Tuesday, August 31, 2010

GOP candidate for governor: Obama worships himself

Aug. 31, 2010, 10:56 a.m. EDT
Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino said Monday during a live television interview that he doesn't believe President Barack Obama is a practicing Christian "in his heart."

"I think he worships himself," Paladino told YNN's "Capital Tonight" news program.

"I'm not saying he's anything else, but I think Mr. Obama is about himself," the millionaire Buffalo developer said. "I think any religious beliefs that he advocates are part of the theater to make himself look better to the American people."

The comments come as Obama is again countering claims that he is a Muslim. In an interview broadcast Sunday on "NBC Nightly News," Obama repeated his position that the confusion over his religious beliefs stems from misinformation over the Internet.

When asked Monday if he believed that Obama was a Christian, Paladino said, "No, not in his heart."
A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday shows Obama has hit his lowest approval rating among New Yorkers. The poll shows just 51 percent of voters in the state dominated by Democrats approve of his performance. Among Republicans, 80 percent disapprove.

Quinnipiac's Maurice Carroll said Paladino's comments probably played well with Republicans, especially those most likely to vote in the primary in two weeks.

Paladino hasn't apologized for many of his past controversial comments. He has answered criticism by saying he's a straight talker and not a career politician, which he says is what New York state government needs after years of corruption, overtaxing and overspending on special interests.

More recently, Paladino has said he would stop a proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque a couple of blocks from ground zero by using eminent domain to seize the site and develop it as a memorial to those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said building a mosque near ground zero would be like erecting a monument to the Japanese navy at Pearl Harbor, site of the World War II attack.

In addition to the state polls on the mosque issue, national polls show that some Americans believe the president practices Islam.

Paladino's spokesman, Michael Caputo, said after the interview that Paladino stands by the remarks and that he has little regard for Obama and for "what he's doing to this country."

Paladino had the extended interview because his Republican opponent in the Sept. 14 primary, Rick Lazio, refused to join him in a debate.

Lazio and Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo wouldn't comment on Paladino's remarks.

The Quinnipiac poll questioned 1,497 voters from Aug. 23-29. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 points.

Premature End to U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq?

Eenie Meenie Minie Moe: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan

No matter where the brilliant military minds decide to go, the terrorists just move next door.

Carpet bombing with nukes is the only practical remedy

Petraeus: Afghan concern about Pakistan is legit
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai's recent complaints that international forces should focus on militant leaders hiding in neighboring Pakistan instead of Afghan villages doesn't mean the government no longer supports the U.S. war strategy, the top NATO commander said Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus said he shared Karzai's concern about threats across the border in Pakistan but said the Pakistanis deserve credit for waging what he described as an "impressive counterinsurgency campaign" during the past 18 months.

The Karzai government has been increasingly vocal in recent days about the need to destroy Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta has argued that U.S. support of Pakistan amounts to nurturing the terrorists' "main mentor" and that the Afghan people are no longer ready to "pay the price for the international community's miscalculation and naivety."

"Given the very clear linkage between attacks on Afghan soil by individuals who have come from Pakistan and are commanded and controlled from Pakistan, I think President Karzai and Dr. Spanta have very legitimate concerns," Petraeus said. Still, he added, the Pakistani government has continued to "squeeze the locations in which these individuals have safe haven sanctuary, recognizing that more work needs to be done."

In a wide-ranging interview, Petraeus also said that Karzai's efforts to reconcile with top Taliban leaders are "beyond the surface, but they are certainly in the early stages."

"He is the one who is pursuing this, but there have been some ways that we have facilitated some of the contact," Petraeus said.

The general said it's natural that the Afghan government wants to take more of a lead role in the handling of its own national affairs.

He said he's seeking clarification on the blunt criticism from Afghan governmental officials, but does not think the comments reflect diminished Afghan support for his counterinsurgency strategy, which aims to provide security and earn the trust of the Afghan people.

"Over time, I think it is very understandable — as was the case in Iraq as well — to see our host nation partners want to take the lead, want to be more prominent," he said.

Petraeus said he has drafted operational guidelines to implement Karzai's goal of having Afghan police and soldiers take the lead in the country's 34 provinces by 2014 as security allows. It remains unclear whether the Afghans will be ready to handle their own security, even four years down the road.

"These guidelines recognize that this is a process, not an event," he said. "It will typically represent a thinning out of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces not a hand-off per se."

Talk of a 2014 date enables politicians to tell their war-weary publics that the conflict will not drag on indefinitely, draining resources at a time of economic hardship and rising death tolls. It also sends a signal to the Afghans that the Western commitment to the country will extend beyond July 2011, when President Barack Obama says he will begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

"Transition likely will occur in districts, initially, rather than in entire provinces, although there are some provinces in which that likely will be possible," the general said.

Earlier, in an interview with NATO TV in Brussels, Petraeus said that Taliban guerrillas still retain the initiative in some parts of Afghanistan despite recent successes by coalition forces. Petraeus said NATO forces had reversed some of the gains the Taliban had made in recent years in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar and around Kabul.

"I would not say we have reversed the momentum in all areas by any means," he said. "In some we have reversed it, in some we have blunted it, in some perhaps the Taliban are still trying to expand."

He said the insurgents were fighting to take back the market town of Marjah in Helmand province, which he described as "one of the most important command and control areas for the Taliban and the nexus for the illegal narcotics industry."

The town was captured in a highly heralded operation in February but has yet to see either solid security or effective government presence.

He also noted that NATO's campaign to secure the southern city of Kandahar had just begun.

"But clearly there's a lot more work to be done with the Taliban fighting back very hard," he said. "This is really (Taliban leader) Mullah Omar's hometown. This is the iconic place of the Taliban and it's very important for them and it will be tough."

He also noted that the Afghan security forces were growing faster than expected, with the army numbering 134,000 men and the police slightly more.

The NATO-led force has about 140,000 troops. Taliban guerrillas are estimated to number between 25,000 and 30,000.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Beat Whitey Night

White Noise

Use of the term "white noise" to describe the production of signals over a wide range of frequencies by the cosmos, atmospheric electrical disturbances, and radio circuitry, has been condemned by the Equal Electrical Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as discriminatory.

EEOC spokesperson, Bruce Gweemser, said use of the term is considered derogatory because it attributes either negative or positive characteristicsof such signals to a particular color. "If the connotation is negative," he explained, "then Americans of the light-skinned persuasion may be offended.  On the other hand, if the connotation is positive, Americans of other darker varieties of skin shading may take offense."

Gweemser said that the EEOC strongly recommends the abandonment of the term "white noise" and replacement with another, more descriptive one. "Perhaps 'electrical-American noise' might be more appropriate," Gweemser suggested.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Green Hat

The other day I needed to go to the emergency room.  Not wanting to sit there for 4 hours, I put on my GREEN HAT that I bought on Ebay.

When I went into the E.R., I noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left. I guess they decided that they weren't that sick after all.  Cut at least 3 hours off my waiting time.

Here's the hat. 

Try one the next time you're in need of quicker emergency service.

It also works at DMV.  It saved me 5 hours there. 

At the Laundromat, three minutes after entering, I had my choice of any machine, most still running.

Don't try it at McDonald's.  The whole crew ran out the back and I never got my order.

Capitoli$m - How it works

A friend of mine just started his own business, making land-mines that look like prayer rugs.
It's doing well.
He says Prophets are going through the roof....

Monday, August 23, 2010

California Schools: Proof it is possible to polish a turd.

No wonder California is flat-broke.

In lieu of educating their kids, check them into a luxurious nursery school for a few years before releasing them on an unsuspecting public.

What a bunch of boneheads!

LA unveils $578M school, costliest in the nation

LOS ANGELES – Next month's opening of the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools will be auspicious for a reason other than its both storied and infamous history as the former Ambassador Hotel, where the Democratic presidential contender was assassinated in 1968.
With an eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation's most expensive public school ever.
The K-12 complex to house 4,200 students has raised eyebrows across the country as the creme de la creme of "Taj Mahal" schools, $100 million-plus campuses boasting both architectural panache and deluxe amenities.
"There's no more of the old, windowless cinderblock schools of the '70s where kids felt, 'Oh, back to jail,'" said Joe Agron, editor-in-chief of American School & University, a school construction journal. "Districts want a showpiece for the community, a really impressive environment for learning."
Not everyone is similarly enthusiastic.
"New buildings are nice, but when they're run by the same people who've given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they're a big waste of taxpayer money," said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education. "Parents aren't fooled."
At RFK, the features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex's namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel.
Partly by circumstance and partly by design, the Los Angeles Unified School District has emerged as the mogul of Taj Mahals.
The RFK complex follows on the heels of two other LA schools among the nation's costliest — the $377 million Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, which opened in 2008, and the $232 million Visual and Performing Arts High School that debuted in 2009.
The pricey schools have come during a sensitive period for the nation's second-largest school system: Nearly 3,000 teachers have been laid off over the past two years, the academic year and programs have been slashed. The district also faces a $640 million shortfall and some schools persistently rank among the nation's lowest performing.
Los Angeles is not alone, however, in building big. Some of the most expensive schools are found in low-performing districts — New York City has a $235 million campus; New Brunswick, N.J., opened a $185 million high school in January.
Nationwide, dozens of schools have surpassed $100 million with amenities including atriums, orchestra-pit auditoriums, food courts, even bamboo nooks. The extravagance has led some to wonder where the line should be drawn and whether more money should be spent on teachers.
"Architects and builders love this stuff, but there's a little bit of a lack of discipline here," said Mary Filardo, executive director of 21st Century School Fund in Washington, D.C., which promotes urban school construction.
Some experts say it's not all flourish and that children learn better in more pleasant surroundings.
Many schools incorporate large windows to let in natural light and install energy-saving equipment, spending more upfront for reduced bills later. Cafeterias are getting fancier, seeking to retain students who venture off campus. Wireless Internet and other high-tech installations have become standard.
Some pricey projects have had political fallout.
After a firestorm over the $197.5 million Newton North High School in Massachusetts, Mayor David Cohen chose not to seek re-election and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill reined in school construction spending.
Now to get state funds for a new school, districts must choose among three designs costing $49 million to $64 million. "We had to bring some sense to this process," Cahill said.
In Los Angeles, officials say the new schools were planned long before the economic pinch and are funded by $20 billion in voter-approved bonds that do not affect the educational budget.
Still, even LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines derided some of the extravagance, noting that donations should have been sought to fund the RFK project's talking benches commemorating the site's history.
Connie Rice, member of the district's School Bond Oversight Committee, noted the megaschools are only three of 131 that the district is building to alleviate overcrowding. RFK "is an amazing facility," she said. "Is it a lot of money? Yes. We didn't like it, but they got it done."
Construction costs at LA Unified are the second-highest in the nation — something the district blames on skyrocketing material and land prices, rigorous seismic codes and unionized labor.
James Sohn, the district's chief facilities executive, said the megaschools were built when global raw material shortages caused costs to skyrocket to an average of $600 per square foot in 2006 and 2007 — triple the price from 2002. Costs have since eased to $350 per square foot.
On top of that, each project had its own cost drivers.
After buildings were demolished at the site of the 2,400-student Roybal school, contaminated soil, a methane gas field and an earthquake fault were discovered. A gas mitigation system cost $17 million.
Over 20 years, the project grew to encompass a dance studio with cushioned maple floors, a modern kitchen with a restaurant-quality pizza oven, a 10-acre park and teacher planning rooms between classrooms.
The 1,700-student arts school was designed as a landmark, with a stainless steel, postmodernistic tower encircled by a rollercoaster-like swirl, while the RFK site involved 15 years of litigation with historic preservationists and Donald Trump, who wanted to build the world's tallest building there. The wrangling cost $9 million.
Methane mitigation cost $33 million and the district paid another $15 million preserving historic features, including a wall of the famed Cocoanut Grove nightclub and turning the Paul Williams-designed coffee shop into a faculty lounge.
Sohn said LA Unified has reached the end of its Taj Mahal building spree. "These are definitely the exceptions," he said. "We don't anticipate schools costing hundreds of millions of dollars in the future."

American Thinker: Let Me Translate: We Don't Believe Him -- or You.

Memo to the ruling class media: We are not ignorant or stupid. We've not forgotten Jeremiah Wright. It's not that we don't "know" what faith Obama subscribes to -- it's more that we don't believe him. Or you. Sorry. Not buying.

Besides, sometimes we just like to tweak you with our poll answers -- and use any poll as an excuse to "vote against Obama" in any way, shape, or form.


Frankly, it has been equal parts comedy and insult to watch the ruling-class media haplessly wrestle with the reality that millions of Americans believe Obama to be a Muslim. They are so clueless.

As if we needed any more proof -- this is simply another positive dose that the ruling-class media and the country are divided by a huge gulf of philosophy, reality, and experiences. And they are just beside themselves that a country that was concerned that Obama's (Christian?) pastor is a crazy nut in the spring and summer of 2008 can totally forget about all that in the summer of 2010 and call Obama a Muslim.

They so miss the point. We have forgotten none of that. If fact, apparently, now more Americans are deciding to look into all of this and process it in light of Obama's actions.

So allow me to help the media out on this thorny, confusing issue:

We know you claim him to be a Christian. We know Obama has at times claimed to be a Christian. We know Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church claims to be some kind of Christian denomination. We simply doubt it. And the more we watch all of you, the less we are inclined to believe any of it.

(And by "we," I mean folks who would respond "Muslim" or "not sure" to your poll questions.)

We also know Obama's father was a Muslim. We know his stepfather was a Muslim. We know that under Sharia Law, he is a Muslim, and that much of the Muslim world regards him as a Muslim. We know his mother was an atheist. We know Obama sent a bureaucrat out to claim that NASA's top mission was Muslim outreach. We know he skipped the Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary bash. We know he's had a couple Freudian slips pertaining to his faith. We know he has called the Islamic call to prayer the most beautiful sound on earth.

We know that in light of all of this, some sycophantic White House spokesperson has the gall to say how "obvious" Obama's Christianity is. Depends on what the meaning of "obvious" is, I guess.

There's more. So much more:

We know Jeremiah Wright rejects America's founding principles -- which are consistent with what we call Christianity -- and many of us believe our founding principles were divinely inspired. Moreover, we know that Obama is on board with Wright on this -- at least to the point of claiming that our Constitution is flawed in how it grants individual rights and liberty. We happen to think that rights Obama wants to curtail come from our Creator.

We know Obama has appointed proud and unabashed Marxists into his government. We happen to know that Marxism is by definition anti-Christian. We know he has confiscated the wealth of others to redistribute to his union thug friends under false pretenses. We know he turned his back on Iranian protesters in favor of an Islamic regime. We know he publicly defers to folks like Chávez and Saudi royalty more than he does Texas and Arkansas governors. On and on we could go here.

So what is so blamed obvious?

The only thing obvious here is that if Obama is a Christian, he is absolutely awful at walking out his faith. Or -- as might be said at any basic tent revival -- he done "backslid." (Does anyone in the media have any idea what either of those phrases mean?)

In other words, we are paying attention to what is real and to what you are reporting -- and the two aren't jiving.

Answering a Poll

Another dynamic here is how the average person contemplates poll answers. I know that in the isolated, sanitized, academic world of the ruling class -- you tend to look at every poll answer as an equal entity. You tend to look at every answer as a window into the soul and understanding of each responder -- and you assume each responder has given equal thought to your little poll.

You overestimate your importance in our lives.

Frankly, we like to mess with your head sometimes. Had I been polled by Time or the Pew Research group, I'm sure I would have said "Muslim." Do I really believe he is a Muslim? I frankly hadn't given it a lot of thought until now -- but I know he's not a Christian under any definition with which I am familiar.

I know he's a Marxist. I know he hates America. I know he is at the very least sympathetic to Muslims. He has a Muslim-sounding name, by the way.

Further, I know that for all of your bashing of George Bush and Sarah Palin over their overt Christianity, it will tick you off if I say I don't believe Obama to be a Christian. For all of your protestations that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, you will panic if we think your guy is one. I know you better than you know us.

So to register my displeasure with Obama's "Christianity" and to simply irritate you, I would have answered "he's a Muslim" to your precious poll. It's my way of voting against Obama before November 2010 and 2012.

And certainly I am not alone in this thinking.

And none of us are stupid or ignorant or forgetful. We simply understand that we "shall know them by their fruits." Of course, many in the ruling-class, ignorant media probably think we are gay-bashing when we say that. More proof of how out of touch you are.

Can you hear us now?


 Dear Mr. President:

 I'm planning to move my family and 
 extended family into Mexico for my  
 health, and I would like to ask you 
 to assist me.

 We're planning to simply walk 
 across the border from the U.S. into 
 Mexico, and we'll need your help to 
 make a few arrangements.

 We plan to skip all the legal stuff 
 like visas, passports, immigration 
 quotas and laws.

 I'm sure they handle those things 
 the same way you do here. So,
 would you mind telling your buddy, 
 President Calderon, that I'm on my 
 way over?

 Please let him know that I will be 
 expecting the following:

 1. Free medical care for my entire 

 2. English-speaking government 
 bureaucrats for all services I might 
 need, whether I use them or not.

 3. Please print all Mexican
 government forms in English.

 4. I want my grandkids to be taught
Spanish by English-speaking
(bi-lingual) teachers.

 5. Tell their schools they need to 
 include classes on American 
 culture and history.

 6. I want my grandkids to see the 
 American flag on one of the flag 
 poles at their school.

 7. Please plan to feed my grandkids 
 at school for both breakfast and

 8. I will need a local Mexican 
 driver's license so I can get easy 
 access to government services.

 9. I do plan to get a car and drive in 
 Mexico but I don't plan to purchase
 car insurance, and I probably won't 
 make any special effort to learn 
 local traffic laws.

 10. In case one of the Mexican  
 police officers does not get the
 memo from their president to leave 
 me alone, please be sure that every 
 patrol car has at least one English-
 speaking officer.

 11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from 
 my house top, put U. S. flag decals 
 on my car, and have a gigantic 
 celebration on July 4th. I do not
 want any complaints or negative 
 comments from the locals.

 12. I would also like to have a nice 
 job without paying any taxes, or 
 have any labor or tax laws enforced 
 on any business I may start.

 13. Please have the president tell all 
 the Mexican people to be extremely 
 nice and never say critical things 
 about me or my family, or about 
 the strain we might place on their 

 14. I want to receive free food

 15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent 

 16. I'll need Income tax credits so 
 although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, 
 I'll receive money from the 

 17. Please arrange it so that the
 Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help
 me buy a new car.

 18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please 
 enroll me free into the Mexican 
 Social Security program so that I'll 
 get a monthly income in retirement.

 I know this is an easy request 
 because you already do all these 
 things for all his people who walk 
 over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am 
 sure that President Calderon won't 
 mind returning the favor if you ask 
 him nicely.

 Thank you so much for your kind 

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Supports Mosque at Ground Zero too...

Darwin Awards

Without further ado here are the 2010  Darwin awards.

8th Place
In Detroit , a 41-year-old man got stuck and drowned in two feet of water after squeezing head first through an 18-inch-wide sewer grate to retrieve his car keys.

7th Place

A 49-year-old San Francisco stockbroker, who “totally zoned when he ran”, accidentally, jogged off a 100-foot high cliff on his daily run.

6th Place

While at the beach, Daniel Jones, 21, dug an 8 foot hole for protection from the wind and had been sitting in a beach chair at the bottom, when it collapsed, burying him beneath 5 feet of sand. People on the beach used their hands and shovels trying to get him out but could  not reach him. It took rescue workers using heavy equipment almost an hour to free him. 
Jones was pronounced dead at a hospital.

5th Place

Santiago Alvarado, 24, was killed as he fell through the ceiling of a bicycle shop he was robbing. Death was caused when the long torch he had placed in his mouth to keep his hands free, rammed into the base of his skull as he hit the floor.

4th Place

Sylvester Briddell, Jr., 26, was killed as he won a bet with friends who said he would not put a revolver loaded with four bullets into his mouth and pull the trigger.

3rd Place

After walking around a marked police patrol car parked at the front door, a man walked into H&J Leather & Firearms intent on robbing the store. The shop was full of customers and a uniformed officer was standing at the counter.. Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up and fired a few wild shots from a target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire and several customers also drew their guns and fired. The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. 
Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons. No one else was hurt.


Paul Stiller, 47, and his wife Bonnie were bored just driving around at 2 a.m. when they lit a stick of dynamite to toss out the window to see what would happen. Apparently they failed to notice the window was closed


Kerry Bingham had been drinking with several friends when one of them said they knew a person who had bungee-jumped from a local  bridge in the middle of traffic. The conversation grew more heated and at least 10 men trooped along the walkway of the bridge at 4:30 a.m. Upon arrival at the midpoint of the bridge they discovered that no one had brought a bungee rope. Bingham, who had continued drinking, volunteered and pointed out that a coil of lineman’s cable lay nearby. 
They secured one end around Bingham’s leg and then tied the other (!) to the bridge. His fall lasted 40 feet before the cable tightened and tore his foot off at the ankle. He miraculously survived his fall into the icy water and was rescued by two nearby fishermen.
Bingham’s foot was never located.

Zookeeper Friedrich Riesfeldt ( Paderborn , Germany ) fed his constipated elephant 22 doses of animal laxative and more than a bushel of berries, figs and prunes before the plugged-up pachyderm finally got relief.  Investigators say ill-fated Friedrich, 46, was attempting to give the ailing elephant an olive oil enema when the relieved beast unloaded.

The sheer force of the elephant’s unexpected defecation knocked Mr. Riesfeldt to the ground where he struck his head on a rock as the elephant continued to evacuate 200 pounds of dung on top of him.

It seems to be just one of those freak accidents that proves…. ’shit 


Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Just How Smart Is Obama?

Just How Smart Is Obama?

The meteoric rise to the presidency of Barack Obama was fueled in no small part by the widely accepted contention that he was one of the smartest men ever to seek the Oval Office. He is not the first leader to be oversold.

"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that he's a great military man -- I want you to know that."
It is an article of faith among the mainstream media, even on the squishy right (Bill O'Reilly comes to mind), to start any discussion of the 44th President with a ritual expression of utter amazement at his enormous brain power.

This immortal witticism of Gen. Normal Schwarzkopf ,after a lightning 1991 campaign that cut to pieces the Iraqi dictator's vaunted army, resonates with me each time I read or hear any discussion of President Obama.

Does Obama deserve his reputation? Not really -- unless of course, a "perfectly creased pant" is a true metric of rapier wit and towering intellect, as David Brooks seems to think. One can certainly take such things on faith merely on the basis of credentials: the right university, the right profession, the right crowd. Columbia and Harvard Law alum -- what other proof is needed that the accomplisher of such lofty achievements must be right up there with the Einsteins of the world? Assumptions of this sort could cause one acute embarrassment, such as the one experienced by the historian Michael Beschloss at the hands of Don Imus. Beschloss was extolling Obama's "sky-high IQ," but just as he was hitting his stride, the host interrupted his guest's rapture: "So what's his IQ?" The historian had to sheepishly admit that he didn't know.

But mindless sycophancy of Obama groupies aside, what gives his admirers the reason to believe in the incomparable intellectual faculties of their idol? An ability to more or less fluently read a prepared text? But each time he drops the life buoy of the teleprompter and ventures to go unscripted, Obama stumbles and mumbles in search of words, launching an avalanche of "uhs" and more likely than not putting his foot into his mouth. Watching him on such excursions into the terrifying world of improvisation, anyone can see that Obama would be wise to take a few speech lessons from purported lowbrow Sarah Palin. Are his glaringly poor off-the-cuff skills evidence of great intelligence?

How about his endless gaffes? Like

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."
- Obama 2008 campaign event, Beaverton, OR (Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, considering that there is indeed an entity consisting of 57 states -- it's called the Organization of the Islamic Conference.)

Or the "Austrian" language which Obama believes is spoken in Austria? Or

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed."
- 2007 campaign speech on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

Or as he said in this year's Ramadan greeting, "Islam has always been part of America and ... American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country." What country was he talking about? Or this pearl: "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." An occasional slip of the tongue is an accident. A habit of dumb misstatements is evidence of laziness and lack of mental discipline, of the tongue just wagging uncontrollably. Is it evidence of Obama's intellectual superiority?

What about his propensity to jump feet-first before thinking and let the devil take the hindmost? Like accusing the Cambridge, MA police of stupidity in the Skip Gates incident, while freely admitting that he actually didn't know the circumstances of the case? Or getting into the Manhattan mosque controversy -- how's that for political acumen? Does it take a genius to figure out that coming down on the unpopular side of the issue, contrary to the will of nearly 70 percent of the American people, would be a major political blunder, particularly with the midterm elections just around the corner? Liberal pundits heaped praise on the president for his courage and steadfast adherence to principle. Why, then, did he hastily backtrack the very next day? Hardly a profile in courage is it. So what was it? Apparently an infantile, ideologically driven whim: I want it! I need it! And a hasty retreat as soon as the utterly predictable explosion ensued. A political genius?

How hard was it to predict that endless golf-cum-basketball outings, musical soirées at the White House, and vacation upon vacation in posh spots, culminating in Michelle's Spanish junket and a forthcoming stay in the elitist retreat of Martha's Vineyard, would be a major irritant to the people hard-hit by the recession or an undermining influence on the president's popularity? A callous disregard for the proles? Obviously. But how astute is it? Not very, for in-your-face arrogance has never been a mark of intelligence.

Add to this Obama's obvious economic ignorance, his glaring naiveté in international affairs, his boundless faith in the power of his oratory, his intellectual laziness, his intrinsic indecisiveness smacking of childish belief in the power of wish (close your eyes and the bad stuff will just go away), his political tin-ear -- are these the attributes of a genius? Sorry, Obama fans, what it all adds up to is an immature narcissist, an utterly inexperienced tyro, devoid of administrative ability, lacking political skills...a radical ideologue, who apparently believes that the job of president boils down to an incessant gabfest.

So with compliments to General Schwarzkopf: As far as Barack Obama being smart as a whip goes, he has no clue in economics, nor has he any understanding of foreign policy; he is supremely arrogant and doesn't care if it rubs people the wrong way; he has few political skills and no administrative ability, nor does he have any desire to engage in the day-to-day drudgery of ruling, preferring to reign instead; and he revels in the luxury of presidential perks and delights in flaunting his excess. Other than that, he is a true genius.

Billionaires that support redistributing YOUR wealth - not theirs.

Billionaires Who Haven't Taken The Pledge

provided by

The Giving Pledge is the brainchild of billionaire businessmen Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The two of them have teamed up to ask the world's wealthiest people to donate at least 50% of their fortunes to charities. They believe that the richest people in the world can eradicate many of the world's problems through philanthropy. The pledge is not a binding contract but more of a "moral commitment". Individuals are free to donate money to whatever cause they would like. So, far about 40 billionaires have accepted the giving pledge challenge. That's not a large number when you consider that there are nearly 1,000 billionaires in the world, according to Forbes. So, who hasn't signed up and for what reason?

Carl Icahn
Wall Street tycoon Carl Icahn is noticeably absent from the Giving Pledge website and for good reason. According to Icahn, Buffett and Gates failed to inform the billionaire investor. Icahn is enthusiastic about joining the Giving Pledge and plans on donating a large portion of his estate. Icahn currently has a net worth of $10.5 billion dollars. With a fortune that large, Icahn's phone may be ringing right this minute.

George Soros
Despite being an active participant in the first meeting, it is unclear whether Soros will join with the other billionaires and donate his sizable fortune. According to Forbes magazine, the self-made billionaire investor has a net worth of $14 billion dollars.

It really doesn't matter if Soros signs the pledge or not given his history of philanthropy. He has funded educational projects, infrastructure projects and humanitarian causes all around the world. Soros has given away $7 billion dollars of his fortune to charitable endeavors already and he plans to donate a large portion of his total wealth anyway.

Meg Whitman
Former eBay CEO and current California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has "no plans to join billionaires pledge" according to the Fresno Bee. She has not been contacted by Buffett or Gates and would decline if invited. Whitman is using her immense wealth to run for governor and build her charitable foundation. Whitman who has a net worth of $1.4 billion dollars has had to use her own money to run for state office. She has spent nearly $100 million dollars of her own money in seeking the state's top job. Whitman also has plans to donate to environmental and educational causes through her personal foundation.

Oprah Winfrey
With a net worth of $2.4 billion dollars, Oprah Winfrey is one of the richest women in the world. She is the highest-grossing star in the world of entertainment. She has been regularly voted as the most philanthropic celebrity in the field of entertainment. Winfrey has been silent on her intentions to join the giving pledge. It may be a possibility considering the star recently shut down her Angel Network charitable organization which has donated more than $80 million dollars to humanitarian causes. Winfrey still has the Oprah Winfrey Foundation which has reportedly given away over $230 million dollars since 1998.

Walton Family
The Walton family has four members on the Forbes list of the wealthiest people in the world. They can all thank Walmart founder Sam Walton for that.

Christy Walton is the 12th richest person in the world according to Forbes, with $22.5 billion dollars. She inherited her wealth after the passing of her husband. Jim Walton is the 15th richest person in the world with a net worth of $20.7 billion dollars. Alice Walton comes in right behind Jim with a net worth of $20.6 billion dollars. S. Robson Walton is the 18th wealthiest person with a net worth of $19.8 billion dollars. None of them, however, is on the giving pledge list. The family has not commented as to why they have not signed up.

Peter Kramer
Many international billionaires and millionaires are not signing up because they see the Giving Pledge as too ostentatious. Some see the promise as a status symbol and a way of bringing more attention to the super rich.

German shipping millionaire Peter Kramer feels that it would better if the billionaires kept their money and let the government collect the revenue via taxes. Kramer believes that the government would use the money more effectively by putting it to work directly in local communities. He thinks that the giving pledge is a way for the ultra rich to avoid taxes and donate to their favorite interests and hobbies. Many of the rich feel that the government and other organizations are the best vehicles for charitable endeavors.

The Bottom Line
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett should be commended for coming up with the giving pledge idea. They have convinced 40 of the world's wealthiest individuals and families to give back to society. If they want to convince the other 900 or so billionaires however, they have a whole lot more schmoozing to do.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

"One of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth"

The Muslim Call to Prayer is one of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth
-Barack Obama

Americans are aghast that the president approves of the construction of a Victory Mosque by a pro-terrorism imam six hundred feet from Ground Zero.  Revolting, yes.   Shocking, no.  One thing we know about Barack Obama is that he is committed to ruling in direct opposition to three-fourths of the American people on all core issues.

Reread his contemptible speech in Cairo, in which the president spouted flagrant falsehoods about the charms of Islam, while berating the United States for being a bit churlish about radical Muslim ideology after 9/11.

Obama’s boss, George Soros, has always thought we made too much of a fuss about 9/11, an event he found “inspiring”:
Hijacking fully fueled airliners and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and its execution could not have been more spectacular.   (George Soros, “The Bubble Of American Supremacy,” The Atlantic Monthly, 12/03)
Politically correct pundits and pols have been insisting since 9/11 that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that jihad is the result of some kind of “misinterpretation” of the Koran.

If that’s the case, Osama bin Laden had better take a review course:
The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement – Osama bin Laden – down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare – if not impossible – to find a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. 
And let’s get this out of the way—left wing pundits, always eager to brandish their consummate  ignorance of the Constitution, have been bleating nightly on cable news about the crafty imam’s “absolute right” to build his Monster Mosque anywhere he darned well pleases.  Obviously, none of these chattering churls have ever tangled with their local building department.  Try to get permits to build a 100 square foot addition to your house.  Then lecture us about the constitutional right to build anything, anywhere, anytime.

The courts have long held that our freedoms of expression are not absolute.  The government has a right to regulate the time, place and manner of expression.  Nobody is telling Muslims they can’t practice their faith.  But the state has pretty compelling interests in setting limits on how it’s practiced.  

Honor killings, while believed by some Muslims to be  entirely meritorious under Sharia law, may run afoul of state statutes outlawing homicide, even when in the service of Allah.

Nobody in America has an unassailable right to build anything they want on their own property.  It gets even stickier when you don’t even own the property on which you plan to build.

The good citizens in the city of Hamtramck don’t share the president’s enjoyment of the dulcet calls to prayer :  
Although hundreds of long-time residents of Hamtramck, MI protested the city allowing the five-times-per-day Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast over Hamtramck’s loudspeakers, the city council voted unanimously in April 2004 to allow it.
If the noise isn’t irritating enough, consider the feelings of non-Muslims who don’t welcome the message that Allah is the only true God.

If Obama himself is not a Muslim, he certainly is hell-bent on emulating Western Europe’s cowering to Islam at the expense of the safety and comfort of the rest of the citizenry.
Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur’an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.

Obama Supports Mosque at Ground Zero...

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Tea party activists rally on Arizona-Mexico border

Tea party activists rally on Arizona-Mexico border

HEREFORD, Ariz. – Tea party groups converged on a remote section of the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday to show support for Arizona's controversial immigration law and hear from more than a dozen conservative speakers, many of them candidates running for office in crowded Republican primaries.
Several speaking to the crowd of more than 400 demanded Congress and President Barack Obama devote more resources to increase border security in remote areas like the site of Sunday's demonstration southeast of Tucson.
"We are going to force them to do it, because if they don't, we will not stop screaming," said former state Sen. Pam Gorman, one of 10 Republicans vying for an open congressional seat in north Phoenix. Gorman carried a handgun in a holster slung over her shoulder as she mingled with demonstrators.
Obama on Friday signed a bill directing $600 million more to securing the U.S.-Mexico border — money that will pay for hiring 1,000 more Border Patrol agents along with customs agents, communications equipment and expanded use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
A federal judge last month delayed the most contentious provisions of Arizona's law, including a section that would require officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.
On Sunday, demonstrators drove about four miles on a rutted and rocky dirt road to reach a remote private ranch 70 miles east of Nogales where the steel posts of the Arizona-Mexico border wall are set inches apart to prevent people from crossing into the U.S.
The rally was the most recent in a long line of sweaty demonstrations staged by activists on both sides of the debate over Arizona's controversial law.
Supporters have rallied in parks and baseball stadiums. Opponents have marched through downtown Phoenix, decrying a law they say would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes.
Several candidates and tea party groups passed out free water to visitors on the ranch Sunday where temperatures hovered around 100 degrees.
Hundreds of small U.S. flags and messages were attached earlier to the fence posts by opponents of illegal immigration. The fence, about 15-feet tall and built in the last decade, barely conceals the old barrier still standing behind it — a short, flimsy barbed-wire fence.
One message, attached to a flag on the border wall, read, "Mister President ... Secure This Border For America."
"It's time for us to stand up and say, 'We're not going to leave our country like this to our children and grandchildren," said Jim Howard, 61, who is retired from the Air Force and now works at Walmart.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona's most populous county, said more law enforcement officials should adopt his hard-line stance to prevent illegal immigrants from settling in after they've successfully crossed the border.
"Don't just say border enforcement, that's a cop-out," he said. "Let's say lock them up in the interior."
Arpaio said immigration enforcement goes far beyond the nation's border, and the Mexican government should welcome U.S. Border Patrol or military forces to go after drug cartels south of the border.
U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary Aug. 24, also spoke at the event. He described the border security bill signed Friday as "too little, too late."
Betsy Bayley, 55, a stay-at-home grandmother in Hereford, said drug smuggling has left her feeling less safe in her home in recent years.
"My government should protect me so I can feel safe on my own property," said Bayley, with red, white and blue beads strung around her neck as she found a small patch of shade against the steel border fence. "That's my right as an American. I should feel safe on my own property."
Steven Nanatovich, 42, a retired Army Ranger from Sierra Vista, said immigration probably doesn't affect him as much as others because migrants pass through his area to live in communities farther north.
Nanatovich said he's rarely worried about his safety, but the death in March of rancher Rob Krentz, who was gunned down on his property some 40 miles east of the rally site, spooked him.
"I'm nervous leaving my 14-year-old at home," he said.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Obama Supports Mosque Near Ground Zero

Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero

After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

Harkening back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition, Obama said: "Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

But some Republicans were quick to pounce.

"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."

Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines in the U.S. but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner in the State Dining Room included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.

Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Real Sherrod Story Still Untold

Real Sherrod Story Still Untold

Had Andrew Breitbart dutifully written a column detailing how an obscure USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, and her husband, Charles Sherrod, had scammed the government out of millions, the story would have had the range and lifespan of a fruit fly.
Instead, as the world knows, Breitbart released an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech before the NAACP that provoked national headlines and caused the NAACP to denounce her and a panicky Obama administration to fire her from her position as the Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA.

Then, of course, when the full version of the speech emerged -- which showed Sherrod as a recovering racist, not as a practicing one -- the Obama White House fell all over itself apologizing, and the media turned their guns on Breitbart.

Breitbart, however, had put a potentially huge story into play the only way he could -- through sheer provocation. As he knew, and as we are learning, the story goes well beyond Sherrod's long-ago racist mischief-making with a poor white farmer.

This past Sunday, in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Willie's World," veteran black politico Willie Brown confirmed that "there is more to the story than just [Sherrod's] remarks."

"As an old pro," Brown acknowledged, "I know that you don't fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place." Brown observed that Sherrod had been a thorn in the USDA's side for years, that many had objected to her hiring, and that she had been "operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN." Although Brown does not go into detail, he alludes to a class action lawsuit against the USDA in which she participated some years ago.

In the way of background, in 1997, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by four hundred other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways, from price support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton's use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford's claims dating back to 1983. 

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers -- more realistically, their attorneys -- for fifty grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness.  If any of the presumably racist USDA offenders were punished, that news escaped the media.

After the consent decree was announced, the USDA opened the door to other claimants who had been similarly discriminated against. They expected 2,000 additional claims. They got 22,000 more, roughly 60 percent of whom were approved for this taxpayer-funded Lotto.

Despite having a year and a half to apply, some 70,000 more alleged claimants argued that they not only had been discriminated against, but also had been denied notice of the likely windfall that awaited them. 

In 2008, for reasons unknown, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa lobbied to give the alleged 70,000 "another bite at the apple." Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion that the government did not have to give. This money, by the way, was finessed out of a defense appropriation bill.

At the time, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the agreement would close a "sordid chapter" in the department's history, a chapter in which no one seems to have been so much as reprimanded.

The major media reported the settlement as though it were the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For the last forty years, as the civil rights industry has manufactured more and more absurd grievances -- most notably the Tea Party smear that incited Breitbart's reprisal -- the media have reported on them with increasingly wide-eyed innocence. 

In the various stories on the settlement, not one reporter that I could identify stopped to do the math. Pajamas Media did in a detailed article by "Zombie" titled appropriately, "Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?"

Although 86,000 black farmers are alleged to have received payments, at no time in the last three decades have there been more than 40,000 black farmers. Nor is there much turnover in the farming business. No entrepreneurial activity involves more long-term investment.  

Realistically, of the 40,000 or 86,000, how many could have applied for a USDA loan and been rejected while white farmers in comparable circumstances were getting loans? If there were hundreds, let alone thousands, the heads of loan officers should have been rolling around the USDA floors, but I know of no such purge.

More to the point, out of about $1 billion paid out so far in settlements, the largest amount has gone to the Sherrods' New Communities Incorporated, which received some $13 million. As Time Magazine approvingly reported this week, $330,000 was "awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone."

Unwittingly, Charles Sherrod shed light on the how and why of the settlement in a speech he gave in January 2010. As he explained, New Communities farmed its 6,000 acres successfully for seventeen years before running into five straight years of drought. Then, according to Sherrod, New Communities engaged in a three-year fight with the USDA to get the appropriate loans to deal with drought. 
Said Sherrod, "They were saying that since we're a corporation, we're not an individual, we're not a farmer." Nevertheless, the Sherrods prevailed, but the late payments "caused us to lose this land." In other words, the bureaucratic delay over taxpayer-funded corporate welfare payments cost them their business. 

Then, thanks to their "good lawyers," said a gleeful Sherrod, who seems to have fully recovered from his mental suffering, the Sherrods successfully sued the government for "a large sum of money -- a large sum of money." While saying this, he made hand gestures suggesting $15 million. The land itself was admittedly worth no more than $9 million.

Sherrod gave this talk to announce that the FCC had awarded New Communities a radio station in Albany, Georgia, still another race-based corporate welfare boondoggle. Before the award of this station, he added, the Sherrods "had no means of communicating with our people."

The "our people" in question, of course, are black people. With this new voice, the Sherrods will help "stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black."

Yes, indeed -- these are just the people we want spending the money we don't have.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

14th Amendment: Is birthright citizenship in the Constitution?

14th Amendment: Is birthright citizenship really in the Constitution?

The short answer is NO
Is “birthright citizenship” – the policy of granting US citizenship to every child born on national soil – really enshrined in the US Constitution? Some experts believe it isn’t.

Congress, they say, could regulate who qualifies for birthright citizenship via legislation, within limits. Lawmakers might deny it to children born in the US to illegal immigrants, for example.

This could be an important legal distinction. Circumscribing birthright citizenship with a bill would be very difficult, particularly while President Obama remains in office. But doing the same thing via the direct route of amending the Constitution would be virtually impossible.

“We do not need to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas in a statement issued Tuesday.

Birthright citizenship is a hot topic in Washington nowadays because some congressional Republicans have become increasingly vocal about a desire to deny such status to the children of parents who are residing in the US illegally. The GOP leaders of both the House and Senate have said they favor holding hearings on the issue, at the least.

Many legal scholars believe that changing the policy would require changing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, on which birthright citizenship is based. But “many” legal scholars is not the same thing as “all.”

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.

Furthermore, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee, according to Eastman. Taken together, he says, all this means lawmakers, if they choose, could deny birthright citizenship to the children of parents here illegally.

"The 14th Amendment is a floor, but how far above that floor we go is a matter of basic policy judgment that our Constitution assigns exclusively to the Congress of the United States,".

Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.

“The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific [issue] of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a US citizen,” concludes a 2005 Congressional Research Service report on birthright citizenship.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

About as left as it gets.

Without a TelePrompter, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing!

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Mexicans get 6 votes, whites get one. Plan approved by Judge.

 A bloc of Hispanics, estimated at a little over 20 percent of the voters, successfully installed a candidate of its choosing on a city council after a federal judge ordered the traditional one-person-one-vote system altered because the majority continued to prevail in election after election.

The situation developed in Port Chester, N.Y., where a majority white population continued to choose white candidates for the council, outvoting the estimated 21.9 percent of the voting population that was Hispanic.

However, U.S. District Judge Stephen Robinson, noting there were many more Hispanics who were not voters, demanded a change and approved the city's plan that gave each voter six votes – with permission to concentrate them in any fashion in the recent council election.

The result was that instead of having voters cast one vote in each of six council races this summer, they were allowed to cast up to six votes for a single candidate.

 Full Story here:
1-man, 6-vote racial plan used to choose board's 1st minority

Obama's Plan to Raise Taxes: "Very Dangerous" and "Patently Absurd"

The Obama administration's determination to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans is akin to "operating on an economic body without the benefit of anesthesia," says John Mauldin, president of Millennium Wave Advisors. "What we're doing is a grand experiment."
No fan of tax hikes in ordinary times, Mauldin says raising taxes now -- with the economy at "stall speed" and inflation near zero - is "very dangerous."

Full Story Here

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Taliban murders American medical volunteers on charity mission

KABUL, Afghanistan – They hiked for more than 10 hours over rugged mountains — unarmed and without security — to bring medical care to isolated Afghan villagers until their humanitarian mission took a tragic turn.

Ten members of the Christian medical team — six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton — were gunned down in a gruesome slaughter that the Taliban said they carried out because the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who recited verses from the Islamic holy book Quran as he begged for his life.

Team members — doctors, nurses and logistics personnel — were attacked as they were returning to Kabul after their two-week mission in the remote Parun valley of Nuristan province about 160 miles (260 kilometers) north of Kabul. They had decided to veer northward into Badakhshan province because they thought that would be the safest route back to Kabul, said Dirk Frans, director of the International Assistance Mission, which organized the team.

The bullet-riddled bodies — including three women — were found Friday near three four-wheeled drive vehicles in a wooded area just off the main road that snakes through a narrow valley in the Kuran Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan, provincial police chief Gen. Agha Noor Kemtuz told The Associated Press.

One of the dead Americans had spent about 30 years in Afghanistan, rearing three daughters and surviving both the Soviet invasion and bloody civil war of the 1990s that destroyed much of Kabul.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the AP that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity." In a Pashto language statement acquired by the AP, the Taliban also said the team was carrying Dari language bibles and "spying gadgets."

Frans said the International Assistance Mission, or IAM, one of the longest serving non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, is registered as a nonprofit Christian organization but does not proselytize.

Frans said the team had driven to Nuristan, left their vehicles and hiked for nearly a half day with pack horses over mountainous terrain to reach the Parun valley where they traveled from village to village on foot offering medical care for about two weeks.

"This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people as IAM has been doing since 1966," the charity said in a statement. "We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year."

Among the dead was team leader Tom Little, an optometrist from Delmar, New York, who has been working in Afghanistan for about 30 years and spoke fluent Dari, one of the two main Afghan languages, Frans said. Little, along with employees from other Christian organizations, were expelled by the Taliban government in August 2001 after the arrest of eight Christian aid workers — two Americans and six Germans — for allegedly trying to convert Afghans to Christianity.

He returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban government was toppled in November 2001 by U.S.-backed forces. Known in Kabul as "Mr. Tom," Little supervised a network of IAM eye hospitals and clinics around the country largely funded through private donations.

"He was a remarkable man, and very committed to helping the people of Afghanistan," said David Evans of the Loudonville Community Church, New York, who accompanied Little on a 5,231-mile road (8,419-kilometer) trip to deliver the medical team's Land Rover vehicles from England to Kabul in 2004.

"They raised their three girls there. He was part and parcel of that culture," Evans said.

Little had been making such trips to Afghan villages for decades, offering vision care and surgical services in regions where medical services of any type are scarce.

The work has long been fraught with risk, but Evans said Little was a natural for the job. He spoke the language, knew the local customs, and had the patience and diplomatic skills to handle sticky situations.

Another relief organization, Bridge Afghanistan, said on its website that the group included one of its members, Dr. Karen Woo, who gave up a job in a private clinic in London to do humanitarian work in Afghanistan. A message posted last March on the Bridge Afghanistan website said she was "flat broke and living in a war zone but enjoying helping people in great need."

In a fundraising blog posted last month, Woo said the mission to Nuristan would require hiking with pack horses through mountains rising to 16,000 feet (5,000 meters) to reach the Parun valley, a harsh, isolated area about 9,500 feet (3,000 meters) above sea level where an estimated 50,000 people eke out a primitive existence as shepherds and subsistence farmers.

"The expedition will require a lot of physical and mental resolve and will not be without risk but ultimately, I believe that the provision of medical treatment is of fundamental importance and that the effort is worth it in order to assist those that need it most," she wrote.

"The area ... we will reach is one of great harshness but of great beauty also. I hope that we will be able to provide medical care for a large number of people."

Names of the other foreigners were not released until the bodies could be brought to Kabul for identification, Frans said.

Frans told the AP that he was skeptical the Taliban were responsible. He said the team had studied security conditions carefully before continuing with the mission.

"We are a humanitarian organization. We had no security people. We had no armed guards. We had no weapons," he said.

Authorities in Nuristan heard that foreigners were in the area and sent police to investigate, according to Nuristan Gov. Jamaluddin Bader. The police provided security for the final three or four days of the mission and escorted them across the boundary into Badakhshan, he said. The escorts left after the team told them that they felt safe in Badakhshan, he added.

Frans said he last talked to Little, over a scratchy satellite phone connection, on Wednesday evening. On Friday, the Afghan driver who survived the attack called to report the killings. A fourth Afghan member of the team was not killed because he took a different route home because he had family in Jalalabad, Frans said.

The surviving driver, Saifullah, told authorities that team members stopped for lunch Thursday afternoon in the Sharron valley and were accosted by gunmen when they returned to their vehicles, according to Kemtuz, the Badakhshan police chief. The volunteers were forced to sit on the ground. The gunmen looted the vehicles, then fatally shot them, Kemtuz said.

The Afghan driver who survived "told me he was shouting and reciting the holy Quran and saying 'I am Muslim. Don't kill me,'" Kemtuz said. The gunmen let the driver go free the next day. A shepherd witnessed the carnage and reported the killings to the local district chief, who then brought the bodies to his home.

Aid workers have been often targeted by insurgents.

In 2007, 23 South Korean aid workers from a church group were taken hostage in southern Afghanistan. Two were killed and the rest were later released. In August 2008, four International Rescue Committee workers, including three women, were gunned down in Logar province in eastern Afghanistan.

In October 2008, Gayle Williams, who had dual British and South African citizenship, was killed by two gunmen on a motorcycle as she walked to work in the capital of Kabul. In late 2009, a French aid worker was kidnapped at gunpoint in the Afghan capital. Dany Egreteau, a 32-year-old worker for Solidarite Laique, or Secular Solidarity, who was seen in an emotional hostage video, was later released after a month in captivity.