep his promises on health care and the deficit while saddling every hardworking American with the costs via addtional daily taxes.
But we exist only to serve The One....
Thursday, June 18, 2009
When he's a white Jew:
Voters in the August 2010 Democratic primary will face a sensitive question that has dogged Cohen since his first House election in 2006: Should Tennessee's only majority black district have a black representative in Washington?
Well, apparently his district has seen fit to elect him twice regardless of skin color, and despite the gerrymandering involved. And it seems, based on his accolades mentioned above, he has been doing exactly the job his constituents would wish for.
But he's got the wrong skin color, folks. So in 2010, he will be challenged by Willie Herenton, the mayor of Memphis and a man of color. Why mention his race? It appears as if that's his primary reason for challenging Cohen:
The congressional election should focus on "pressing and important issues," Herenton wrote. "However, it remains a fact that the 9th Congressional District provides the only real opportunity to elect a qualified African-American to the all-white 11-member delegation representing Tennessee in Washington."
...at the cost of eliminating the only Jew, of course.
Based on Herenton's rationale for his election, I should never vote for a black representative in my Congressional district - not matter how closely our policies align - because as a white-majority district, I have a responsibilty to vote for a white man, to counter all the gerrymandered districts in New Jersey set up to elect balck representatives. Gotta vote my color to balance it all out and get fair representation for the white man, no?
But that rationale would make me a racist. Herenton's rationale makes him a "formidable foe" to Steve Cohen.
Fair? Welcome to the real-world results of liberal racial politics. Will be interesting to see which way the 9th Congressional District in Memphis swings. A Cohen re-election would say a lot about the color-blind status of politics (Barack Obama, anyone?), and of the 9th DC.
A Herenton victory, unfortunately, may be construed as nothing more than a continuation of a race war that some people wish to see go on forever...and that's Herenton's fault, for focusing not on the "important and pressing issues", but on race.
How dumbfounded he must be, as he envisions a Euo-American future of two-seaters and magnetic trains in suburbia, to see Americans searching high and low for...more SUVs:
Even with the auto industry mired in depression... big vehicles such as the Ford Expedition and Chevy Tahoe are in tight supply because of drastic production cuts that automakers imposed last year as sales began to plummet.
Now, a year after $4-a-gallon gas nearly killed SUVs, some dealers in this market are selling them for window-sticker prices. Moreover, most late-model used pickups and SUVs have regained all of the thousands of dollars in trade-in value they lost last summer, dealers say.
....the back three rows at Five Star Ford in Carrollton – the store's SUV sector – were empty recently because the dealership had sold all of its Expeditions and Explorers....The dealership is contending as well with occasional shortages of compact Escape SUVs and a fairly tight supply of full-size F-150 pickups.
...Meanwhile, at Toyota of Richardson, Steve Grogean grapples with a limited supply of Tundra pickups and Sequoia SUVs.
So despite a full-court press by the media and the government to demonize SUVs, the American consumer continues to purchase what it needs/wants. However, as we can see already, government pressure can limit supply of certain vehicles, thus forcing the consumer to pay more.
I'm sure the government is shedding no tears, after all, rising prices should be a deterrent to purchase. Of course, when Obama's new CAFE standards kick in, auto makers by default will have to make less trucks to meet the new average MPG for their fleet. So the prices will go even higher.
What will Obama and the Demcorats do if consumers still demand their SUVs? Expect product-specific taxes and fees to be slapped on top of an already-inflated purchase price, and then perhaps, an outright ban? First, they came for the Hummers....
The question is, of course, why is Obama launching an attack on suburban housewives (who bear the burden of moving masses of kids place to place day after day) and small business owners, who use vans, pickup trucks, and large SUVs in the course of their trade? Why must the backbone of the American family - middle-class families and local businessmen - bear the financial burden of Bbarack's climate fantasies, while the political class flies in private jets to personalized airports?
Ah, I've never seen a socialist who didn't despise the "proletariat" for trying to better themselves. Stay poor, pure, and serve the state.
We'll see, Baracky, we'll see...
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Negotiations were roiled Monday by an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that said Kennedy's bill would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years but leave 37 million people uninsured, compared with 50 million who are uninsured now.
And on Tuesday a cost estimate for the Finance Committee bill became public: $1.6 trillion. Senators quickly huddled on ways to bring down costs, with Baucus insisting the final price tag on the Finance Committee bill would be around $1 trillion.
At the Senate Health panel, officials said that after penciling in subsidies for families with incomes as high as $110,000, or 500 percent of the federal poverty level, they would limit the help to families up to $88,000 in income, or 400 percent of the poverty level.
Well, that's a good way to bring down costs - continue the class warfare that Barack Obama has ignited. But it may take more than having the upper middle class subsidize the lower middle class, as it looks as if even the $1 - $1.6 trillion dollar price tag may be a lowball estimate:
....a more comprehensive analysis of the legislation will only serve to drive the bill's ultimate cost higher. For instance, because it was only working with a draft of the bill that had holes in it, the CBO did not estimate the costs associated with increasing Medicaid elgibility to 150 percent of the poverty level, or the full cost of providing subsidies to individuals with incomes at up to 500 percent of the poverty level to purchase insurance through state-run exchanges. Once this is taken into account, liberals are right that the final CBO estimate will reflect more people being insured, but the cost of the legislation will go up as well.
Health Systems Innovations Network, a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated (pdf) the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, "this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality."
You don't say! And what does our president -the ultimate realist, the quintessential negotiator, the uniter/not the divider, the Man With Moral Standing - have to say about the catastrophic debt load that all parties agree the nation will be burdened with? Same link:
President Obama, in a speech to the American Medical Association on Monday, declared of the price tag of health care legislation: "it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits."
Uh huh. Maybe ABC News is buying this, but most people with a high-school diploma know better. And it kinda reminds me of this promise Obama made to another interest group:
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to the AIPAC conference in Washington..."I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation....
And once he didn't need the Jew's support? It became this:
"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."
Doctors, beware the wolf...
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Well, apparently, Barack Obama and his administration do not trust your parent's judgement, or you, and are proposing changes in knife classification that would make approximately 80% of all knifes -including multifunction tool-knifes - illegal.
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted opening knives are not switchblades. The proposed new rule would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its broad definition of a switchblade would also include one-handed opening knives and could be easily interpreted to cover most other pocket knives, even simple old-fashioned slip-joints.
Note that CBP's interpretation of the Federal Switchblade Act forms the basis for national, state and even local law and judicial rulings in many cases. This ruling by CBP is NOT limited to just imports. This WILL affect virtually everyone who carries a pocket knife, no matter the type!
Apparently, despite the fact that recent awareness has caused many concerned citizens to want to voice their objections to this bizarre and unnecessary regulation, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) has denied the numerous requests for extension that it had received... and is planning to stick with the June 21 deadline for comments.
Sounds like we are going to see this pushed though a la the stimulus bill (" it is critical that we waste no time in eliminating knives of all sort from the hands of an untrusworthy American population. Only then will have economic security and peace"), and with little complaint from a metropolitan-based news media.
So remember, the next time you participate in that time honored tradition of handing a young boy or girl their first pocket knife, and sitting with them to review safety and usage....you are a lawbreaker.
Request for change in knife classifications by the CBP can be found in this PDF document....
Monday, June 15, 2009
So are they getting what the paid for? In my opinion....they are getting what they deserve:
President Obama’s strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said...
....many in the Jewish community, including some of Obama’s most ardent supporters, are troubled by his comments in the Middle East, especially his remarks to his Cairo audience. Others are concerned that, facing a multitude of problems on the domestic front, Obama has traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel, America’s stalwart ally in the region for more than a half-century.
“There’s a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for,” Hoenlein says of Obama’s outreach....
There should be no questioning whatsoever. Obama spent his whole adult life praying with, and receiving spirtual guidance from, an unrepentent anti-Semite. Anyone who closed their eyes to that reality deserves to get killed by it. You don't close your eyes when you cross a busy street; why would you do it when you are selecting the leader of the world's most powerful nation?
Do you want to know what he really believes? He said it quite clearly in his speech:
Hoenlein believes that the most troubling aspect of Obama’s comments in his Cairo speech was his effort to equate the Nazi killing of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Israel’s struggle with the Palestinians over six decades and the suffering caused by the displacement of the Palestinians.
In his speech, President Obama addressed the issue of the Holocaust head-on, saying “Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today.”
But he quickly changed the subject, comparing Hitler’s genocide of the Jews to the Palestinian struggle.
“On the other hand,” Obama said, as he transitioned from the Holocaust to the modern Middle East, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
So, to Barack Obama, six million slaughtered Jews is morally equal to the Palestinian "suffering" experienced when Israel fought back against their terror. Let's put it this way - the only people who equate the two are hardcore leftists and hardcore anti-Semites, and in America they usually are an overlapping group.
So which catagory fits Obama? Try both. But I figured it out before the election; what's the excuse for the remaining 78% of my bretheren, many of whom easily claim to be so much brighter than I, based on our political affiliations?
Mitt Romney was on ABC last weekend, trying to point out the obvious:
During the campaign, when he spoke to AIPAC, he said he would do everything in his power to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. And then he went to Cairo and said that no single nation should have the ability to deny another nation the right to have a nuclear weapon. That is an 180-degree flip of a dangerous nature. I'm sure it was welcome in many streets in the Arab world and in the world that's most -- include the Persian world, Iran as well. But that's not right for America. That's not right for world security.
Well, after all Romney is a Republican. What does he know?
So what will the Jews do in 2010, 2012? Vote as if their lives depended on it, and look towards the right? Or will they make the same mistakes they did in 1930's Germany, when they assumed the Nazi party was just posturing to obtain power?
For a group so often thought to be among society's brightest, well....it turns out we Jews are just not all that smart after all....
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to move ahead with the nomination of Mary Smith to head the Justice Department’s Tax Division, over Republican objections that Smith lacks significant relevant experience.
At a committee meeting, three Republican senators spoke against Smith, noting that she has never held a job specializing in tax law. She has never written or spoken on tax issues, does not have a specialized degree, and has never taken a continuing legal education course in tax law, said the committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) called Smith the “worst choice” that President Barack Obama has made in all of his appointments....No Democrats spoke in defense of Smith before voting for her, though Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) noted that the committee has received letters supporting her nomination ....
So why would Barack Obama give young Mary a job like this? Maybe it's because the rest of her resume indicates she marches in goose-step with the presidents leftist ideology:
Ms. Smith has litigated in various state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, where she filed an amicus brief on behalf of several members of Congress in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action programs.
Ms. Smith served in the Clinton White House as Associate Counsel to the President and Associate Director of Policy Planning where she was responsible for a number of policy areas including domestic violence, equal pay, homelessness, transportation safety, food safety, Internet gambling, Native American issues, civil rights issues, and hate crimes.
Now it makes sense! For Obama, I mean, who is striving for ideological purity throughout the adminstration. Average Americans who might now be singled out for taxation crimes based on the color of their skin and their socio-economic class might be excused for questioning his wisdom.
Someone should; for it doesn't seem like anyone in his own party is willing to...
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The year is 1976. A grinning Jimmy Carter waits in America's wings, about to bring healing to a divided nation (hey! just like you-know-who!). And on a sunny spring day in Los Angeles, West Coast liberals are about to do their thing.
Or maybe not.
Reposted; original here (with expired video). Note the Carlos Delgado link...
Progressive: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
-making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
But why is it that these so-called "enlightened" states are in such social, moral, and fiscal disarry? Think California, New Jersey...think Michigan.
Michigan. Once a wealthy state, before the liberals and the unions took it over lock, stock, and barrel under the mantle of Progressive leadership (see definition above). And where does this type of leadership seem to take us? Forward, based on their name? Or backwards, based on their methods and results?
Presented without further comment:
Some Michigan counties have turned a few once-paved rural roads back to gravel to save money.
More than 20 of the state's 83 counties have reverted deteriorating paved roads to gravel in the last few years, according to the County Road Association of Michigan. The counties are struggling with their budgets because tax revenues have declined in the lingering recession.
Montcalm County converted nearly 10 miles of primary road to gravel this spring...Reverting to gravel has happened in a few other states but it is most typical in Michigan. At least 50 miles have been reverted in the state in the past three years.
What next, horse & buggy?
I don't think "progressive" means what these guys think it means. Unless, of course, Orwell was right....
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Overkill? No. Just this past Thursday, as embattled New York Democrats were fuming over their loss of control of the State Senate, they decided to call in ACORN to help them take back the power they lost legitimately:
On Thursday, some 150 protestors -- many of them from the thuggish far-left group ACORN -- turned up outside the Senate chamber and actually assaulted members of the Republican faction.
The demonstrators nearly knocked to the floor Sen. James Alesi (of upstate Monroe County); they also spat in the face of his chief of staff, according to published reports.
Not only was this violence uncalled for, the ACORN crowd shouldn't even have been there in the first place: The Senate lobby is a restricted area, and public protests are explicitly prohibited.
Sen. George Winner (R-Elmira) accused Senate Secretary Angelo Aponte -- the Malcolm Smith ally who earlier had locked the entire Senate out of the chambers -- of having "clearly sanctioned" the riot.
Malcom Smith, incidentally, was the deposed Democratic Majority leader. Although based on his use of ACORN, perhaps "Democrat" does not really derive from the word "democracy" after all.
One believes that Obama looks down upon this incident, and smiles. Perhaps you'll see Obama's ACORN this November, "guarding" a polling place near you...
Friday, June 12, 2009
And you thought yesterday's story about New Jersey taxpayers being forced to pony up dough to pay for the health care of the pets of welfare recipients was the bottom of the barrel? Well, get ready to keep digging, as today's act of liberal stupidity is a classic. It seems as if one financially prudent township learned a harsh lesson in...being financially prudent:
When Pemberton Borough School District officials proposed cutting the school tax rate, they were told by Corzine’s Department of Education that would be illegal.
The Philadelphia Inquirer said the $910,166 tax levy district officials proposed fell below the minimum required by Corzine’s new education funding law. Worse, the state said the town needs to raise an additional $93,744.
“This absolutely defies logic,” said Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego. “Only in Jon Corzine’s New Jersey is it illegal to cut taxes. Trenton is punishing this community for running a tight ship and cutting costs. It speaks volumes about what is wrong on State Street.” Added Assemblyman Scott Rudder, “It’s amazing, but sad how many different ways Governor Corzine can find to inflict pain on our hard-working families.”
I'm looking forward to Barack Obama campaigning with Jon Corzine, and having to defend that policy. May be a bit tricky, that. After all, laws against cutting taxes - while forcing townships to raise them - cannot all that easily be blamed on Corzine's gubernatorial opponent, who I understand is named George W. Bush.
Actually, if Obama is as smart as people keep telling me he is, he'll stay as far away from Jersey this campaign season as possible. The state is a harbinger of America's future under Obama policies; why invite the comparison? And why alighn yourself with a guy who, by all accounts, is a dead man walking?