Sunday, November 21, 2010

Five myths about Sarah Palin

Five myths about Sarah Palin

Matthew Continetti; opinion editor of the Weekly Standard

1. Palin cost McCain the 2008 election.

She didn't. CNN's 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent.

Before Palin's selection, remember, McCain suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Republicans were reluctant to vote for the senator from Arizona because of his reputation as a maverick who'd countered his party on taxes, immigration, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "cap and trade" climate legislation. But Palin's conservative record in Alaska and antiabortion advocacy changed the Republican mood. With her by his side, McCain's fundraising and support from conservatives improved. It wasn't enough to beat Barack Obama -- but McCain probably would have lost the presidency by a greater margin if he had, say, selected independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate, further alienating the GOP base.

Yes, it's possible that Palin's conservatism and uneven performance on the campaign trail shifted some voters to Obama's column. But even if Obama picked up some anti-Palin votes, he surely didn't need them: The economy was in recession, Wall Street was in meltdown, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. In the end, it's impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn't selected Palin -- politics does not allow for control experiments.

2. Resigning as governor was rash.

No one expected Palin's resignation on July 3, 2009, just 2 1/2 years into her term. Her hastily composed and clumsily delivered farewell address left many observers confused about her motives. Some of her critics were only too eager to fill in the gaps with conjecture and hearsay (She's being investigated by the FBI! Sarah and Todd must be headed for divorce!). If there was one thing everybody knew for sure, it was that Palin's career in politics was over.

But none of the rumored scandals ever broke. The Palins remain married. And as for Sarah Palin's career, it's taken off. She plays a far greater role in American public life than she did before she left office.

When Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, she confronted three problems. The political coalition on which she had based her governorship -- a combination of Democrats and renegade "Palinista" Republicans -- had collapsed. Her critics were using Alaska's tough ethics laws to launch investigations into her behavior, sapping her finances and her energy. Finally, every time she traveled to the Lower 48, Alaskans criticized her for putting her political interests above the state's.

Palin's solution was to resign. Her agenda stood a better chance of passing if then-Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who shared Palin's goals, succeeded her as governor. As a private citizen, meanwhile, Palin could make enough money to pay her legal bills. And she would no longer be accused of neglecting her official duties.

Some might say that Palin's resignation was shortsighted and showed that she was not ready for the demands of executive office. But if Palin had remained governor, she would have been denied opportunities to rally the tea party and fight in the battle over the Obama agenda. She would have been stuck on a regional stage. Instead, she's back on the national one.

3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP.

You've heard the spiel: The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between moderate incumbents and far-right challengers backed by Palin and the tea party. Driving Charlie Crist from the GOP and defeating establishment figures such as Robert Bennett, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle spells electoral doom for the party. The only chance Republicans have for long-term success is to move to the center in a bid to win over millennials and Latinos.

But demographics aren't destiny, and no one knows what the future holds. The reality, right now, is that Palin and the tea party are saving the GOP by dragging it back to its roots and mobilizing conservative voters.
Remember, by the time Palin arrived on the national scene, the Republican Party was depleted, exhausted and held in disrepute. An unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in recession and GOP corruption had driven away independents. Meanwhile, massive government spending and a liberal immigration policy had dispirited conservatives.

This is where Palin came in. In the wake of Obama's historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn't. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama's win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven't hurt the GOP one bit.

4. Palin is extreme.

On many of the most important issues of the day, Palin holds positions that are squarely in the center-right of American political discourse. And many of those positions, not incidentally, are held by a large segment or even a majority of the public. For instance, neither the public nor Palin believes the stimulus worked. And while most Americans may not share Palin's views regarding "death panels," many join her in opposing Obama's health-care overhaul.

Over the past two years, Pew and Gallup surveys have tracked the public as it has moved to the right -- not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them. Even on the controversial topics of abortion, guns and same-sex marriage, Palin is not as far away from the center as some suppose. A May 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that a majority of Americans identified as "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice." In October 2009, Gallup measured record-low support for gun control. The public is divided on same-sex marriage, with about half the country joining Palin's (and Obama's) opposition.

5. Palin is unelectable.

Without question, a Palin 2012 campaign would be an uphill battle. Palin is unpopular -- massively so among Democrats, decisively so among independents. Even many Republicans don't believe she's ready to be president.

But opinions can change. Look at the political resuscitations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Palin works hard and runs an impressive campaign, wavering Republicans and skeptical independents may give her a second look.

To earn that second look, she may need to find a big idea. It's hard to become president without one. Reagan had supply-side economics and the end of detente with the Soviets. Bill Clinton had the third way. George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism and the freedom agenda. Obama had national unity and hope and change.

At the moment, however, Palin still expresses her agenda mainly in negative terms, focusing on her opposition to Obama and the Washington establishment. She hasn't defined her "common-sense conservatism" in positive language. And she hasn't found a unifying, exhilarating theme.

Then again, she just might get along without one. After all, a presidential contest is a choice. The public might not love Palin. But by 2012, Americans might absolutely despise Obama. Two more years of a bad economy and an unpopular Afghan war, and anything is possible. Yes, there's a ceiling to Palin's support. But in 2012, there also will be a ceiling to Obama's.

Whose will be higher?

Calling a Swede a Swede

Calling a Swede a Swede

Imagine, if you will, an alternative universe where perception is slightly altered to reflect a different reality. In this universe, terrorists are Scandinavian — Swedes, to be specific.

We should not generalize, and it is clear that not all Swedes are terrorists, but all terrorists are Swedes. These radicals have perverted the beautiful Nordic religion of peace and turned it into an ideology of hatred.

The facts clearly show that the men who try to smuggle bombs onto airplanes have blond hair, blue eyes, are between twenty and forty years old, believe in the supreme god Odin, and carry names like Ingmar Johansson.

They talk funny and they love smorgasbord, which is a traditional Nordic meal with lots of raw fish, and every Swede can drink alcohol in amounts that would kill six reindeer within three minutes.

How do we make sure these bomb-laden Swedes don’t board our airplanes? How can we recognize these radical Nordic terrorists? Should we check dark-haired Asians called Honda? Italians called Ferrari?

Would it be acceptable to single out Swedes trying to travel by air? Or should we, trying to avoid offending Swedish sensibilities, check every person with an airline ticket in general and especially focus on inspecting their crotch? After all, Swedes love to wear their bombs in their underwear, so maybe non-Swedes also wear bombs in their underwear, right?

This may sound ridiculous, but there is no reason we should inspect the crotch of a three-year-old girl carrying a teddy bear if we know her last name is Martinez. So isn’t inspecting every air traveler a terrible waste of money and time? Yes it is. But there is a rationale to all of this.

We turn every traveler into a suspect because we cannot focus on our core group of suspects, the Swedes, although they have shown themselves willing to blow themselves up in our airplanes. Yes, yes, I know — not all Swedes are terrorists. We are talking about a tiny group of potential killers. The problem is that they are all Swedes and all are followers of the god Odin. I can’t help it that they perverted their wonderful religion and hate our guts.

So if we know that some Swedes are really trying to kill us, would it make sense to check German travelers? Worldwide, we daily check millions of passengers of every race, color, gender, and age, while we basically are looking for young male Swedes called Johansson and who are Odinists. But we don’t dare to openly define the threat. It may upset the Swedes, and they are a pretty violent bunch of people who don’t want to be singled out as terrorists. They may try to hurt us if we call them terrorists. They don’t want us to insult their Nordic religion, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace … until we insult their religion.

So in order to find this one radical, tall, blonde, blue-eyed harbinger of evil, we check every human being on the planet who dares to board an airplane. That is why getting onto an airplane has turned into a spectacle of humiliation, confusion, and indecency. We don’t allow ourselves to profile the Swedes in order to find the bad Swedes.

Why can’t we profile the Swedes? Because we stick to the idea that, basically, it is just a coincidence that all terrorists are Swedes. It’s nonsense, but we feel it is a correct idea. We pretend: They could be from Chile. Or Delaware. The moment we say that all terrorists are Odinist, we are putting blame on Odin, the Nordic supreme god. We say: If all terrorists are Odinist, there may be something wrong with Odin himself. We shouldn’t do that.

By not singling out blonde, blue-eyed, young male Swedes called Johansson we can preserve the idea that it’s not Odin who is driving Swedish terrorists into a genocidal rage, but rather American imperialism or Jewish Zionism or the lack of a Swedish issue of Hustler magazine. An Evangelical Lutheran granny from Wyoming could be a terrorist too, we say, when she is being crotch-searched or put in a high-radiation cubicle. Never has a bomb been found in the crotch of a Wyoming Lutheran granny, but that’s not what the crotch-searching is about.

It is a ritual. It means: We don’t want to talk about Odin. We don’t want to talk about violent young male Swedish Odinists. We don’t want to talk about the fact that all terrorists are Swedes. We’d better pretend that all people are terrorists.

So when a TSA employee is touching your private parts or when you are standing in a high-radiation cubicle, think of Odin and all those non-terrorist Swedes who don’t want us to remind them of the brutal fact that “Odin is great” are the last words the Swedish terrorists mutter before they explode.
All this is happening because the Swedes want us to shut up about the ugly truth of Swedish terrorism — that is why we are being crotch-searched when we board a plane.

Feels good, doesn’t it?

Good story - but the Hajis and their PC supporters won't get it.

BTW, Don't call yourself a Scandinavian unless you were born there!

You probably mean that, like me, you have a bit of Scandinavian in your ances
try. As a kid I could sometimes not understand what my relatives were jabbering about in that funky Scandinavian accent. I was Born in the USA, and so were my parents - I'm an American.

Similarly, folks like Louis Farrakhan, Huey Newton, Eric Holder, et al, certainly are not "African Americans".

 Barack Obama is a different kettle of lutefisk altogether.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Obama's 'Beast' of a limo stands out at green NATO summit - Yahoo! News

How much do you suppose it cost just to ship this land barge across the planet?

Obama's 'Beast' of a limo stands out at green NATO summit

The Portuguese hosts of Friday's NATO summit hoped to use the event to promote clean-energy and electric cars, but all eyes were on US President Barack Obama's diesel-guzzling "Beast" instead.
As is usual when he travels, Obama's eight-tonne armoured behemoth of a limousine was flown out to Lisbon before the US leader's arrival, and it ferried him from the airport tarmac to his first meetings of the weekend.
Doubtless he didn't intend the Beast's roar to drown out his hosts' green message, but a US presidential motorcade and its attendant escort of Secret Service SUVs do attract attention, even at the most elite gatherings.
Earlier, Prime Minister Jose Socrates and his fellow Portuguese, the president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, had arrived at the summit in quiet, zero-emission electric cars.
"I'd like to underline the priority both our countries assign to renewable energy and electric vehicles," Socrates said, after meeting Obama, amid amused sniping from the Portuguese press at the mixed messages.
Portugal is proud of the lead it has taken in introducing what it says is the world's first national electric vehicle charging network, with 100 power outlets in 25 towns and plans to install 1,300 by next year.
The government was particularly keen for the press covering the summit to underline this, and a news release describing the recharging network was already on each of the tables in the media centre as the global pack arrived.
Within the highly secure summit site, electric buses were put on to ferry journalists between venues.
In theory, at least, Obama was on side with the plan, remarking: "An area where I want to congratulate the prime minister and the Portuguese people is for the extraordinary leadership that you?ve shown in clean energy.
"The prime minister's leadership on electric cars will create new opportunities for American companies here in Portugal ... and this is an example of what Portugal and America can achieve together."
But there was no immediate reaction from the White House to criticism of Obama's rather less green form of transport, and the administration has in the past said that the president's security arrangements are non-negotiable.

Pilots get OK to skip stepped-up airport screening - Yahoo! News

This exemption is as bogus as the entire concept of screening each and every passenger every time they fly, while turning a blind eye to the obviously increased threat of a Koran-thumping, Burqa swaddled lunatic that is considered equal to a 90-year-old paraplegic grandmother in a wheelchair.

So - what's next?

Fight attendants are complaining of a double standard.  Well, what about the cleaning crew that boards the planes before each departure and after each landing?  What about the baggage  handlers? Frequent fliers?

Pilots get OK to skip stepped-up airport screening - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – Pilots are getting a break from enduring the stepped-up and intrusive screening of airline passengers that's causing a public outcry.

Days before the Thanksgiving holiday travel period, Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole offered little hope of a similar reprieve for regular passengers.
The agency agreed on Friday to let uniformed airline pilots skip the body scans and aggressive pat-downs. Pilots must pass through a metal detector at airport checkpoints and present photo IDs that prove their identity.

The change followed a 2-year lobbying campaign by union leaders, their efforts boosted by hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, who said pilots should be treated as "trusted partners" in the fight against terrorism.
Complaints from Sullenberger, who landed a passenger jet in the Hudson River in January 2009, and others gave weight to the movement to roll back the new measures.

Some activists are urging travelers to refuse to go through full-body scanners, which produce a virtually naked image.

If a loosely organized Internet campaign succeeds, security lines at airports could be snarled. Those who refuse a body scan can be forced to undergo time-consuming fingertip examinations, which include clothed genital areas and breasts, by inspectors of the same sex as the traveler.

American Airlines pilot Sam Mayer said such screening for pilots makes little sense.

A pilot intent on terrorism could simply crash the plane. No amount of imaging at the security checkpoint could stop that. Besides, under another government program to make them the last line of defense against terrorists, pilots are allowed to have guns in the cockpit.

The changes promised by TSA are "basically what we've been after," Mayer said. "Pilots are not the threat here; we're the target."

Mayer's union, the Allied Pilots Association, helped foment the backlash against the security measures two weeks ago. Its president, Dave Bates, urged pilots to skip the imaging machines because of concern about frequent radiation exposure. The government and an independent group of experts say radiation is safe, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners.

Bates recommended that pilots instead accept a pat-down — preferably where passengers couldn't see them.
John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at several major airlines, said the unions have been negotiating the changes with TSA for two years. He said changes were in the works, but were speeded up by the backlash against the new imaging machines and searching techniques.

The TSA offered few details — and no specific timeline — for changes in screening of pilots, which expand a program tested at airports in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Charlotte, N.C.

The TSA said that beginning Friday, pilots traveling in uniform or on airline business could pass security by presenting two photo IDs, one from their company and one from the government, to be checked against a secure flight crew database. Their unions said pilots could skip the pat-downs immediately.

Pistole said pilots ensure the safety of millions of passengers every day, and that putting them through a faster screening process would be a more efficient use of the agency's resources. But he has defended the more invasive inspections of passengers, saying they were a response to intelligence about potential terrorist attacks and plots to evade airport security.

Homeland security officials were alarmed last Christmas when a terrorist with a bomb in his underwear got on a flight to Detroit. He failed to detonate the explosives. Last month, terrorists tried mailing bombs hidden in ink cartridges and shipping them on planes as cargo.

Some lawmakers who are feeling heat from voters have called for a review of the TSA procedures.
The government could ease concerns through different technology. The TSA is testing a new body scanner that produces stick-figure images instead of pictures of the traveler's naked body.
While pilots celebrated Friday, other airline employees feel left out.

The president of the flight attendants' union at Southwest Airlines said if pilots can bypass the screening process, so should his members.

Thom McDaniel said attendants go through FBI checks just like pilots do, and making them go through the regular screening is "a double standard."

Prater, the pilots' union president, said he believes the government will eventually approve a system of allowing regular passengers to pass background checks and qualify as "trusted travelers" who can skip through security just by showing identification that can be verified in a computer database.

NRA-ILA :: NRA Strongly OpposesThe Nomination Of Andrew Traver to Head BATFECalls On President Obama To Withdraw The Nomination

NRA-ILA :: NRA Strongly OpposesThe Nomination Of Andrew Traver to Head BATFE

Calls On President Obama To Withdraw The Nomination

Friday, November 19, 2010
Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
The NRA strongly opposes President Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a “recess appointment,” in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly elected U.S. Senators.
Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” a “partnership” with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.
The IACP report, generated with Traver’s help, called on Congress to ban thousands of commonly owned firearms by misrepresenting them as “assault weapons,” as well as calling for bans on .50 caliber rifles and widely used types of ammunition. The report also suggests that Congress should regulate gun shows out of existence and should repeal the privacy protections of the Tiahrt Amendment—all efforts strongly opposed by the NRA and its members.
Traver also participated in an extremely deceptive NBC Chicago report ( in which he referred to “the growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons” and described them as if they were machine guns: “Pull the trigger and you can mow people down.” Traver and his agents provided the reporter with a fully automatic AK-47, with which she was unable to hit the target. He then said that stray bullets are “one of the main problems with having stuff like this available to the gangs.”
As the Agent-in-Charge of Chicago’s BATFE office, Traver knows that fully automatic firearms are not available through normal retail channels—the opposite of what was implied in the report.
An agency involved in the regulation of a fundamental, individual right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution should not be led by an individual with a demonstrated hostility to that freedom. For that reason, the NRA strongly opposes Andrew Traver to head the BATFE and urges President Obama to withdraw this ill-advised nomination.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Neil (Mush for Brains) Young and his flaming eco-Lincoln

Neil Young warehouse blaze started in hybrid 'LincVolt' car

Neil Young is fighting global warming and saving the environment by automatically setting fire to his garage.

The three-alarm blaze that caused $1.1 million in
damage to a warehouse filled with rock legend Neil
Young's music equipment and memorabilia appears
to have started in a one-of-a-kind hybrid car stored
at the site, a fire official said Monday.

Flames began in a 1959 Lincoln Continental dubbed
LincVolt, which runs on electric batteries and a
biodiesel-powered generator, and then spread to
the warehouse at 593 Quarry Road in the early
morning of Nov. 9, according to Belmont-San Carlos
Fire Marshal Jim Palisi and a website devoted to the

Young assembled a team of workers in 2008 to
convert the 19.5-foot behemoth from gasoline to
hybrid power, an effort he chronicled in a four-part
film series.

 While the exact cause of the fire is still being probed, it
seems "to be an operator error that occurred in an
untested part of the charging system," Young wrote
in a statement. Workers have removed the car's
computer and hope it will shed light on the cause. 

"We are investigating the components involved with
plug-in charging," Young wrote.

The flames severely damaged the car and caused an
estimated total of $850,000 in damage to the items
Young had stored in the roughly 10,000-square-
foot warehouse. On the morning of the fire, Young's
workers and friends carried guitars, framed photos,
film canisters and crates of musical equipment out
of the burned structure. Damage to the building is
estimated at $250,000, Palisi said.

 "How  do you put a price on that vehicle?" Palisi added.
"To me, it's priceless."

Firefighters managed to save at least 70 percent of
the building's contents, which included five other classic

cars. They raced to the scene about 2:55 a.m. and had
the blaze under control by 3:45 a.m., officials said. 

Young expressed his thanks to the fire department
for saving what they could of his items in the
warehouse, saying "a lot of archival items were
threatened and the fire department did a first-class
job protecting them."

The music legend had just returned from an
appearance at the Specialty Equipment Market
Association car show in Las Vegas, where he
delivered a talk on the hybrid. 

"I love my car," he told the audience.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

New Orleans went under - A Black man's comments

Moral poverty cost blacks

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:
  • What would you do?
  • What would you do if you were black? 

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.
To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.
For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.
No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.
Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.
Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform – legally and practically – fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin – the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."
One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now – the photo showing 200 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?
Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.
About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.
President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.
All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty – not their material poverty – that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated – they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is the founder and president of two dynamic organizations: BOND (Brotherhood Organization Of A New Destiny), a national 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to "Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man," and BOND Action, Inc., a 501(c)4 cultural activist organization whose purpose is to educate, motivate and rally Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country. For more information, visit or

Monday, November 15, 2010

Psycho California Supreme Court Strikes Again

If you are a taxpaying American, the California Supremes have a message for you: BOHICA

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that some illegal immigrants are entitled to the same tuition breaks offered to in-state high school students to attend public colleges and universities.

While the ruling applies only to California, the case was closely watched nationally because nine other states including New York and Texas have similar laws.

Republican congressmen Lamar S. Smith of Texas and Steve King of Iowa filed a so-called friends of the court brief urging that illegal immigrants be denied the reduced rate.

The lawsuit considered by the court was part of a broader legal assault led by the immigration legal scholar Kris Kobach, who has filed numerous cases across the country seeking to restrict the rights of illegal immigrants.

He represented a group of U.S. students who filed the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the California law.

Kobach did not return a phone call seeking comment about the ruling in California.

A unanimous state Supreme Court, led by politically conservative Justice Ming Chin, said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also had access to the reduced rates.

The California Legislature passed the controversial measure in 2001 that allowed any student regardless of immigration status who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated to qualify for in-state tuition at the state's colleges universities. In-state tuition saves each state college student about $11,000 a year and each University of California student about $23,000 a year.

A state appellate court in 2008 ruled the law was unconstitutional after a group of out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens filed a lawsuit alleging the measure violated federal prohibitions barring illegal immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency.

But the state Supreme Court noted that the California law says nothing about state residency,

The state law also requires the illegal immigrants applying for the in-state tuition to swear they will attempt to become U.S. citizens. The applicants are still barred from receiving federal financial aid.

"Through their hard work and perseverance, these students have earned the opportunity to attend UC," said University of California president Mark G. Yudof. "Their accomplishments should not be disregarded or their futures jeopardized."

Kobach also failed to invalidate a similar law in Kansas. His lawsuit in Nebraska is pending.

The law professor was the chief drafter of Arizona's tough new laws against illegal immigrants, which is pending before a federal appeals court.

He was elected earlier this month to serve as secretary of state in Kansas.

Signs of things to come. How's that workin' out for you, Holder?

Note signals deadlocked jury in NY terror case
Tom Hays, Associated Press

NEW YORK – Deliberations at the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee hit a snag on Monday when a juror told the judge she felt threatened by other jurors and asked him to be removed from the panel.

The note raised the specter of a hung jury because the juror said she was at odds with the rest of the anonymous panel as they try to settle on a verdict on terror charges against Ahmed Ghailani in federal court in Manhattan.

"My conclusion is not going to change," she wrote without indicating her position. "I feel (I am being) attacked for my conclusion."

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan responded by calling all the jurors into the courtroom, reminding them of his instructions on the law and telling them to continue deliberations, now in their third day.

He later shot down a defense motion arguing that the apparent discord in the jury room was grounds for a mistrial.

"Let's just see what happens," Kaplan said. "Time is a great thing."

Prosecutors allege Ghailani helped an al-Qaida cell buy a truck and components for explosives used in a suicide bombing in his native Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998. The attack in Dar es Salaam and a nearly simultaneous bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

The day before the bombings, Ghailani fled by boarding a one-way flight to Pakistan under an alias, prosecutors said. While on the run, he spent time in Afghanistan as a cook and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and later as a document forger for al-Qaida, authorities said.

He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and held by the CIA at a secret overseas camp. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo and held until the decision last year to bring him to New York.

The defense has argued that the 36-year-old defendant was a "dupe" who was in the dark about the plot.

Rangel recuses self from ethics hearing

Can you believe this guy?
For decades this corrupt jerk has been raking the taxpayers over the coals - now he is pleading for sympathy as an impoverished victim - in his $5,000 suit and diamond rings. Take note of the Rainbow Coalition necktie.

Charlie Rangel speaks at his House ethics hearing

The House ethics trial for New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel is now missing one important figure in the case: Charlie Rangel.

The congressman showed up for the first day of the scheduled proceeding without his lawyers and blasted the committee for dragging the inquiry out past the point where he could afford representation.

He asked for a delay, but was denied the request.

Rangel, who faces 13 ethics violations, said he paid $2 million over the past two years for lawyers, but could not afford the estimated $1 million in legal feels required for the present House ethics trial.

"Fifty years of public service are… on the line.... I truly believe I'm not being treated fairly," Rangel said. "I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."

Rangel blasted the committee for the protracted hearing, noting that he would have preferred that the panel settle the charges against him before his Democratic primary or even before the general election.

A House investigation concluded in June that Rangel improperly solicited donations for his center and New York's City College, failed to provide complete financial disclosure information and improperly used a rent-controlled apartment for campaign purposes.

Committee rules state that a member facing violations may choose to hire counsel but is not required to do so. But as Rangel notes, he would be at a disadvantage without representation.

"I've been a lawyer long enough to know it's very very unwise for any person… to be his own lawyer at a proceeding like this," Rangel told the committee.

He further denounced the committee for claiming it didn't have the time to begin the trial, but suggesting now, when its members find it convenient, that it would like to quickly resolve the matter. Rangel said he has been offered free representation, but has been informed that such advocacy constitutes a gift and would violate House rules.

Rangel suggested he would recuse himself, so members moved into a closed session to decide how to proceed after this surprise development.

They returned less than an hour later to announce that the trial would proceed but they also laid into Rangel's lawyers, saying that Rangel's legal team had ditched the lawmaker on the eve of the hearing.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) expressed his "astonishment" with the litigation specialists Rangel had retained at Zuckerman Spaeder "for taking the money, draining the money and then kicking their client to the side of the road."

See Me, Feel Me

This brought tears to my eyes . . .
Dry heaves do it every time.
Thanks a million - you islamic bastards.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Kill those deer. Kill 'em now!

Deer hunting? - Gimme a freaking break!

In my experience there is no "hunting" involved. I've killed two deer with my land barge recently. I've spent more on body work than any hunter has ever spent on a camo outfit, hunting rifle, bullets, license, and marriage counseling.

If I can bag a crafty sharp-eyed deer with a chrome
plated, fire-breathing Detroit sled, roaring down the middle of the road in broad daylight at 55 MPH, don't tell me how much skill it takes to "hunt" a deer.

Every time I drive my car I lean on the horn, keep the high beams on, and hope to God that I can dodge those "elusive" creatures when they jump out of the bushes at my 2-ton, twenty foot long Mercury Grand Marque.

Kill those deer. Kill 'em now!

Friday, November 5, 2010

Solar company, cuts jobs, takes over half a billion taxpayer dollars.

 Check out the N. California solar company cutting green jobs   Obama just provided this company with over $535,000,000 in loan guarantees as they were to be adding 1000 jobs.  Now they say they can’t compete.  I certainly hope there were some provisions for keeping jobs here in the U.S. when the monies were lent.

 Hmmm - let's do some figgerin' here:
$535 million dollars to create 1000 potential jobs.  That is $535,000 per job. 

If instead cash was given directly to the unemployed the money would have provided $50,000 per year for ten years to 10,700 families, instead of a handful of fat cat executives in Al Gore's posse.


Solar company Solyndra to close factory, cut jobs

November 3, 2010 |  6:28 pm
It isn’t easy being green for Solyndra Inc., the controversial Bay Area solar power system manufacturing company.
The company said Wednesday that it is shuttering one of its factories to save $60 million in capital expenditures, laying off 40 employees and letting the contracts for more than 100 temporary workers expire.
All this despite a $535-million federal loan guarantee, more than $1 billion in private equity funds and supportive visits from luminaries such as  Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and President Barack Obama.
Obama Solyndra has had a tough year. Its founding chief executive, Chris Gronet, stepped down and the company abandoned plans for a much-anticipated initial public offering because of difficult market conditions.
Now, Solyndra is closing down its first factory just months after opening its second, where the company said expansion will be delayed. Instead of reaching 610 megawatts of production capacity by 2013 as initially planned, the company will aim for up to 300 megawatts.
Competition from other solar panel makers is a major culprit. Manufacturers in Chinaespecially are offering hard-to-beat prices. Solyndra’s cylindrical copper indium gallium selenide solar cells are also more expensive to produce than most.
Perhaps there was a hint at the recent Solar Power International trade show, where Solyndra representatives said that the company planned to cut costs in half over the next year after already halving them over the last eight months.
Then again, they also said Solyndra intended to boost capacity 250% this year and next.
--Tiffany Hsu
Photo: President Obama gives a speech to Solyndra employees in May. Credit: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Here's the Real Reason Independents Have Turned Against the Democrats

The author may be a financial pundit, but she certainly has no clue as to how the government operates.

FYI, Michelle, it is the Congress that makes the laws and spends the money, not the President

Remove the "It's all George Bush's fault" and this has the makings of a good story.

from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera

The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans, and now they are throwing out the Democrats.

What Americans want is a government that stays out of their pocketbooks and out of their private lives. Under Presidents Bush and Obama, we've gotten just the opposite: government program after government program created with our money to socially engineer the economy.

Evidence of voters' desires lies in the huge swing we are seeing in the so-called independents. They are leaning heavily Republican in every poll. Pundits and political observers use the word independents frequently, but rarely do they define it. Now would be a good time.

I believe independents are fiscally-conservative, yet socially-liberal. How do I know? I'm one of them. I don't want to be taxed to death, and I don't want to tell other people how to live their lives.

Yet, for decades the choice has been either A.) a party that didn't want to overtax me, but seemed awfully concerned about what happens in people bedrooms, or B.) a party that was far more tolerant on social issues but loved spending taxpayer money to "fix" things.

But many believers in small-government think it is a concept that should dictate every aspect of Washington, not just the size of say, the Department of Commerce. Laws designed to legislate social values run contrary to the idea of small government because making laws about peoples private lives is about making government bigger, not smaller.

Now to today's election and the supposed flip-flop of the American public. To independent voters, Presidents Obama and Bush look awfully similar. Both have presided over enormous increases in government spending, and deep government intervention into large portions of the economy. From President Obama we got health care reform, from President Bush we got the largest federal intervention into education in the nations history, and huge subsidies for people to buy homes. Both have given us protectionism. Both bailed out the banks. Both bailed out the auto industry. For 10 years now we've had no difference in governing policies regardless of who was in power.

So now what?

After the Republican sweep of 1994, President Clinton was forced to find fiscal religion, and independents finally got policy changes they wanted: welfare reform, an embrace of the free markets with the passage of NAFTA, and a balanced budget driven in large part by less spending. (Thank you Newt Gingrich.) With the glaring exceptions of the tax-hike of 1993 and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton looks pretty good to the independent voter of today.

Will President Obama learn from President Clinton? Only if he corrects his view of history.

Right now, the President consistently blames a lack of government oversight and regulation under the Bush years, as one of the key reasons for the nations economic woes. The truth is just the opposite and the American people know that. President Bush may have been Republican, but he didn't preside like one. We haven't seen a Republican president who truly believed in keeping government small in the lives of its people since Ronald Reagan.

Despite an enormous amount of new legislation (the stimulus bill, health care reform, financial regulatory reform, and education finance reform) President Obama's ratings have never been lower.

He needs to ask himself why.

The answer: because he is doing exactly the same thing his predecessor did. Spending too much, regulating too much, and intervening too much, with little to show for it in the way of economic improvement.

To the American people, less is more. They know exactly what they want. Now if only the politicians they vote for would give it to them.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is an anchor of CNBCs Power Lunch and author of 'You Know I'm Right, More Prosperity, Less Government.'