The right thing to do is often the hard thing to do, and results are often down the road, leading those without strength or courage to take the easiest shortcut possible, no matter where it may lead in the end.
Chris Christie did the hard thing; he froze New Jersey's budget the minute he was sworn into office, despite the hue and cry raised by the unions and their Democratic lackeys in Trenton. So here we are, a mere five months down the road, and we begin to see the payoff already:
On the surface the news looked pretty grim for Garden State residents on Tuesday – thanks to an unanticipated drop in tax revenues of $402 million this year and $365 million next year. But a new budget hole of nearly $800 million is not going to give Gov. Christie a single new white hair. At least this time, the governor's message is "gotcha covered."
"We're very confident we've been able to close the additional budget gap in (fiscal year) 2010 and in (fiscal year) 2011 we're going to be able to solve that problem without any new taxes at all and without any real significant cuts," Christie said. Skipping the "fiscalese," what happened was the budget freeze imposed by Gov. Christie when he took office generated more savings than expected, enough to cover much of the lost tax money. "I think we're going to be fine," Christie said.
You know, when Christie says it, I actually believe it. Not like that other guy, who's always pleading "trust me", with a barely-disguised con man's smirk...
And speaking of cons, it looks like the union's stranglehold on New Jersey may be coming to an end, as 35,000 of them were shocked outside of Trenton last week to receive - instead of deference and fear - the Christie sneer, and even the back of the hand from the Democrats:
N.J. Gov. Chris Christie today shrugged off Saturday's record-breaking Statehouse protest, saying it had "absolutely no effect on me."The Republican governor said he hoped the 30,000 to 35,000 protesters "had a good time, and I hope that it helped to spur Trenton's economy."
The crowd, mostly from public worker unions and other progressive groups, flooded the capital on Saturday to rally against Christie's proposed budget cuts and property tax proposals. Speakers, including New Jersey Education Association president Barbara Keshishian, said the protest was also a warning to Democrats -- who have traditionally received backing from organized labor -- not to serve as Christie's "accomplices."
How well was that warning received by the Democrats?
Few Democrats -- who control both houses of the Legislature -- were in attendance on Saturday. ....Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), an ironworkers union official, said union leaders are doing their members a disservice through boisterous protests."Instead of showing the public that we're in it together, they're showing them that they still don't get it," Sweeney said Saturday. "
"We're not accomplices. If anything, we're trying to fix the state with him."Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) said ...Oliver, like Sweeney, did not attend the rally....
Chris Christie: Union-buster, tax-cutter, budget-balancer, and a man of such strength, courage and will that even top New Jersey Democrats are reluctantly taking up his banner and falling in line.
A image, we think, that will be repeated in 2010, and 2012....
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
New York Liberals Try To Disarm Cops
One of the great mysterious of our time is whether liberals try to implement insane ideas because to accept common sense would prove them to be...well, simply common..or because they are certifiably less intelligent than your average American citizen.
This story, out of New York, seems to strengthen the latter explanation:
An assemblywoman under fire for sponsoring a bill that asks cops to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arms and legs brushed off the outrage yesterday -- although she admitted she is no expert on police work.
Asked about her critics' contention that the proposed legislation will put police lives at risk, Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn) told The Post: "I understand that."
She insisted that cops use too much force, but acknowledged she is unqualified to assess the issue.
"Not being a police officer, I would not be able to discuss the instance or the time that happens, but I do know that it happens, most often in the communities that I represent, and it happens too often," she said.
The "shoot to wound" bill would require cops to aim for a suspect's arms or legs instead of their midsection, where wounds would more likely be fatal.
Robinson has the support of Assemblyman Darryl Towns (D-Brooklyn)...
State Senates are a bastion of liberalism and idiocy, and perhaps Exhibit A above should cease all argument. But what's interesting is that this is not the first time such an unrealistic law has been proposed in the State Senate. It was previously introduced in 2000 by a State Senator named...David Paterson. Yup, New York's current governor. Selected, not elected, but maybe we ought to keep an eye on these crackpots from State Senates that are on the ballot for higher office?
And speaking of which...didn't Barack Obama rise to the presidency just two years out of an Illinois State Senate gig? Come to think of it, doesn't Robinson's admission that she know nothing of police work, yet feels fully qualified to pass laws to regulate it, remind you of a certain president who feels free to comment on and legislation on a myriad of issues of which he is knowingly and proudly ignorant? Say, Arizona immigration law, for instance
Explains a lot, methinks. And it certainly makes any claims by the pundits that Obama is a "centrist" politician laughable, as does the supposition that he will move in that direction to save his presidency. He'll move to the center as quick as Annette Robinson will. That is to say, never.
And if they both have their way, honest and brave American citizens will die. Especially New York cops, who, while trying to aim at a palm sixty yards away during a shootout, will get their heads blown off by a criminal who has no such restrictions on his actions....
This story, out of New York, seems to strengthen the latter explanation:
An assemblywoman under fire for sponsoring a bill that asks cops to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arms and legs brushed off the outrage yesterday -- although she admitted she is no expert on police work.
Asked about her critics' contention that the proposed legislation will put police lives at risk, Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn) told The Post: "I understand that."
She insisted that cops use too much force, but acknowledged she is unqualified to assess the issue.
"Not being a police officer, I would not be able to discuss the instance or the time that happens, but I do know that it happens, most often in the communities that I represent, and it happens too often," she said.
The "shoot to wound" bill would require cops to aim for a suspect's arms or legs instead of their midsection, where wounds would more likely be fatal.
Robinson has the support of Assemblyman Darryl Towns (D-Brooklyn)...
State Senates are a bastion of liberalism and idiocy, and perhaps Exhibit A above should cease all argument. But what's interesting is that this is not the first time such an unrealistic law has been proposed in the State Senate. It was previously introduced in 2000 by a State Senator named...David Paterson. Yup, New York's current governor. Selected, not elected, but maybe we ought to keep an eye on these crackpots from State Senates that are on the ballot for higher office?
And speaking of which...didn't Barack Obama rise to the presidency just two years out of an Illinois State Senate gig? Come to think of it, doesn't Robinson's admission that she know nothing of police work, yet feels fully qualified to pass laws to regulate it, remind you of a certain president who feels free to comment on and legislation on a myriad of issues of which he is knowingly and proudly ignorant? Say, Arizona immigration law, for instance
Explains a lot, methinks. And it certainly makes any claims by the pundits that Obama is a "centrist" politician laughable, as does the supposition that he will move in that direction to save his presidency. He'll move to the center as quick as Annette Robinson will. That is to say, never.
And if they both have their way, honest and brave American citizens will die. Especially New York cops, who, while trying to aim at a palm sixty yards away during a shootout, will get their heads blown off by a criminal who has no such restrictions on his actions....
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Obama's Poll Numbers: Falling Like The Dow...
Well, not really. At 2P today the Dow is down 200 points, or 1.8%; Obama's personal stock is taking a much more serious beating. Rasmussen has his approval rating down to 42% today (and that's not "strongly approve", that's at least "somewhat approves"). That's against 56% who at least "somewhat disapproves", and 44% who "strongly disapprove". For the record, only 24% "strongly approve". That's a huge freakin' gap, my friends.
And over at the Campaign Spot, they talk about why it can only get...worse. Blame Barack's response to Arizona:
Unlike some previous dips, this dip will have lasting implications, because this issue is not going to go away. In fact I would say this issue has more staying power than healthcare because changes to healthcare will come relatively slowly (i.e. we can forget about it now); immigration reform is a hot issue with states passing their own laws in defiance of the lack of federal action. As the immigration debate continues, he could actually dip below 40 percent.
...Immigration or should I say ILLEGAL immigration debate has caught the attention of the country. The Arizona Law, even in the most liberal states, polls net positive. Nationally, the Arizona law polls 55%-33%-12%, which indicates that 62.5% with an opinion favor the new Law (55%/88%=62.5%). With a nation in extreme debt, the last thing the mainstream voter wants is a border policy which allows more people to drain on our already stressed public assistance services, this includes many who are drawing on those services, who are life long Democrats.
....The debate has “outed” Obama and Democrats in general. Even the most casual voter, now clearly understands that Obama’s priorities are not commensurate with defending the image of the country; real bad perception to be stuck with. I speak to you as one who is not crazy about the AZ Law, but one who clearly understands it I would not be surprised if Monday Night polling was under 40%.
That would surprise me, but like the boys on The Street say about stocks: Every time you think you've hit the bottom, think twice, because until you've hit zero, there is always further to fall.
How far has The One fallen? From 65% approving to 42% approving; that 23-point drop equates to a 36% drop in Obama's stock price in just over 16 months.
The question is, has he hit bottom yet? Based on the thoughts above, his stock still might have a way to travel yet until it gets there....I guess the more important question is if the "Obama stock" can rise to 51% by 2012. At this moment, it seems possible, even if not probable, to recover 7% or so of the public confidence.
But that's today. Remember - ObamaCo. may not yet even have begun to truly plunge. Come next week, that hill back to political sustainability may be an even steeper climb...
UPDATE: Does Barack Obama have a clue? The answer, sadly, is no:
Barack Obama praised the Phoenix Suns (Los Suns) for their Los Suns’ jersey protest during his NBA interview that is scheduled to air tonight....“It’s terrific that the Suns, who obviously feel very strongly about their community, recognize that a big part of their community felt threatened by this new law.”
If the "community" is Arizon voters, they favor the law by 71%. But why do I think that Obama isn't considering legal, law-abiding citizens when he is referring to Arizona's "community"?
"Under 40%" is looking real generous right now...
UPDATE II: Barack, are you reading my blog again? Looks like he got wise pretty fast:
President Obama has authorized the call-up of 1,200 National Guard troops to the US Mexico border, an administration official confirms, requesting $500 million in supplemental funds.
The enhanced border protection and law enforcement will, “provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border,” an administration official says.
It's an gesture, but empty, like all of Obama's. John McCain claims at least 6,000 troops are needed; even that figure seems light for a border as long as the one shared by Mexico & Arizona. Additionally, these are Guardsmen, not border patrol, so they are untrained in this type of "intercept" operation. And what are the "rules of engagement"? Should the Guard be fired upon, can they return fire? Knowing Barack, there is only one answer to that question...
Finally, note that despite the ABC headline claiming Obama to Deploy 1,200 National Guard Troops to the US-Mexico Border, the President doesn't formally deploy National Guard troops himself, what he can agree to do is pay their costs under Title 32 if requested by the state.
And since they were requested by a Democrat, well....I guess it beats actually talking to Governor Brewer, right? And just out of curiosity...did Obama ask for Mexican president Calderon's permission first?
A sham. And the American people will be on to it in about 15 seconds...
And over at the Campaign Spot, they talk about why it can only get...worse. Blame Barack's response to Arizona:
Unlike some previous dips, this dip will have lasting implications, because this issue is not going to go away. In fact I would say this issue has more staying power than healthcare because changes to healthcare will come relatively slowly (i.e. we can forget about it now); immigration reform is a hot issue with states passing their own laws in defiance of the lack of federal action. As the immigration debate continues, he could actually dip below 40 percent.
...Immigration or should I say ILLEGAL immigration debate has caught the attention of the country. The Arizona Law, even in the most liberal states, polls net positive. Nationally, the Arizona law polls 55%-33%-12%, which indicates that 62.5% with an opinion favor the new Law (55%/88%=62.5%). With a nation in extreme debt, the last thing the mainstream voter wants is a border policy which allows more people to drain on our already stressed public assistance services, this includes many who are drawing on those services, who are life long Democrats.
....The debate has “outed” Obama and Democrats in general. Even the most casual voter, now clearly understands that Obama’s priorities are not commensurate with defending the image of the country; real bad perception to be stuck with. I speak to you as one who is not crazy about the AZ Law, but one who clearly understands it I would not be surprised if Monday Night polling was under 40%.
That would surprise me, but like the boys on The Street say about stocks: Every time you think you've hit the bottom, think twice, because until you've hit zero, there is always further to fall.
How far has The One fallen? From 65% approving to 42% approving; that 23-point drop equates to a 36% drop in Obama's stock price in just over 16 months.
The question is, has he hit bottom yet? Based on the thoughts above, his stock still might have a way to travel yet until it gets there....I guess the more important question is if the "Obama stock" can rise to 51% by 2012. At this moment, it seems possible, even if not probable, to recover 7% or so of the public confidence.
But that's today. Remember - ObamaCo. may not yet even have begun to truly plunge. Come next week, that hill back to political sustainability may be an even steeper climb...
UPDATE: Does Barack Obama have a clue? The answer, sadly, is no:
Barack Obama praised the Phoenix Suns (Los Suns) for their Los Suns’ jersey protest during his NBA interview that is scheduled to air tonight....“It’s terrific that the Suns, who obviously feel very strongly about their community, recognize that a big part of their community felt threatened by this new law.”
If the "community" is Arizon voters, they favor the law by 71%. But why do I think that Obama isn't considering legal, law-abiding citizens when he is referring to Arizona's "community"?
"Under 40%" is looking real generous right now...
UPDATE II: Barack, are you reading my blog again? Looks like he got wise pretty fast:
President Obama has authorized the call-up of 1,200 National Guard troops to the US Mexico border, an administration official confirms, requesting $500 million in supplemental funds.
The enhanced border protection and law enforcement will, “provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border,” an administration official says.
It's an gesture, but empty, like all of Obama's. John McCain claims at least 6,000 troops are needed; even that figure seems light for a border as long as the one shared by Mexico & Arizona. Additionally, these are Guardsmen, not border patrol, so they are untrained in this type of "intercept" operation. And what are the "rules of engagement"? Should the Guard be fired upon, can they return fire? Knowing Barack, there is only one answer to that question...
Finally, note that despite the ABC headline claiming Obama to Deploy 1,200 National Guard Troops to the US-Mexico Border, the President doesn't formally deploy National Guard troops himself, what he can agree to do is pay their costs under Title 32 if requested by the state.
And since they were requested by a Democrat, well....I guess it beats actually talking to Governor Brewer, right? And just out of curiosity...did Obama ask for Mexican president Calderon's permission first?
A sham. And the American people will be on to it in about 15 seconds...
Gulf Coast Oil Spill Conspiracy: Muzzling the Media, and Finding a Scapegoat
As the oil slick spreads wider and shows no sign of abating, the Obama administration is panicking. What seemed like an easy way to revoke earlier initiatives on offshore drilling and direct more taxpayer dollars towards favored "green" emery alternatives is backfiring as the attention of the press and the people is now focused on Obama and his hand-picked geniuses.
Will the conspiracy fall apart? Not if the Obami can help it. The first step is to muzzle the press and prevent them from asking pesky questions. Via their Twitter feed:
That the WH called reporters into the press office privately today to criticize them for asking about BP over & over is disturbing 4:19 PM May 21st via web ~ WestWingReport
The second step is to find a scapegoat:
The oil mass continues moving west, and as the toxic sludge begins to make landfall in Terrebonne, Capt. Edwin Stanton, who heads up the Coast Guard's response, is taking blame. "The governor is right. It's too slow, and if it's anybody's fault, it's mine, for not pushing (BP) hard enough perhaps,” Stanton said.
Then, in an exchange with a reporter, he went further. Stanton: "It’s my job to direct this response in Louisiana.”
Reporter: “Why didn’t you do it?”
Stanton: “Well, the why -- is that really important?”
Reporter: “Yes sir, we live here.”
Stanton: “Well, I guess I'm just slow and dumb."
Stanton must follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief and fall on his sword, and like a good soldier he will do so, but you can almost hear the strain in his voice and see the tears in his eyes...
And finally, while the White House threatens the press and points decorated officers towards the plank, it gets down to the real business behind the scenes...looting even more money from the American taxpayer:
Congress is getting ready to quadruple to 32 cents a barrel a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade....
...from ordinary Americans, of course. And will the money be kept in an "oil spill kitty", or be used to fund the first welfare program that start to flail, like, say, Obamacare? Gee, that's a tough one...
Well, the conspiracy is falling apart, but if the press stays cowed, no one will be the wiser, and offshore drilling will become a think of the past in exchange for magic carpets and flying unicorns, and within the next few weeks, gasoline will skyrocket as Congress pockets the cash, leaving the average citizen even more strapped than he/she was before BP's rig mysteriously blew...
But the government will be in better shape, financially and ideologically, than they were previously. And really, wasn't that the only goal here? Obama is sweating this scam out, but he still can smell victory right around the corner...
Will the conspiracy fall apart? Not if the Obami can help it. The first step is to muzzle the press and prevent them from asking pesky questions. Via their Twitter feed:
That the WH called reporters into the press office privately today to criticize them for asking about BP over & over is disturbing 4:19 PM May 21st via web ~ WestWingReport
The second step is to find a scapegoat:
The oil mass continues moving west, and as the toxic sludge begins to make landfall in Terrebonne, Capt. Edwin Stanton, who heads up the Coast Guard's response, is taking blame. "The governor is right. It's too slow, and if it's anybody's fault, it's mine, for not pushing (BP) hard enough perhaps,” Stanton said.
Then, in an exchange with a reporter, he went further. Stanton: "It’s my job to direct this response in Louisiana.”
Reporter: “Why didn’t you do it?”
Stanton: “Well, the why -- is that really important?”
Reporter: “Yes sir, we live here.”
Stanton: “Well, I guess I'm just slow and dumb."
Stanton must follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief and fall on his sword, and like a good soldier he will do so, but you can almost hear the strain in his voice and see the tears in his eyes...
And finally, while the White House threatens the press and points decorated officers towards the plank, it gets down to the real business behind the scenes...looting even more money from the American taxpayer:
Congress is getting ready to quadruple to 32 cents a barrel a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade....
...from ordinary Americans, of course. And will the money be kept in an "oil spill kitty", or be used to fund the first welfare program that start to flail, like, say, Obamacare? Gee, that's a tough one...
Well, the conspiracy is falling apart, but if the press stays cowed, no one will be the wiser, and offshore drilling will become a think of the past in exchange for magic carpets and flying unicorns, and within the next few weeks, gasoline will skyrocket as Congress pockets the cash, leaving the average citizen even more strapped than he/she was before BP's rig mysteriously blew...
But the government will be in better shape, financially and ideologically, than they were previously. And really, wasn't that the only goal here? Obama is sweating this scam out, but he still can smell victory right around the corner...
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dirty Joe Sestak: Aiding and Abetting Criminal Acts?
Is offering a bribe to a politician to stay out of a race a criminal act? Yes (it's a felony, actually). Did someone in the White House offer Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak a job in the Obama Administration if he did not run in the primary against Arlen Specter? Yes, by Sestak's own admission. And will the honorable Mr. Sestak now report the person who offered him a bribe to the authorities, so that the case may be properly investigated and if necessary, prosecuted, as required by law?
No.
Via Politico:
Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.
The White House was backing incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary. Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law - but has not offered any specifics on conversation. Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race.
"It's interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it." Sestak said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That's their responsibility."
Yet Sestak confirmed to NBC's David Gregory that the incident did take place.
"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."
For others to talk about ? Really? Sestak is displaying the chutzpah of incumbency; with the voter's current mood, that's as dangerous as flashing your bling late at night in the bad, bad part of the 'hood.
If any of us "ordinary citizens" were privy to a felony - say, were offered to participate in a hold-up, or were offered the old "you-didn't-see-nothing" bribe, we would be obligated to report it. And while it would be admittedly difficult to prove such a conversation had taken place, once you had publicly admitted you were involved in (even on the periphery of) a potential felonious transaction, you would be legally obligated to provide the information to the authorities, lest you be charged with "aiding and abetting", or withholding information from the police.
But apparently Joe Sestak feels that the laws that apply to us "ordinary citizens" do not apply to Joe Sestak, or to the political class at all. A dangerous attitude in dangerous times; but can he get away with protecting felons in the White House in order to secure his election as Pennsylvania's next Senator?
Ask the press. Or maybe not. If a Democratic White House commits a felony involving the fixing of a public election for its favored candidate and the media decides to ignore it, does it make a sound?
In the past, it would not. In 2010, with an infuriated electorate raising the Gadsden flag, there will be nowhere for Sestak to hide; and the media will have to pursue this case or forever lay itself bare as mere handmaidens of the Democratic party.
...And wouldn't be ironic if the very "insurgent" campaign of Joe Sestak turned out to be the final nail in the Democrat's November 2010 coffin?
No.
Via Politico:
Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.
The White House was backing incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary. Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law - but has not offered any specifics on conversation. Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race.
"It's interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it." Sestak said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That's their responsibility."
Yet Sestak confirmed to NBC's David Gregory that the incident did take place.
"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."
For others to talk about ? Really? Sestak is displaying the chutzpah of incumbency; with the voter's current mood, that's as dangerous as flashing your bling late at night in the bad, bad part of the 'hood.
If any of us "ordinary citizens" were privy to a felony - say, were offered to participate in a hold-up, or were offered the old "you-didn't-see-nothing" bribe, we would be obligated to report it. And while it would be admittedly difficult to prove such a conversation had taken place, once you had publicly admitted you were involved in (even on the periphery of) a potential felonious transaction, you would be legally obligated to provide the information to the authorities, lest you be charged with "aiding and abetting", or withholding information from the police.
But apparently Joe Sestak feels that the laws that apply to us "ordinary citizens" do not apply to Joe Sestak, or to the political class at all. A dangerous attitude in dangerous times; but can he get away with protecting felons in the White House in order to secure his election as Pennsylvania's next Senator?
Ask the press. Or maybe not. If a Democratic White House commits a felony involving the fixing of a public election for its favored candidate and the media decides to ignore it, does it make a sound?
In the past, it would not. In 2010, with an infuriated electorate raising the Gadsden flag, there will be nowhere for Sestak to hide; and the media will have to pursue this case or forever lay itself bare as mere handmaidens of the Democratic party.
...And wouldn't be ironic if the very "insurgent" campaign of Joe Sestak turned out to be the final nail in the Democrat's November 2010 coffin?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
A Fitting Tribute To Sonia Sotomayor
Because, after a lifetime of her rulings combined with Obama's rape and pillaging of our nation's treasury, we will ALL live in housing like this:
The New York City Housing Authority said it will rename the Bronxdale Houses after its most famous former resident at a ceremony next month -- fueling speculation it will happen June 4, when Sotomayor is in town to give the Hostos College commencement address.
Last year, the Bronxdale Houses scored a 66 on a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development inspection -- six points away from a failing grade. The inspectors, who visited only 27 of the complex's 1,725 apartments, found rampant violations in the form of old appliances, damaged walls in need of fresh paint, missing smoke alarms and graffiti.
And how appropriate is it that the tenets were apparently overwhelming opposed to the name change, yet the government is moving ahead with it anyway? Remind you of a certain governing philosophy?
One resident, D. Mitchell, 66, said the push to change the name came from NYCHA itself -- not the tenants.
"They sent us out a survey, then sent people around to talk to us, asking us, 'Didn't we want the name changed?' " said Mitchell, who has lived in Bronxdale for 33 years. "I voted no, but it was clear they wanted it done, no matter what we thought. They asked us, but they'd already made up their minds."
And, in typical liberal fashion, it is all about appearances, and completely unrelated to..the reality of the residents of the soon-to-be Sotomayor Projects:
Even as the housing authority was surveying the tenants, residents noticed the sudden increase in maintenance workers pruning bushes, polishing floors and repainting fences and doorways, said Roberta McKinsey, 58.
"All this grass cutting and fence painting we've seen recently isn't a regular thing," said McKinsey, who also voted against the name change.
No, Mr. McKinsey, and don't get used to it. You're a prop, useful only for the moment, soon to forgotten and left in squalor.
The New York City Housing Authority said it will rename the Bronxdale Houses after its most famous former resident at a ceremony next month -- fueling speculation it will happen June 4, when Sotomayor is in town to give the Hostos College commencement address.
Last year, the Bronxdale Houses scored a 66 on a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development inspection -- six points away from a failing grade. The inspectors, who visited only 27 of the complex's 1,725 apartments, found rampant violations in the form of old appliances, damaged walls in need of fresh paint, missing smoke alarms and graffiti.
And how appropriate is it that the tenets were apparently overwhelming opposed to the name change, yet the government is moving ahead with it anyway? Remind you of a certain governing philosophy?
One resident, D. Mitchell, 66, said the push to change the name came from NYCHA itself -- not the tenants.
"They sent us out a survey, then sent people around to talk to us, asking us, 'Didn't we want the name changed?' " said Mitchell, who has lived in Bronxdale for 33 years. "I voted no, but it was clear they wanted it done, no matter what we thought. They asked us, but they'd already made up their minds."
And, in typical liberal fashion, it is all about appearances, and completely unrelated to..the reality of the residents of the soon-to-be Sotomayor Projects:
Even as the housing authority was surveying the tenants, residents noticed the sudden increase in maintenance workers pruning bushes, polishing floors and repainting fences and doorways, said Roberta McKinsey, 58.
"All this grass cutting and fence painting we've seen recently isn't a regular thing," said McKinsey, who also voted against the name change.
No, Mr. McKinsey, and don't get used to it. You're a prop, useful only for the moment, soon to forgotten and left in squalor.
And life goes on in the Sotomayor Projects...maybe Sonia and some of her left-wing useful idiots should move there for a while, you know, to enjoy the fruits of their policies....
Djou Plants The Flag In Obama's Hometown...
...and even from the great distance of New Jersey, it looks like a Gadsden flag....
But I am sure this is not a harbinger of things to come in November, because the only referendum elections are the ones Democrats win. PA#12, for instance, is a bold indicator of the Democrat's strength, despite the fact that their candidate grossly underperformed in a district that is 62% Democratic. But the victory by Republican Charles Djou, who just won a Democratic-held House seat (for 20 years) in Hawaii in the district where President Obama grew up is meaningless, utterly meaningless.
Sure it is:
Djou's victory was a blow to Obama and other Democrats who could not rally around a candidate and find away to win a congressional race that should have been a cakewalk. The seat had been held by a Democrat for nearly 20 years and is located where Obama was born and spent most of his childhood.
"This is a momentous day. We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the national Democrats. We have sent a message to the machine," Djou said. "The congressional seat is not owned by one political party. This congressional seat is owned by the people."
Djou, 39, enjoyed solid support from state and national Republicans and ran a disciplined campaign focused on taxes and government spending at a time when Hawaii's tourism-driven economy remains troubled, with the state facing a $1 billion deficit, large cuts to state programs and workers and an unemployment rate that has nearly doubled in the last three years.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle said Djou's victory indicated that voters "are looking for people who aren't tied to special interests."
He burnished his conservative bona fides during the campaign, making appearances at Hawaii's tea party protest and on Fox News Channel for an interview with host Sean Hannity.
His message was clear: Taxes are too high, the federal government has grown too large, and wasteful government spending hinders economic prosperity.
Djou will face a challenge in November, as he won 40% of the vote to the remaining 60% that split between the Democratic candidates. But the incumbent always has the edge, and if the Republicans are smart, they'll give Djou the spotlight now and again, to burnish his importance and let the Hawaiians know their man is a player.
It's incredible, actually - first Djou stakes his claim to Obama's hometown, next it will be Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois taking Obama's Senate seat. It is unprecedented; no leader has ever seen his hometown and his virtual capital - the original seat of his rise to power - turn against him (so quickly), and survive.
And the Obami will continue to retreat and dig deeper into their Washington bunker, continuing to wield what power they have, issuing directives and orders while a compliant media ignores the encroaching citizen army and screeches that...well, you've seen it all before:
But I am sure this is not a harbinger of things to come in November, because the only referendum elections are the ones Democrats win. PA#12, for instance, is a bold indicator of the Democrat's strength, despite the fact that their candidate grossly underperformed in a district that is 62% Democratic. But the victory by Republican Charles Djou, who just won a Democratic-held House seat (for 20 years) in Hawaii in the district where President Obama grew up is meaningless, utterly meaningless.
Sure it is:
Djou's victory was a blow to Obama and other Democrats who could not rally around a candidate and find away to win a congressional race that should have been a cakewalk. The seat had been held by a Democrat for nearly 20 years and is located where Obama was born and spent most of his childhood.
"This is a momentous day. We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the national Democrats. We have sent a message to the machine," Djou said. "The congressional seat is not owned by one political party. This congressional seat is owned by the people."
Djou, 39, enjoyed solid support from state and national Republicans and ran a disciplined campaign focused on taxes and government spending at a time when Hawaii's tourism-driven economy remains troubled, with the state facing a $1 billion deficit, large cuts to state programs and workers and an unemployment rate that has nearly doubled in the last three years.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle said Djou's victory indicated that voters "are looking for people who aren't tied to special interests."
He burnished his conservative bona fides during the campaign, making appearances at Hawaii's tea party protest and on Fox News Channel for an interview with host Sean Hannity.
His message was clear: Taxes are too high, the federal government has grown too large, and wasteful government spending hinders economic prosperity.
Djou will face a challenge in November, as he won 40% of the vote to the remaining 60% that split between the Democratic candidates. But the incumbent always has the edge, and if the Republicans are smart, they'll give Djou the spotlight now and again, to burnish his importance and let the Hawaiians know their man is a player.
It's incredible, actually - first Djou stakes his claim to Obama's hometown, next it will be Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois taking Obama's Senate seat. It is unprecedented; no leader has ever seen his hometown and his virtual capital - the original seat of his rise to power - turn against him (so quickly), and survive.
And the Obami will continue to retreat and dig deeper into their Washington bunker, continuing to wield what power they have, issuing directives and orders while a compliant media ignores the encroaching citizen army and screeches that...well, you've seen it all before:
Friday, May 21, 2010
Video: Chris Christie Vetoes Tax Hike With A Sneer !
It's a beautiful thing...Democrats in the New Jersey State Senate walk over a just-passed "millionaire's tax" (which starts at $400K; typical liberal mathematics) and Chris Christie shoots it down with a smirk
It took about two minutes from the time Senate President Steve Sweeney certified the passage of the millionaires tax package for Gov. Chris Christie to veto the bills at his desk...
The fun starts at the 1:20 mark, as the pompous Democratic leader walks a multi-culti posse down to the governor's office. Christie, playing true to form, is waiting, takes the bill, and promptly vetoes it:
"What took you so long ?" asked Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak.
Christie sat at a wooden desk emblazoned with the seal of the state of New Jersey and swiftly signed vetoes.
"We'll be back, governor," said Sweeney.
"Alright, we'll see," said Christie.
At the 2:00 minute mark, Christie explains why simply "taxing the rich" is failed policy - with all the simplicity and logic of a former prosecuter - though I doubt that will sway Democratic demagogues from the ideological tax-hiking fervor:
Save us, Chris Christie...you're our only hope...
It took about two minutes from the time Senate President Steve Sweeney certified the passage of the millionaires tax package for Gov. Chris Christie to veto the bills at his desk...
The fun starts at the 1:20 mark, as the pompous Democratic leader walks a multi-culti posse down to the governor's office. Christie, playing true to form, is waiting, takes the bill, and promptly vetoes it:
"What took you so long ?" asked Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak.
Christie sat at a wooden desk emblazoned with the seal of the state of New Jersey and swiftly signed vetoes.
"We'll be back, governor," said Sweeney.
"Alright, we'll see," said Christie.
At the 2:00 minute mark, Christie explains why simply "taxing the rich" is failed policy - with all the simplicity and logic of a former prosecuter - though I doubt that will sway Democratic demagogues from the ideological tax-hiking fervor:
| 'Millionaires tax' bills pass both houses, but is vetoed by Gov. Christie |
Save us, Chris Christie...you're our only hope...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Democrats Have Hit Their High-Water Mark...
...right around...now.
There. It's gone.
So Pelosi is crowing about a lock on the House, and Gibbs is sneering that PA#12 was a race the Republicans "had to win".
Really. And what would Robert had been saying had Burns won? Nothing of the sort, to be sure...
Look - PA#12 is a case where the Democrat tried to run to the right of the Republican, and saturated the airways with false accusations of "tax-hikes", only to withdraw his claims with a whisper and a chuckle. Even so, Mark Critz underperformed the 62% Democratic registration of the district significantly.
Is this Pelosi's plan to keep the House? To have her people run against her, and all of her legislation, then cheerfully vote for her as Speaker once elected? I wouldn't put it past the party whose leader lies every time he moves his lips; but I don't think they can pull off a PA#12 scam on a nationwide level. Especially in districts where they don't have a 62%-31% voter advantage...
Actually, there is very little up ahead that looks to be positive for the Democrats. Rand Paul, soon to be painted as a racist teabagger, is up 25 points on his Democratic opponent (how are those smears going to stand up come November?). And Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, after defeating Arlen Specter and getting huge national media attention, has opened up a whopping...four point lead on Republican Pat Toomey, who has spent the better part of the last 60 days sitting back and watching. The margin of error in that poll? 4.5%. I'm just saying...
Wait until Charles Djou is announced as the winner in Obama's boyhood Honolulu district, despite the concerted effort of every Democrat in Hawaii to defeat him. That will be the first lapping of the tide....
Here are some other storm clouds on the immediate horizon that seem to bear ill winds for the Democrats:
Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months
Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.
The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.
"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets...
And how's that stock market? As of 2PM:
Stocks tumble as euro drops, jobless claims rise
The Dow Jones industrial average fell about 230 points in early afternoon and all the major indexes were down more than 2 percent. Meanwhile, interest rates fell sharply in the Treasury market as investors once again sought the safety of U.S. government debt.
With Thursday's drop, the Standard & Poor's 500 is down more than 10 percent from its 2010 trading high last month.
And if you think that's scary, check this out, from Business Insider:
Richard Russell, the famous writer of the Dow Theory Letters, has a chilling line in today's note:
Do your friends a favor. Tell them to "batten down the hatches" because there's a HARD RAIN coming. Tell them to get out of debt and sell anything they can sell (and don't need) in order to get liquid. Tell them that Richard Russell says that by the end of this year they won't recognize the country. They'll retort, "How the dickens does Russell know -- who told him?" Tell them the stock market told him.
Clearly something is wrong. But what could it be? Much as I love Barron's, I trust the stock market more. If I read the stock market correctly, it's telling me that there is a surprise ahead. And that surprise will be a reversal to the downside for the economy, plus a collection of other troubles ahead....
Gee, how will the Democrats run away from that record? They can't, of course, which is why the success of PA#12 will not be duplicated. Which is why - for the Democrats, and unfortunately, for most of the country - it is all about to go downhill. Fast.
Enjoy your high-water mark, Lefties. By the time the American people are done with you, you won't see it again for a generation...
There. It's gone.
So Pelosi is crowing about a lock on the House, and Gibbs is sneering that PA#12 was a race the Republicans "had to win".
Really. And what would Robert had been saying had Burns won? Nothing of the sort, to be sure...
Look - PA#12 is a case where the Democrat tried to run to the right of the Republican, and saturated the airways with false accusations of "tax-hikes", only to withdraw his claims with a whisper and a chuckle. Even so, Mark Critz underperformed the 62% Democratic registration of the district significantly.
Is this Pelosi's plan to keep the House? To have her people run against her, and all of her legislation, then cheerfully vote for her as Speaker once elected? I wouldn't put it past the party whose leader lies every time he moves his lips; but I don't think they can pull off a PA#12 scam on a nationwide level. Especially in districts where they don't have a 62%-31% voter advantage...
Actually, there is very little up ahead that looks to be positive for the Democrats. Rand Paul, soon to be painted as a racist teabagger, is up 25 points on his Democratic opponent (how are those smears going to stand up come November?). And Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, after defeating Arlen Specter and getting huge national media attention, has opened up a whopping...four point lead on Republican Pat Toomey, who has spent the better part of the last 60 days sitting back and watching. The margin of error in that poll? 4.5%. I'm just saying...
Wait until Charles Djou is announced as the winner in Obama's boyhood Honolulu district, despite the concerted effort of every Democrat in Hawaii to defeat him. That will be the first lapping of the tide....
Here are some other storm clouds on the immediate horizon that seem to bear ill winds for the Democrats:
Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months
Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.
The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.
"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets...
And how's that stock market? As of 2PM:
Stocks tumble as euro drops, jobless claims rise
The Dow Jones industrial average fell about 230 points in early afternoon and all the major indexes were down more than 2 percent. Meanwhile, interest rates fell sharply in the Treasury market as investors once again sought the safety of U.S. government debt.
With Thursday's drop, the Standard & Poor's 500 is down more than 10 percent from its 2010 trading high last month.
And if you think that's scary, check this out, from Business Insider:
Richard Russell, the famous writer of the Dow Theory Letters, has a chilling line in today's note:
Do your friends a favor. Tell them to "batten down the hatches" because there's a HARD RAIN coming. Tell them to get out of debt and sell anything they can sell (and don't need) in order to get liquid. Tell them that Richard Russell says that by the end of this year they won't recognize the country. They'll retort, "How the dickens does Russell know -- who told him?" Tell them the stock market told him.
Clearly something is wrong. But what could it be? Much as I love Barron's, I trust the stock market more. If I read the stock market correctly, it's telling me that there is a surprise ahead. And that surprise will be a reversal to the downside for the economy, plus a collection of other troubles ahead....
Gee, how will the Democrats run away from that record? They can't, of course, which is why the success of PA#12 will not be duplicated. Which is why - for the Democrats, and unfortunately, for most of the country - it is all about to go downhill. Fast.
Enjoy your high-water mark, Lefties. By the time the American people are done with you, you won't see it again for a generation...
Barack Obama's Oil-Spill Photo Op: Epic Fail
We wrote here last week about Obama's pathetic trip to the Louisiana coastline - all part of his role in the great Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy:
The president was also seen taking off for a disaster scene tour in a chopper. But winds were such and the threat of fog possible that the president only saw the ordinary Louisiana coast.
After all that travel, logistics and talk, he never spotted one drop of oil.
Aides were quick to describe how useful the tour was for Obama to see something for himself...Local officials were quoted as appreciative of his presence which, truth be told, did absolutely nothing to stop the oil, advance the recovery or mitigate any damage beyond that potentially to the president's image if he hadn't gone.
Tim Blair has some more info on the president's ill-fated attempt for the ultimate environmental photo-op:
Barack Obama's media advisers were quite distressed when the President travelled down to the Louisiana coastline last week to make his first on-the-spot statement about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Their distress was caused by what they didn't discover, rather than what they did. Despite their frantic requests, no photogenic dying oil-covered birds could be found to form a backdrop for the Presidential tirade as he weighed into BP.
Maybe it's because...this is not quite the environmental disaster that Obama desperately wants it to be?
Yes, there will be ecological damage caused by the 5,000 barrels of oil a day which has been spewing from the stricken rig. Yet this is not much more than the natural oil seepage which occurs spontaneously in the petroliferous Gulf of Mexico, and has done for millennia.
Obviously, that is much more widely dispersed and is absorbed naturally by microbes which have evolved precisely to perform that function; but that will continue to happen for yet more millennia – by contrast, the leak from Deepwater Horizon will very soon be capped.
But those dirty birds do exist, BTW - via the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries:
To date, 21 birds have been processed through Fort Jackson, including an oiled brown pelican discovered by LDWF biologists yesterday. Two birds are currently alive and being treated, and 15 birds died after admittance, were dead on arrival or had to be euthanized.”
Even the mainstream media is beginning to get wise here:
As for that huge lump of land between New Orleans and the Gulf where most of the oil is hitting, it’s pretty much devoid of population. I flew over it once on the way back from El Salvador. It’s just a giant mud flat. So if the oil lands there, here’s what you’ll get: oily mud. That’s only slightly worse than muddy mud.
Sorry, Barack, you tried - but I don't think a dozen +3 dead birds is going to be quite enough to convince America that we must abandoned offshore oil drilling in favor of windmills, solar panels, winged horses, and magic carpets.
Next time, Baracky, before you blow up an oil rig in order to advance your bizarre policies, make sure you transport a planeload of goo to the nearest beach. To paraphrase the Zen masters - if a manufactured crisis cannot be coupled with a manufactured photo op, does it make a sound?
The president was also seen taking off for a disaster scene tour in a chopper. But winds were such and the threat of fog possible that the president only saw the ordinary Louisiana coast.
After all that travel, logistics and talk, he never spotted one drop of oil.
Aides were quick to describe how useful the tour was for Obama to see something for himself...Local officials were quoted as appreciative of his presence which, truth be told, did absolutely nothing to stop the oil, advance the recovery or mitigate any damage beyond that potentially to the president's image if he hadn't gone.
Tim Blair has some more info on the president's ill-fated attempt for the ultimate environmental photo-op:
Barack Obama's media advisers were quite distressed when the President travelled down to the Louisiana coastline last week to make his first on-the-spot statement about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Their distress was caused by what they didn't discover, rather than what they did. Despite their frantic requests, no photogenic dying oil-covered birds could be found to form a backdrop for the Presidential tirade as he weighed into BP.
Maybe it's because...this is not quite the environmental disaster that Obama desperately wants it to be?
Yes, there will be ecological damage caused by the 5,000 barrels of oil a day which has been spewing from the stricken rig. Yet this is not much more than the natural oil seepage which occurs spontaneously in the petroliferous Gulf of Mexico, and has done for millennia.
Obviously, that is much more widely dispersed and is absorbed naturally by microbes which have evolved precisely to perform that function; but that will continue to happen for yet more millennia – by contrast, the leak from Deepwater Horizon will very soon be capped.
But those dirty birds do exist, BTW - via the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries:
To date, 21 birds have been processed through Fort Jackson, including an oiled brown pelican discovered by LDWF biologists yesterday. Two birds are currently alive and being treated, and 15 birds died after admittance, were dead on arrival or had to be euthanized.”
Even the mainstream media is beginning to get wise here:
As for that huge lump of land between New Orleans and the Gulf where most of the oil is hitting, it’s pretty much devoid of population. I flew over it once on the way back from El Salvador. It’s just a giant mud flat. So if the oil lands there, here’s what you’ll get: oily mud. That’s only slightly worse than muddy mud.
Sorry, Barack, you tried - but I don't think a dozen +3 dead birds is going to be quite enough to convince America that we must abandoned offshore oil drilling in favor of windmills, solar panels, winged horses, and magic carpets.
Next time, Baracky, before you blow up an oil rig in order to advance your bizarre policies, make sure you transport a planeload of goo to the nearest beach. To paraphrase the Zen masters - if a manufactured crisis cannot be coupled with a manufactured photo op, does it make a sound?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Chris Christie and the "Broken Wndows" theory of governance
"If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge."
Rudy Giuliani adopted the Broken Windows Theory and implemented a community-policing strategy focused on order maintenance… graffiti washed nightly from subway cars, $1.25 subway turnstile-jumpers arrested, trash picked up. Minor, seemingly insignificant quality-of-life crimes were found to be the tipping point for violent crime. When New York "windows" were repaired, crime dropped.
And now Chris Christie, the best governor in the United States of America, is applying the "Broken Windows" theorem to the area of state spending:
Saying “This is just the sort of spending that needs scrutiny and explanation,” Gov. Christie vetoed the minutes of the April 26 meeting of the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Authority. The governor’s concern is a $1.3 million land purchase in Pleasantville. The price for two properties was $165,000 more than the appraised value.
“Before the funds are released, those premiums above appraised value must be justified. This is the kind of accountability we and the taxpayers of New Jersey should reasonably expect.”
That’s a relatively small sum considering the millions usually wasted by state government but it puts entities on notice somebody is watching. It marks the ninth time Christie has vetoed minutes of authorities and commissions since he took office Jan. 19.
And across New Jersey, the crooked politicians shake as one and whisper, "If you can't get away with a little six-figure padding, how the heck are we gonna get away with our run-of-the-mill 7 to 8 figure padding?"
When the petty vandals in NYC realized that someone was watching them, and there would be real time to pay, they put away their spray-paint cans and found something productive to do. Now that the public payroll thieves in New Jersey are on notice that every penny is being accounted for, they're going to have to find another state in which to ply their scams.
As we say in the Garden State, "Don't f*ck with the Fat Man..."
Rudy Giuliani adopted the Broken Windows Theory and implemented a community-policing strategy focused on order maintenance… graffiti washed nightly from subway cars, $1.25 subway turnstile-jumpers arrested, trash picked up. Minor, seemingly insignificant quality-of-life crimes were found to be the tipping point for violent crime. When New York "windows" were repaired, crime dropped.
And now Chris Christie, the best governor in the United States of America, is applying the "Broken Windows" theorem to the area of state spending:
Saying “This is just the sort of spending that needs scrutiny and explanation,” Gov. Christie vetoed the minutes of the April 26 meeting of the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Authority. The governor’s concern is a $1.3 million land purchase in Pleasantville. The price for two properties was $165,000 more than the appraised value.
“Before the funds are released, those premiums above appraised value must be justified. This is the kind of accountability we and the taxpayers of New Jersey should reasonably expect.”
That’s a relatively small sum considering the millions usually wasted by state government but it puts entities on notice somebody is watching. It marks the ninth time Christie has vetoed minutes of authorities and commissions since he took office Jan. 19.
And across New Jersey, the crooked politicians shake as one and whisper, "If you can't get away with a little six-figure padding, how the heck are we gonna get away with our run-of-the-mill 7 to 8 figure padding?"
When the petty vandals in NYC realized that someone was watching them, and there would be real time to pay, they put away their spray-paint cans and found something productive to do. Now that the public payroll thieves in New Jersey are on notice that every penny is being accounted for, they're going to have to find another state in which to ply their scams.
As we say in the Garden State, "Don't f*ck with the Fat Man..."
PA12 - A Post-Mortem On Tim Burns And A Lost Race
Not a good night for conservatives as Tim Burns handily lost his bid for John Murtha's seat in PA-12. And although moral victories count for nothing as far as shaping legislation is concerned, this is not a Titanic-esque disaster. Some points to ponder:
- Democrat Mark Critz defeated Burns 53% to 44%. A convincing win, to be sure. But in a district where registered Democrats comprise 62% of the electorate against a 31% Republican registration, Burns was able to get a fairly large amount of Democrats to cross over to his side. And that's encouraging, considering that...
-their was a huge Democratic Senatorial primary that was the focus of the state's voters (with Sestak beating Specter by a similar margin to the one shown above) and generated tremendous enthusiasm among the pary faithful. And yet, based on the registered voters in PA-12, many of these Democrats voted for Sestak, then switched parties down the line to vote for Burns.
-Finally, let's not forget that Critz was not running as a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat". Critz ran his campaign as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who was opposed to the health care bill and the cap-and-trade legislation. It seems as if many conservative Democrats did not feel the need to flip as they believed their concerns would be properly addressed by Critz, while allowing them to maintain their party loyalty.
We'll see. Critz now has to vote these principles, and a rookie congressman is nowhere in the House without the support of the leadership; let's see how easy it is for Representative Critz to defy Nancy Pelosi and Sten Hoyer now that he needs them, especially with his promise to continue bringing back the lard-dripping pork to the addicts of his district.
In November, these two will face off again. This time, Critz will have to run on a record and a list of promises made and broken. It might not be that easy for Mark the second time around...
FINAL THOUGHT: If anyone thought (especially establishment Republicans) that we would be able to sit back and re-take the House, this should serve as a wake up call. We ain't gonna win them all, and we are going to have to fight long and hard for every single seat, even a few that we already own. Hopefully this loss will still provide us with some lessons we can learn from, and apply to the big battles ahead...
- Democrat Mark Critz defeated Burns 53% to 44%. A convincing win, to be sure. But in a district where registered Democrats comprise 62% of the electorate against a 31% Republican registration, Burns was able to get a fairly large amount of Democrats to cross over to his side. And that's encouraging, considering that...
-their was a huge Democratic Senatorial primary that was the focus of the state's voters (with Sestak beating Specter by a similar margin to the one shown above) and generated tremendous enthusiasm among the pary faithful. And yet, based on the registered voters in PA-12, many of these Democrats voted for Sestak, then switched parties down the line to vote for Burns.
-Finally, let's not forget that Critz was not running as a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat". Critz ran his campaign as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who was opposed to the health care bill and the cap-and-trade legislation. It seems as if many conservative Democrats did not feel the need to flip as they believed their concerns would be properly addressed by Critz, while allowing them to maintain their party loyalty.
We'll see. Critz now has to vote these principles, and a rookie congressman is nowhere in the House without the support of the leadership; let's see how easy it is for Representative Critz to defy Nancy Pelosi and Sten Hoyer now that he needs them, especially with his promise to continue bringing back the lard-dripping pork to the addicts of his district.
In November, these two will face off again. This time, Critz will have to run on a record and a list of promises made and broken. It might not be that easy for Mark the second time around...
FINAL THOUGHT: If anyone thought (especially establishment Republicans) that we would be able to sit back and re-take the House, this should serve as a wake up call. We ain't gonna win them all, and we are going to have to fight long and hard for every single seat, even a few that we already own. Hopefully this loss will still provide us with some lessons we can learn from, and apply to the big battles ahead...
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Linda McMahon Puts A Sleeper Hold On Richard Blumenthal
Blumenthal should have known better, and even Republican Rob Simmons ought to look out: In the WWE universe, the McMahons are always the bad guys. And the same way a "face" wrestler should never turn his back on the "heel" (especially if he is picking up a folding chair), nobody on either side of the Republican Senatorial battle should turn their backs on Linda McMahon. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s campaign for the United States Senate has been holed below the waterline by a devastating New York Times expose of Blumenthal’s false claims to have served in Vietnam. The 
piece, fed to the paper by the Linda McMahon Seante campaign, is accompanied by a chilling 2008 video of Blumenthal blithely making the false claim.
piece, fed to the paper by the Linda McMahon Seante campaign, is accompanied by a chilling 2008 video of Blumenthal blithely making the false claim. The Blumenthal Bombshell comes at the end of more than 2 months of deep, persistent research by Republican Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign. It gave the explosive Norwalk video recording to The Times. This is what comes of $16 million, a crack opposition research operation and an opponent who...gave them the sword.
But just because the heel knocks out the champ doesn't mean that he assumes the belt. No, in the McMahon's family business it is usually just the start of a power struggle, fought inside and outside the ring, to position oneself favorably and gain the advantages necessary to make final victory all the more likely.
So Linda's not done throwing chairs. She's getting ready for the next round against Rob Simmons, her strongest primary opponent, who has already grabbed the microphone and begun trash-talking on Mrs. WWE:
"....it’s matched in some respects by Mrs. McMahon who brought the charge -- when just a few months ago it was disclosed that she did not tell the truth about her college education and her degree -- which is again something everybody should realy know," Simmons said, referring to a Hartford Courant report that McMahon claimed on documents filed with her appointment to the State Board of Education that she had a degree in education, when her degree was in French.
A pretty light punch, Rob. If you are going in against a heavyweight like McMahon, you'd better come up with something better, especially if you are looking to overcome her daunting lead in the polls...
Like a breakaway table, some aluminum ladders, or a pretty girl to distract the referee while you deliver some cheap shots....
It's Raining On The Democrats in Pennsylvania
On the ground on Referendum Day:
I don't think you'll need to wait real long to drink your anti-Arlen champagne. The weather in Philadelphia is terrible- a wind-driven rain, expected to continue all day. I don't think the African- American community is invested in Arlen, and I don't think the Democratic machine foot workers care enough to drive a big turnout. Sestak wins by 6 to 9 percentage points.
Wouldn't surprise me either. But how's the weather in Johnstown-Altoona? That's where the Burns v. Critz battle is being fought; Critz's biggest advantage was the increased interest in the Sestak v. Specter battle. and the additional Democratic turnout it would create. Without the turnout, well....
Let's face it: Liberals are interested in primaries as long as they don't have to walk in the rain, or wait for a bus in it. Republicans ford the floods and get to the polling places in their SUVs, regardless.
I'm going to up the ante and say...Burns by +2! And Arlen is crispy toast, burnt by his decision to blow with a short-lived wind...
I don't think you'll need to wait real long to drink your anti-Arlen champagne. The weather in Philadelphia is terrible- a wind-driven rain, expected to continue all day. I don't think the African- American community is invested in Arlen, and I don't think the Democratic machine foot workers care enough to drive a big turnout. Sestak wins by 6 to 9 percentage points.
Wouldn't surprise me either. But how's the weather in Johnstown-Altoona? That's where the Burns v. Critz battle is being fought; Critz's biggest advantage was the increased interest in the Sestak v. Specter battle. and the additional Democratic turnout it would create. Without the turnout, well....
Let's face it: Liberals are interested in primaries as long as they don't have to walk in the rain, or wait for a bus in it. Republicans ford the floods and get to the polling places in their SUVs, regardless.
I'm going to up the ante and say...Burns by +2! And Arlen is crispy toast, burnt by his decision to blow with a short-lived wind...
Referendum Day
Yeah, I know, it's only a "referendum election" when the Democrats win. But for the 99% outside of the media bubble, today will be an interesting day, especially if you are watching these 2-3 races:
Pennsylvania’s 12th District Special House Election: Republican Tim Burns v. Democrat Mark "Murtha" Critz: A solid democratic district who has swallowed drums full of taxpayer pork of the years, a repudiation of Critz -who promises to keep the lard flowing - will say less about Obama's coat-tails and more about the willingness of the average American to steal from his neighbor, and incur bills that they know are rapidly coming due. Should Burns win (and we say yes, but only by +1, as the Senatorial primary in Pennsylvania will bring out extra Dems), it cannot be spun as anything save for a rejection of tax and spend policies, and as a foreshadowing of Republican voter engagement.
Pennsylvania Senate primary, Democrats: Joe Sestak vs. Arlen Specter: Will Sestak's upstart win over the ultimate opportunist, the incumbent insider Specter, be considered as evidence that the Democratic party has become "unglued"? No, that's only when Republicans toss incumbents!
Also file in this category the Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary between embattled incumbent Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter. Should Lincoln lose (unlikely, but it may be close), will this be a referendum on Obama's policies, since Lincoln has at least expressed token opposition? You betcha! Will it show the Democratic party as becoming "unglued"? Why, not at all!
Watch the spin to look for the win. Right now, the media is saying that these contests (like the ones on Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) mean nothing. In other words - they mean everything to a weakened incumbent and flailing administration.
It's gonna be an interesting day, all right...
Pennsylvania’s 12th District Special House Election: Republican Tim Burns v. Democrat Mark "Murtha" Critz: A solid democratic district who has swallowed drums full of taxpayer pork of the years, a repudiation of Critz -who promises to keep the lard flowing - will say less about Obama's coat-tails and more about the willingness of the average American to steal from his neighbor, and incur bills that they know are rapidly coming due. Should Burns win (and we say yes, but only by +1, as the Senatorial primary in Pennsylvania will bring out extra Dems), it cannot be spun as anything save for a rejection of tax and spend policies, and as a foreshadowing of Republican voter engagement.
Pennsylvania Senate primary, Democrats: Joe Sestak vs. Arlen Specter: Will Sestak's upstart win over the ultimate opportunist, the incumbent insider Specter, be considered as evidence that the Democratic party has become "unglued"? No, that's only when Republicans toss incumbents!
Also file in this category the Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary between embattled incumbent Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter. Should Lincoln lose (unlikely, but it may be close), will this be a referendum on Obama's policies, since Lincoln has at least expressed token opposition? You betcha! Will it show the Democratic party as becoming "unglued"? Why, not at all!
Watch the spin to look for the win. Right now, the media is saying that these contests (like the ones on Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) mean nothing. In other words - they mean everything to a weakened incumbent and flailing administration.
It's gonna be an interesting day, all right...
Monday, May 17, 2010
Noam Chomsky Denied Entry To Israel
Oh, what a shame:
Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday.
...the Interior Ministry later said immigration officials at the Allenby Bridge border crossing from Jordan had misunderstood Chomsky's intentions thinking initially he was also due to visit Israel.
Chomsky, who is on a speaking tour in the region, was scheduled to speak at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank on Monday.
Personally, I think he should have been OK'd for entry into Israel, and denied entry into the West Bank. Chomsky is there to incite the Palestinians to violence under the guise of intellectualism; to validate their views that all of their problems are someone else's fault (the Israeli/American axis of evil, of course), and to grandstand for himself as well.
Now let's take a break for some classic hypocriscy:
His Palestinian host, lawmaker Mustafa al-Barghouti called the decision "a fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression."
Like there is so much freedom of expression in Gaza and the West Bank, where a man can get a death sentence just for selling a parcel of land to a Jew....
I agree witht he Israeli minister quoted below, who wants to see Chomsky live the life he extolls:
Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, on the other hand, praised the move."It's good that Israel did not allow one of its accusers to enter its territory," said Schneller. "I recommend [Chomsky] try one of the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt."
Maybe Noam already knows the Egyptians likely won't let him in either, and really, what's the fun of trying to embarrass a rock-solid dictatorship that doesn't give a sh*t about your degrees and speeches anyway?
Still, if you get impatient, give it a try, Noam. As crawling on your knees in the dirt with terrorists is the one thing you do best...
Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday.
...the Interior Ministry later said immigration officials at the Allenby Bridge border crossing from Jordan had misunderstood Chomsky's intentions thinking initially he was also due to visit Israel.
Chomsky, who is on a speaking tour in the region, was scheduled to speak at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank on Monday.
Personally, I think he should have been OK'd for entry into Israel, and denied entry into the West Bank. Chomsky is there to incite the Palestinians to violence under the guise of intellectualism; to validate their views that all of their problems are someone else's fault (the Israeli/American axis of evil, of course), and to grandstand for himself as well.
Now let's take a break for some classic hypocriscy:
His Palestinian host, lawmaker Mustafa al-Barghouti called the decision "a fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression."
Like there is so much freedom of expression in Gaza and the West Bank, where a man can get a death sentence just for selling a parcel of land to a Jew....
I agree witht he Israeli minister quoted below, who wants to see Chomsky live the life he extolls:
Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, on the other hand, praised the move."It's good that Israel did not allow one of its accusers to enter its territory," said Schneller. "I recommend [Chomsky] try one of the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt."
Maybe Noam already knows the Egyptians likely won't let him in either, and really, what's the fun of trying to embarrass a rock-solid dictatorship that doesn't give a sh*t about your degrees and speeches anyway?
Still, if you get impatient, give it a try, Noam. As crawling on your knees in the dirt with terrorists is the one thing you do best...
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Kevin Eubanks: Liberal Douchebag
What else would you call a guy who plays politics with a 16 year old kid and denies him a prize based not on his talent, but where he lives? And on national television?
Via Saberpoint, who reports on Friday night's Tonight Show w/Jay Leno:
Leno asked various members of the audience to perform their own special tricks, i.e. whistling like a bird, clapping hands very fast, etc. These performers were then judged by three men from the Tonight Show staff. One of the judges was Kevin Eubanks, guitar player for the Tonight Show band.
Each judge could award a meal (i.e. a ticket for a free meal at a local restaurant) if they approved of the performance, or withhold a meal if they did not approve.
One 16 year old kid from Arizona was a soccer player. His trick was to balance a soccer ball on the back of his neck while removing his jersey, without dislodging the soccer ball. Two of the judges awarded the kid a meal based on his performance. Not Kevin Eubanks. He asked the kid, "Did you say you were from Arizona?" The kid replied, "Yes."
Eubanks then told the kid he awarded "no meal" and began speaking to the kid in Spanish...
What a dick. Punishing a kid because you don't agree with the politics of his hometown. You're a big man, Eubanks. A real big man...bet you bragged about that little stunt to all of your friends on the Upper West Side over dinner that night. Way to strike a blow for the liberal cause, by humiliating an innocent teenager on national TV.
But you know who Eubanks reminds me of here? Those judges in the European talent shows who will never award a top prize an Israeli contestant/team in a televised talent show, no matter how superior they might be to the competition, as a way to demonstrate their contempt for Israel, the Jews, or both.
You're in fine company, Kevin Eubanks. You ought to sit down with the European judges mentioned above, I'll bet you'll find you have a lot in common with them. More so than with your fellow Americans...
Via Saberpoint, who reports on Friday night's Tonight Show w/Jay Leno:
Leno asked various members of the audience to perform their own special tricks, i.e. whistling like a bird, clapping hands very fast, etc. These performers were then judged by three men from the Tonight Show staff. One of the judges was Kevin Eubanks, guitar player for the Tonight Show band.
Each judge could award a meal (i.e. a ticket for a free meal at a local restaurant) if they approved of the performance, or withhold a meal if they did not approve.
One 16 year old kid from Arizona was a soccer player. His trick was to balance a soccer ball on the back of his neck while removing his jersey, without dislodging the soccer ball. Two of the judges awarded the kid a meal based on his performance. Not Kevin Eubanks. He asked the kid, "Did you say you were from Arizona?" The kid replied, "Yes."
Eubanks then told the kid he awarded "no meal" and began speaking to the kid in Spanish...
What a dick. Punishing a kid because you don't agree with the politics of his hometown. You're a big man, Eubanks. A real big man...bet you bragged about that little stunt to all of your friends on the Upper West Side over dinner that night. Way to strike a blow for the liberal cause, by humiliating an innocent teenager on national TV.
But you know who Eubanks reminds me of here? Those judges in the European talent shows who will never award a top prize an Israeli contestant/team in a televised talent show, no matter how superior they might be to the competition, as a way to demonstrate their contempt for Israel, the Jews, or both.
You're in fine company, Kevin Eubanks. You ought to sit down with the European judges mentioned above, I'll bet you'll find you have a lot in common with them. More so than with your fellow Americans...
Obama's "mortgage modification" scam: Killing more homeowners than it saves?
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
-Ronald Reagan
To my fellow Americans: Ponder these words carefully before you take dime one from any government-assisted, government-backed program. Because sometimes, it's really not about helping you, it's about you helping the government create the perception that they're helping you. Then, of course, it doesn't matter if you drown from being pushed into the deep end of a government program, after all, once you've made the president look good, even as part of a statistic, your have served your purpose and outlived your usefulness.
Classic example:
Some Homeowners Worse After Getting Rushed Into Gov't Loan Mod Program
Despite fulfilling every obligation under trial government-sponsored loan modification programs, some homeowners can end up far worse off than if they had never joined up at all, Propublica reports. That's because if they're denied a permanent modification, they have to pay the entire amount that was being discounted, often within a very short period of time. This pushes already strapped families past the breaking point.
So what were they doing in the program in the first place? Here's a clue:
...the Treasury Department encouraged banks to start trials quickly, causing banks to make trial offers to people without fully vetting their eligibility, and ultimately letting in many homeowners who were destined to fail.
Aha! The banks, most of which were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the government, were pressured into making these "mortgage modifications" by Treasury. Need to guess why? Maybe a certain president was in a rush to see his policies set into motion, and, with no understanding of how capitalism works, demanded that banks bring people into a program that was destined to fail them.
More:
Trial modifications are supposed to become permanent after three months of successful payments. But even though she held up her end of the deal, she found herself booted from the program, joining a swelling number of homeowners who are finding themselves in a situation that’s worse than if they had never entered the program to begin with.
And it’s just the latest example in a litany of problems that have beset the government’s efforts to save millions of struggling homeowners from losing their homes...
Oh well. As far as liberals are concerned, it is their intentions that mattered, not the results, so if their half-assed plan actually killed more homeowners than it saved, well, the only thing for certain is that it's not their fault. After all, they meant well - what else matters?
Coming up next: Government-managed health care - how many millions of Americans will be killed by the Barack Obama's and the Democratic party's "good intentions"?
-Ronald Reagan
To my fellow Americans: Ponder these words carefully before you take dime one from any government-assisted, government-backed program. Because sometimes, it's really not about helping you, it's about you helping the government create the perception that they're helping you. Then, of course, it doesn't matter if you drown from being pushed into the deep end of a government program, after all, once you've made the president look good, even as part of a statistic, your have served your purpose and outlived your usefulness.
Classic example:
Some Homeowners Worse After Getting Rushed Into Gov't Loan Mod Program
Despite fulfilling every obligation under trial government-sponsored loan modification programs, some homeowners can end up far worse off than if they had never joined up at all, Propublica reports. That's because if they're denied a permanent modification, they have to pay the entire amount that was being discounted, often within a very short period of time. This pushes already strapped families past the breaking point.
So what were they doing in the program in the first place? Here's a clue:
...the Treasury Department encouraged banks to start trials quickly, causing banks to make trial offers to people without fully vetting their eligibility, and ultimately letting in many homeowners who were destined to fail.
Aha! The banks, most of which were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the government, were pressured into making these "mortgage modifications" by Treasury. Need to guess why? Maybe a certain president was in a rush to see his policies set into motion, and, with no understanding of how capitalism works, demanded that banks bring people into a program that was destined to fail them.
More:
Trial modifications are supposed to become permanent after three months of successful payments. But even though she held up her end of the deal, she found herself booted from the program, joining a swelling number of homeowners who are finding themselves in a situation that’s worse than if they had never entered the program to begin with.
And it’s just the latest example in a litany of problems that have beset the government’s efforts to save millions of struggling homeowners from losing their homes...
Oh well. As far as liberals are concerned, it is their intentions that mattered, not the results, so if their half-assed plan actually killed more homeowners than it saved, well, the only thing for certain is that it's not their fault. After all, they meant well - what else matters?
Coming up next: Government-managed health care - how many millions of Americans will be killed by the Barack Obama's and the Democratic party's "good intentions"?
And remind me - what is the road to Hell paved with again?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Chris Christie: Don't F*ck With The Big Man!
Trust me, if Chris Christie was at the end of his first term, or in his second, he would be the odds-on favorite to be the next President of the United States. After two years of smoothing, calming, hope-and-change rhetoric that turned out to be a smokescreen for the plundering and raping of the American treasury, this nation yearns, more than anything else, for a straight shooter.
And boy oh boy, does the fat man fit that bill! Watch here as Chris Christie rips a reporter a new *sshole for calling him "confrontational", then clearly lays out who he is and what he's gonna do, with an in-your-face Jersey style that the residents respect and the nation (thanks, Pauli D!) has grown to love:
Jersey represents, folks...
And obviously related:
Elsewhere today, thanks to Christie’s support, the Jersey state senate pushed through a school voucher bill over the objections of the teachers union. Quote: “Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union, the committee chairman, then ordered the hearing held on the Annex steps in front of hundreds of cheering private-school students who had been bused in to rally for the measure.”
And boy oh boy, does the fat man fit that bill! Watch here as Chris Christie rips a reporter a new *sshole for calling him "confrontational", then clearly lays out who he is and what he's gonna do, with an in-your-face Jersey style that the residents respect and the nation (thanks, Pauli D!) has grown to love:
Jersey represents, folks...
And obviously related:
Elsewhere today, thanks to Christie’s support, the Jersey state senate pushed through a school voucher bill over the objections of the teachers union. Quote: “Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union, the committee chairman, then ordered the hearing held on the Annex steps in front of hundreds of cheering private-school students who had been bused in to rally for the measure.”
Thursday, May 13, 2010
From Red Jersey to Red...Massachusetts??
And why not? If the state formally know as Blue Jersey can elect a fat Republican and swarm the voting booths upon his command to defeat bloated school budgets, why can't their regional neighbors see the light as well?
It's not just that this state of brave patriots tried to end the legislative abortion known as health care reform, it has followed up by replacing Scott Brown in the State Senate with yet another Republican. Bill Kristol reports:
Don't know whether you saw the news that Scott Brown's state senate seat was won handily by a Republican in a special election. That is bigger news than it might seem, and has many smart Democrats very worried about November.
You see, Scott's seat was by no means a safe Republican seat (there is no such thing in Massachusetts). It's true he was elected 3 times, but his long-term predecessor was a generically liberal Democrat. In sum, this suburban/exurban district is by no means part of the Bible Belt. And Richard Ross, the Republican, won with 62% of the vote.
But the fact is that there really is a Democratic machine in this state (and only a nominal Republican organization), so a "normal" special election should tilt toward the Democrats. With a weak incumbent Governor (whose best chance for survival is that his two opponents running against him from the right will split the vote), it's possible that 2010 could see a sea change in Massachusetts politics.
The Northeastern corridor walks itself to the edge of the plank with liberal governance holding a scimitar to the nape of their neck, but seeing California jump first, has whirled on its tormentors and has begun to fight back. New Jersey leads the way, with Massachusetts carrying the colors...who will fall in line next?
And in a once-shining, now-defiled city far away, secure in his seat of power and surrounded by self-serving sycophants, The One hears and sees nothing save for reflected tales of his own glory...
Part of me thinks Sideshow Bob had it right:
Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king...
Well, except for the "king" part. Someone tell Obama.
But if America has learned to discard their guilty consciences and vote with their heads, what in the world would attract any voter to the Democratic party?
They're in deeper dogsh*t than they even know....
Muslims To Plant Victory Flag At Ground Zero
We the people fight for our land, giving our blood and our children for our freedom and liberty; our political class surrenders without a fight and offers us as slaves to our enemies. For those responsible for what is about to happen at Ground Zero, the charge of treason is apt, and the penalties should be carried out in full.
For on the scene of the greatest Islamist terror attack on the free world, city officials in New York are allowing the Muslim Nation to purchase our sacred ground and forever dance on the graves of those they killed to obtain it:
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.
Plans to bring what one critic calls a "monster mosque" to the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory building, at a cost expected to top $100 million, moved along for months without a peep. All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out.
Called Cordoba House, the mosque and center is the brainchild of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Executive director Daisy Khan insists it's staying put.
"For us, it's a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan," said Khan, adding that Cordoba will be open to everyone.
Well, Daisy Khan certainly knows how to talk to liberal New Yorkers in the language they like to hear, that's for sure. A symbol of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists? The Left swoons. But with a symbolic opening date of September 11th, 2011, it seems as if little Daisy's opening of a huge mosque is more a celebration of those extremists than a repudiation of them.
Daisy victory dance is a bit premature, as there are other boards that need to approve this project (for the first time, NYC's multiple layers of bureaucracy will come in handy). But what better symbol of the Muslim's continued desire to conquer America than the effort to build a house of worship dedicated to the prophet used as an inspiration to wage a war against her people?
Let's see how the other "boards" involved act on this building permit. Perhaps one should erect a mock gallows outside the appropriate government building, just to remind our appeasing officials what happens to those who commit the treason of handing a nation over to its enemies...
For on the scene of the greatest Islamist terror attack on the free world, city officials in New York are allowing the Muslim Nation to purchase our sacred ground and forever dance on the graves of those they killed to obtain it:
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.
Plans to bring what one critic calls a "monster mosque" to the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory building, at a cost expected to top $100 million, moved along for months without a peep. All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out.
Called Cordoba House, the mosque and center is the brainchild of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Executive director Daisy Khan insists it's staying put.
"For us, it's a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan," said Khan, adding that Cordoba will be open to everyone.
Well, Daisy Khan certainly knows how to talk to liberal New Yorkers in the language they like to hear, that's for sure. A symbol of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists? The Left swoons. But with a symbolic opening date of September 11th, 2011, it seems as if little Daisy's opening of a huge mosque is more a celebration of those extremists than a repudiation of them.
Daisy victory dance is a bit premature, as there are other boards that need to approve this project (for the first time, NYC's multiple layers of bureaucracy will come in handy). But what better symbol of the Muslim's continued desire to conquer America than the effort to build a house of worship dedicated to the prophet used as an inspiration to wage a war against her people?
Let's see how the other "boards" involved act on this building permit. Perhaps one should erect a mock gallows outside the appropriate government building, just to remind our appeasing officials what happens to those who commit the treason of handing a nation over to its enemies...
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Elena Kagan's Got Lovers....In The Media
Who cares is Elana Kagen is gay (Well, over at Just One Minute, Ton Maguire posits a good reason to worry about a closeted gay Justice, but...) ? I'm less worried about the sex of the people she's been sleeping with than the type of people she's been sleeping with...
And it appears as if they have all been of one type. Media people!
"I first met Kagan in the mid-'90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," wrote The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen.
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once," wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
"Elena danced at our wedding in 1986," wrote The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin. "When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer."
David Brooks wrote: "Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer."
CQ's Seth Stern told MSNBC: "I was her student in administrative law class" at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
The Washington Post's Al Kamen notes that TIME magazine contributing editor Bart Gellman used to work alongside Kagan at Princeton University's Daily Princetonian newspaper.
Well, we've already pinned her as a sycophantic careerist, so it would completely be in character for her to assemble a cadre of supporters in the media for the day she would eventually need them. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit harsh - seems like a lot of these connections are just her Ivy League pals. But hey! Like Barack Obama said, she understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Because we all have dozens of Ivy League buddies manipulating public opinion to help us get ahead in the world...right?
Whatever serious questions are asked of Elana Kagan, you can bet none of them come from the mainstream media. Because they have a fellow alum to protect, and after all, it's not as if any of us "State University" graduates would dare be presumptuous enough to question their Ivy Leagues betters...
And it appears as if they have all been of one type. Media people!
"I first met Kagan in the mid-'90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," wrote The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen.
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once," wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
"Elena danced at our wedding in 1986," wrote The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin. "When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer."
David Brooks wrote: "Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer."
CQ's Seth Stern told MSNBC: "I was her student in administrative law class" at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
The Washington Post's Al Kamen notes that TIME magazine contributing editor Bart Gellman used to work alongside Kagan at Princeton University's Daily Princetonian newspaper.
Well, we've already pinned her as a sycophantic careerist, so it would completely be in character for her to assemble a cadre of supporters in the media for the day she would eventually need them. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit harsh - seems like a lot of these connections are just her Ivy League pals. But hey! Like Barack Obama said, she understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Because we all have dozens of Ivy League buddies manipulating public opinion to help us get ahead in the world...right?
Whatever serious questions are asked of Elana Kagan, you can bet none of them come from the mainstream media. Because they have a fellow alum to protect, and after all, it's not as if any of us "State University" graduates would dare be presumptuous enough to question their Ivy Leagues betters...
Elena Kagan: Speech Is Free If I Say It's Free !
And she'll certainly get her chance to split those hairs, if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. From her days as U.S. Solicitor General, we get this gem:
....consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.
Ah, but now she'll be part of the Court, and the next time a similar case comes up, we'll know that she rule in favor of giving the government the power to decide what speech is free and what speech is, shall we say, "actionable".
And we already know that Kagan is, if nothing else, a political animal, eager to please her bosses, as well as those who can continue to advance her career goals. So...exactly what tyep of speech would become a danger to "societal" values, Elena? Perhaps...the daily voice of a certain talk-show host who rubs the president the wrong way? The carrying of a certain yellow flag embossed with a rattlesnake? Or does the vocal criticism of a certain egomanical president become, as some in the media have suggestion, "seditious" and thus dangerous?
That will be up to Elena to decide for us, should she be granted her lifetime appointment to the high court. And of course, there is no doubt about who's judgement she will defer to...
....consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.
Ah, but now she'll be part of the Court, and the next time a similar case comes up, we'll know that she rule in favor of giving the government the power to decide what speech is free and what speech is, shall we say, "actionable".
And we already know that Kagan is, if nothing else, a political animal, eager to please her bosses, as well as those who can continue to advance her career goals. So...exactly what tyep of speech would become a danger to "societal" values, Elena? Perhaps...the daily voice of a certain talk-show host who rubs the president the wrong way? The carrying of a certain yellow flag embossed with a rattlesnake? Or does the vocal criticism of a certain egomanical president become, as some in the media have suggestion, "seditious" and thus dangerous?
That will be up to Elena to decide for us, should she be granted her lifetime appointment to the high court. And of course, there is no doubt about who's judgement she will defer to...
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Swedish Cartoonist Attacked By Muslim, Crowd Roars
Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who dared draw a depiction of Muhammad, was attacked at a lecture by a Muslim man who "head butted" him to the ground before police "got involved".
And I use that term lightly, as getting involved seems to mean one cop spreading his arms wide, and another shouting "stop doing that! stop doing that!".
Note the upraised fists (especially of the man at the :33 second mark, who shouts his support for the attack, then picks up his child), and listen to the high-pitched shrieks of "Allah Akbar". Note the glee and support of the physical assault on free speech.
Animals.
And I use that term lightly, as getting involved seems to mean one cop spreading his arms wide, and another shouting "stop doing that! stop doing that!".
Note the upraised fists (especially of the man at the :33 second mark, who shouts his support for the attack, then picks up his child), and listen to the high-pitched shrieks of "Allah Akbar". Note the glee and support of the physical assault on free speech.
Animals.
The cartoon itself, no more than a pencil sketch, can be seen here. It's crude and offensive, I suppose, but they (especially Arabs, and Muslims) draw Jews like this every day of the week, and you don't see the people of Israel marauding through the Mideast, busting up lectures and beating up cartoonists. Nor do you see Christians wilding after the daily assaults on their religion, thought to be fair, they'd have to burn almost every mainstream media outlet in the nation if they wanted to even the score.
Although perhaps they should. What's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander, and after all, if this is now permissible behavior, people of all faiths should be allowed to engage in it.
No? Than perhaps the animals above should be civilized, or left out to rot in the desert hell they have created for themselves...
Elena Kagan and Barack Obama: Out Of Touch Elitists
Ben Smith from Politico:
President Barack Obama introduced Elena Kagan on Monday in the terms that have come to define his approach to the Supreme Court: She understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Obama promised judges with at least a passing knowledge of the “real world,” but Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.
Reflective of which people, exactly? Well-to-do Upper West Side graduates of places like New York's elite Hunter College HS? Princeton honor students? Oxford attendees? Harvard Deans? Or holier-than-thou New Yorkers, always a favorite of the American people?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed...the Supreme Court will contain three female Justices. And it will be a diverse group of women too -- one originally from Brooklyn, one originally from Manhattan, and one originally from the Bronx.
No, this is more of Obama's bullshit, of course. She is reflective of his people, the liberal elitists. Jen Rubin:
So she brings neither an abundance of non-elite experience nor an intellectual record of achievement...she’s not very real world, and she isn’t a renowned scholar, but she sure understands the president’s liberal agenda.
Which is why that I think any conservative optimism that she might be some sort of closet centrist is misguided. This is a woman who grew up in the dictionary definition of a "limousine liberal" neighborhood, and has gone to school with, worked with, and socialized with people who think exactly the way she does.
Without exception, and for her whole entire life. Can you imagine Ms. Kagan hanging out in a blue-collar bar in Pennsylvania, conversing with the hardhats and other varieties of "rough trade" about the way the world ought to be? Can you picture her casually chatting with military families in Texas, or with harried suburban moms in South Jersey? Can you envision her working shifts in Wal-Mart, or at a department store, or putting in the 90 minute commute to a high-stress office job in the city?
Me neither. Because it never happened. She's lived and worked in a small, insulated ivory tower her whole life, and from upon high, she will be appointed by Barack Obama to pass judgement upon us "ordinary people" based on her knowledge of the "real world".
May God have mercy upon the American people...
President Barack Obama introduced Elena Kagan on Monday in the terms that have come to define his approach to the Supreme Court: She understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Obama promised judges with at least a passing knowledge of the “real world,” but Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.
Reflective of which people, exactly? Well-to-do Upper West Side graduates of places like New York's elite Hunter College HS? Princeton honor students? Oxford attendees? Harvard Deans? Or holier-than-thou New Yorkers, always a favorite of the American people?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed...the Supreme Court will contain three female Justices. And it will be a diverse group of women too -- one originally from Brooklyn, one originally from Manhattan, and one originally from the Bronx.
No, this is more of Obama's bullshit, of course. She is reflective of his people, the liberal elitists. Jen Rubin:
So she brings neither an abundance of non-elite experience nor an intellectual record of achievement...she’s not very real world, and she isn’t a renowned scholar, but she sure understands the president’s liberal agenda.
Which is why that I think any conservative optimism that she might be some sort of closet centrist is misguided. This is a woman who grew up in the dictionary definition of a "limousine liberal" neighborhood, and has gone to school with, worked with, and socialized with people who think exactly the way she does.
Without exception, and for her whole entire life. Can you imagine Ms. Kagan hanging out in a blue-collar bar in Pennsylvania, conversing with the hardhats and other varieties of "rough trade" about the way the world ought to be? Can you picture her casually chatting with military families in Texas, or with harried suburban moms in South Jersey? Can you envision her working shifts in Wal-Mart, or at a department store, or putting in the 90 minute commute to a high-stress office job in the city?
Me neither. Because it never happened. She's lived and worked in a small, insulated ivory tower her whole life, and from upon high, she will be appointed by Barack Obama to pass judgement upon us "ordinary people" based on her knowledge of the "real world".
May God have mercy upon the American people...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)