... Hamas and Iran do their level best to make sure there is no doubt of their intentions in the Middle East. The question is, is anyone in the West listening? :
The 'realist' fantasy
Dec. 25, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed.
On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.
Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.
While Hamas joyously renewed its jihad against Jews and Christians, its overlords in Iran also basked in jihadist triumphalism. The source of Teheran's sense of ascendancy this week was Britain's Channel 4 network's decision to request that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give a special Christmas Day address to the British people. Ahmadinejad's speech was supposed to be a response to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional Christmas Day address to her subjects. That is, Channel 4 presented his message as a reasonable counterpoint to the Christmas greetings of the head of the Church of England.
Channel 4 justified its move by proclaiming that it was providing a public service. As a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post, "We're offering [Ahmadinejad] the chance to speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."
While that sounds reasonable, the fact is that Westerners see Ahmadinejad speaking for himself all the time. They saw him at the UN two years in a row as he called for the countries of the world to submit to Islam; claimed that Iran's nuclear weapons program is divinely inspired; and castigated Jews as subhuman menaces to humanity.
They saw him gather leading anti-Semites from all over the world at his Holocaust denial conference.
They heard him speak in his own words when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
And of course, over the years Ahmadinejad has often communicated directly to the British people. For instance, in 2007 he received unlimited airtime on UK television as he paraded kidnapped British sailors and marines in front of television cameras; forced them to make videotaped "confessions" of their "crime" of entering Iranian territorial waters; and compelled them to grovel at his knee and thank him for "forgiving" them.
The British people listened to Ahmadinejad as he condemned Britain as a warmongering nation after its leaders had surrendered Basra to Iranian proxies. They heard him - speaking in his own voice - when he announced that in a gesture of Islamic mercy, he was freeing their humiliated sailors and marines in honor of Muhammad's birthday and Easter, and then called on all Britons to convert to Islam.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Round after Round it goes -- and where it stops....?
And now we'll watch the United Nations and the rest of the world wring their hands and question Israel's right to shoot back!! Why not just turn the other cheek and let Hamas rocket away?
A voice from the past --- rings thru the turn of the Century
Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
I am sure folks laughed and said it was impossible -- of course that was before;
- National Health became priority #1
- Social Security grew from it's tiny beginnings
- The feds controlled the curricula -even the lunch menu standards in our schools
- We elected a President who's stated platform is 'redistribution of wealth'
- We just spent $700 Billion 'nationalizing' the banking system
- We just spent $17 Billion 'nationalizing' the auto industry
............................ad nauseum!
And now that Congress has decided to take over day-to-day management of the auto industry (they've done so well with the country) I see they going to appoint a Car Czar to tell the Big Three, what to produce, how many, and what colors... all green I reckon.
That makes me feel much better --- Back in 1982, they created a 'Drug Czar' to end drug problems in this great Nation. I reckon that's why we have no drug trafficking, or related drug problems in this country twenty-six years later!!
The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
I am sure folks laughed and said it was impossible -- of course that was before;
- National Health became priority #1
- Social Security grew from it's tiny beginnings
- The feds controlled the curricula -even the lunch menu standards in our schools
- We elected a President who's stated platform is 'redistribution of wealth'
- We just spent $700 Billion 'nationalizing' the banking system
- We just spent $17 Billion 'nationalizing' the auto industry
............................ad nauseum!
And now that Congress has decided to take over day-to-day management of the auto industry (they've done so well with the country) I see they going to appoint a Car Czar to tell the Big Three, what to produce, how many, and what colors... all green I reckon.
That makes me feel much better --- Back in 1982, they created a 'Drug Czar' to end drug problems in this great Nation. I reckon that's why we have no drug trafficking, or related drug problems in this country twenty-six years later!!
Monday, December 29, 2008
If you are too busy to read this today -- come back at a quieter time..from American Thinker and well done!
Where should Conservatives Draw the Line?
By Larrey Anderson
Dec 29, 2008
As January 20th approaches so too does the possibility of the biggest federal power grab in the history of the United States. The number of proposals for more federal intervention to "solve" America's problems is staggering. In this article I want to discuss which of these socialist schemes conservatives have a fighting chance to stop ... and what we must do to be successful in our efforts to stop them.
But before I review the areas in which we might have some success, I want to discuss the impending transformations that are already out of our hands.
(A) The Judiciary: Let it go conservatives. There is nothing we can do to halt the appointment of liberal judges to the federal bench. Don't even think that the Republicans in the Senate will filibuster Obama's judicial nominations. They do not have the backbone. They never have. The Senate voted 96 to 3 to put Ruth Bader Ginsburg (former ACLU board member) on the Supreme Court. Obama's appointments will fly through the Senate. This is a battle that we have lost ... decisively.
(B) Health Care Reform: In the early 90s when the Clintons tried to pull off this same stunt, America's medical and insurance industry rose up and smashed it. But most Americans involved in health care don't appear to be in a fighting mood anymore. Get ready for inferior health care, longer lines in the waiting rooms, and higher taxes to pay for these privileges. It is coming.
(C) Higher Taxes: Speaking of taxes, you really didn't believe that 95% of Americans would pay lower taxes under Obama did you? First of all, about 41% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. It is hard to lower zero. Not even the Messiah can keep that promise. But apparently the majority of American voters don't do much math. Joe Biden (who is also mathematically challenged) promised us that we would all be paying our share of his patriotic taxes under the new administration. Get used to paying to be patriotic. Our taxes are going up.
(D) The War on Terrorism: Sad to say but America is now at the mercy of the terrorists. By that I mean that the Obama Administration will be reactive rather than proactive in the war against Islamofascism. Joe Biden has said as much. So has Obama. Not much we can do but wait this one out -- because that is what the new commander-in-chief plans on doing.
(E) Bailouts: Thanks to George W. "Deer in Headlights" Bush, we have the bailouts. Under President Obama there will be bailouts of the bailouted. And then, under Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Christopher Dodd, there will be bailouts of the buddies of the bailouted buddies.
Public opinion hasn't stopped bailout mania. A majority of Americans screamed at the top of their lungs in opposition to the initial bailout. We were against the auto bailout as well. We have been ignored. We will continue to be disregarded until we throw out the bailouters. (This includes many Republicans and almost all of the Democrats.) The only way to put this cat back in the bag is at the ballot box. It will be two years before Americans are heard from again on this issue. Sorry.
In my opinion, conservatives will waste their energy trying to stop the implementation of these five policies, although, if we effectively protest, we may get some concessions.
There are, however, proposed changes that conservatives must challenge and certain fundamental principles we must protect:
(1) Illegal immigration. Unlike the bailouts, Congress has heeded America's protestations against legalizing what is now, at least according to the unenforced laws, illegal immigration. The reason we were heard is simple: money. There are huge financial contributions that have been handed, and will continue to be slipped, to Congress by vested bailout interests. There is not a huge financial gain for Congress to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. (Agricultural, and the few remaining industrial lobbyists stumping for amnesty, provide chump change to the politicians compared to the banking, credit, and union lobbyists.) The people were heard when Kennedy and McCain tried to jam through the last amnesty bill. If we make enough noise, we will be effective again.
(2) Education: Conservatives have been far too passive for far too long on this crucial concern. Obama has proposed massive federal intrusion into the educational system. The stated intention is to have central government involved in our children's education from the cradle to valediction. (The subtitle of one of the proposals is "A Pre-School Agenda That Begins At Birth.") This reform is likely to come in a series of steps, rather than as a single legislative initiative.
Since the liberals will soon control all three branches of government, conservatives will need to conduct a campaign of guerrilla warfare to reform the educational system. Education is, still, primarily a local issue. Conservatives must start taking back the schools. We must run for the school board. We must be interactive with our children and their teachers. We must object, and object loudly, to the teaching of political correctness over the teaching of the "Three Rs." In the short term, we conservatives should focus most of our energy on this issue. Until we take back the schools, we will continue to have generation after generation of uneducated dunces voting for equally uneducated dunces. The effort to take back our schools must start now.
(3) Religious Expression: The real victim of religious intolerance in the United States (and world wide for that matter) is Judeo-Christianity. The greatest religious tradition in the world has continued to turn the other cheek. As a result, Judeo-Christianity has been slapped silly. The basic principles of life, liberty, and private property were bequeathed to the world by Judeo-Christianity. It is way passed time that this great religious tradition started to vigorously defend itself against the religious and cultural genocide that goes by the twin appellations of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism." This battle for the freedom of religious expression must be fought in the courthouse, the schoolhouse, and the church house.
(4) The Global Warming Hoax. I have saved the most important issue for last. The Obama administration has promised to move full steam ahead to lower the output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon, a naturally occurring element, will probably be declared a "dangerous pollutant" by the EPA soon after Obama takes office. Obama has sworn to move rapidly to build a useless system of windmills in an effort to replace fossil fuels. There are a number of other equally futile programs in the works. Obama's carbon credit proposal, for example, would radically alter the way business is conducted in America for the sole stated purpose of "saving the planet."
If Obama's plan is implemented on a national scale it will spell short-term to mid-term disaster for American industry and for our economy. But Americans will tolerate the coming brown outs, gasoline rationing, and government control of their thermostats for only awhile. (I predict that in less than twenty years the government will outsource to private companies the task of removing the tens of thousands of windmills Obama seems bent on installing.)
Much more dangerous is that the Obama Administration, leading by example, will continue to encourage and support the UN proposals for forcing third world countries to develop "clean energy." Hundreds of millions of poor people in the third world need a reliable energy system in order to expand industry, agriculture, jobs, housing, medical facilities, and transportation; in short, they need dependable energy to survive.
To deny the third world access to fossil fuels and nuclear energy in an effort to pursue the pipe dream of stopping global warming, is not just madness ... it is evil. Millions of people face poverty, disease, and death simply because they do not have adequate access to reliable energy. Any viable plan to help the third world must include allowing the poor peoples of the planet to aggressively pursue the cheapest and easiest means to develop and import energy.
Stopping Obama's plans to "save the planet" is, in my opinion, a moral imperative for American's conservatives. We must succeed here, not only for our own economic interests; we must do it to save lives. Open-minded scientists, in particular, must speak out on this issue.
No matter how difficult the battle, we cannot allow these programs to be put in place to solve a non-existent problem. All of these proposals are grounded in a scientific theory that is not only unproven, it is constantly changing. We must stop this global warming nonsense. We must draw the line here.
My advice to conservatives for the next two years: Focus on the fundamentals -- especially education and freedom of religious expression. It will be almost impossible for us to stop most of the socialist political agenda that will soon be law. We must educate our children, our neighbors, and ourselves in an effort to insure that next time around "we don't get fooled again."
By Larrey Anderson
Dec 29, 2008
As January 20th approaches so too does the possibility of the biggest federal power grab in the history of the United States. The number of proposals for more federal intervention to "solve" America's problems is staggering. In this article I want to discuss which of these socialist schemes conservatives have a fighting chance to stop ... and what we must do to be successful in our efforts to stop them.
But before I review the areas in which we might have some success, I want to discuss the impending transformations that are already out of our hands.
(A) The Judiciary: Let it go conservatives. There is nothing we can do to halt the appointment of liberal judges to the federal bench. Don't even think that the Republicans in the Senate will filibuster Obama's judicial nominations. They do not have the backbone. They never have. The Senate voted 96 to 3 to put Ruth Bader Ginsburg (former ACLU board member) on the Supreme Court. Obama's appointments will fly through the Senate. This is a battle that we have lost ... decisively.
(B) Health Care Reform: In the early 90s when the Clintons tried to pull off this same stunt, America's medical and insurance industry rose up and smashed it. But most Americans involved in health care don't appear to be in a fighting mood anymore. Get ready for inferior health care, longer lines in the waiting rooms, and higher taxes to pay for these privileges. It is coming.
(C) Higher Taxes: Speaking of taxes, you really didn't believe that 95% of Americans would pay lower taxes under Obama did you? First of all, about 41% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. It is hard to lower zero. Not even the Messiah can keep that promise. But apparently the majority of American voters don't do much math. Joe Biden (who is also mathematically challenged) promised us that we would all be paying our share of his patriotic taxes under the new administration. Get used to paying to be patriotic. Our taxes are going up.
(D) The War on Terrorism: Sad to say but America is now at the mercy of the terrorists. By that I mean that the Obama Administration will be reactive rather than proactive in the war against Islamofascism. Joe Biden has said as much. So has Obama. Not much we can do but wait this one out -- because that is what the new commander-in-chief plans on doing.
(E) Bailouts: Thanks to George W. "Deer in Headlights" Bush, we have the bailouts. Under President Obama there will be bailouts of the bailouted. And then, under Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Christopher Dodd, there will be bailouts of the buddies of the bailouted buddies.
Public opinion hasn't stopped bailout mania. A majority of Americans screamed at the top of their lungs in opposition to the initial bailout. We were against the auto bailout as well. We have been ignored. We will continue to be disregarded until we throw out the bailouters. (This includes many Republicans and almost all of the Democrats.) The only way to put this cat back in the bag is at the ballot box. It will be two years before Americans are heard from again on this issue. Sorry.
In my opinion, conservatives will waste their energy trying to stop the implementation of these five policies, although, if we effectively protest, we may get some concessions.
There are, however, proposed changes that conservatives must challenge and certain fundamental principles we must protect:
(1) Illegal immigration. Unlike the bailouts, Congress has heeded America's protestations against legalizing what is now, at least according to the unenforced laws, illegal immigration. The reason we were heard is simple: money. There are huge financial contributions that have been handed, and will continue to be slipped, to Congress by vested bailout interests. There is not a huge financial gain for Congress to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. (Agricultural, and the few remaining industrial lobbyists stumping for amnesty, provide chump change to the politicians compared to the banking, credit, and union lobbyists.) The people were heard when Kennedy and McCain tried to jam through the last amnesty bill. If we make enough noise, we will be effective again.
(2) Education: Conservatives have been far too passive for far too long on this crucial concern. Obama has proposed massive federal intrusion into the educational system. The stated intention is to have central government involved in our children's education from the cradle to valediction. (The subtitle of one of the proposals is "A Pre-School Agenda That Begins At Birth.") This reform is likely to come in a series of steps, rather than as a single legislative initiative.
Since the liberals will soon control all three branches of government, conservatives will need to conduct a campaign of guerrilla warfare to reform the educational system. Education is, still, primarily a local issue. Conservatives must start taking back the schools. We must run for the school board. We must be interactive with our children and their teachers. We must object, and object loudly, to the teaching of political correctness over the teaching of the "Three Rs." In the short term, we conservatives should focus most of our energy on this issue. Until we take back the schools, we will continue to have generation after generation of uneducated dunces voting for equally uneducated dunces. The effort to take back our schools must start now.
(3) Religious Expression: The real victim of religious intolerance in the United States (and world wide for that matter) is Judeo-Christianity. The greatest religious tradition in the world has continued to turn the other cheek. As a result, Judeo-Christianity has been slapped silly. The basic principles of life, liberty, and private property were bequeathed to the world by Judeo-Christianity. It is way passed time that this great religious tradition started to vigorously defend itself against the religious and cultural genocide that goes by the twin appellations of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism." This battle for the freedom of religious expression must be fought in the courthouse, the schoolhouse, and the church house.
(4) The Global Warming Hoax. I have saved the most important issue for last. The Obama administration has promised to move full steam ahead to lower the output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon, a naturally occurring element, will probably be declared a "dangerous pollutant" by the EPA soon after Obama takes office. Obama has sworn to move rapidly to build a useless system of windmills in an effort to replace fossil fuels. There are a number of other equally futile programs in the works. Obama's carbon credit proposal, for example, would radically alter the way business is conducted in America for the sole stated purpose of "saving the planet."
If Obama's plan is implemented on a national scale it will spell short-term to mid-term disaster for American industry and for our economy. But Americans will tolerate the coming brown outs, gasoline rationing, and government control of their thermostats for only awhile. (I predict that in less than twenty years the government will outsource to private companies the task of removing the tens of thousands of windmills Obama seems bent on installing.)
Much more dangerous is that the Obama Administration, leading by example, will continue to encourage and support the UN proposals for forcing third world countries to develop "clean energy." Hundreds of millions of poor people in the third world need a reliable energy system in order to expand industry, agriculture, jobs, housing, medical facilities, and transportation; in short, they need dependable energy to survive.
To deny the third world access to fossil fuels and nuclear energy in an effort to pursue the pipe dream of stopping global warming, is not just madness ... it is evil. Millions of people face poverty, disease, and death simply because they do not have adequate access to reliable energy. Any viable plan to help the third world must include allowing the poor peoples of the planet to aggressively pursue the cheapest and easiest means to develop and import energy.
Stopping Obama's plans to "save the planet" is, in my opinion, a moral imperative for American's conservatives. We must succeed here, not only for our own economic interests; we must do it to save lives. Open-minded scientists, in particular, must speak out on this issue.
No matter how difficult the battle, we cannot allow these programs to be put in place to solve a non-existent problem. All of these proposals are grounded in a scientific theory that is not only unproven, it is constantly changing. We must stop this global warming nonsense. We must draw the line here.
My advice to conservatives for the next two years: Focus on the fundamentals -- especially education and freedom of religious expression. It will be almost impossible for us to stop most of the socialist political agenda that will soon be law. We must educate our children, our neighbors, and ourselves in an effort to insure that next time around "we don't get fooled again."
What the hell is this country turning into.....?
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports - in the year 2007 there were 9.8 million crimes against property in the United States. This included about 2.2 million burglaries, 6.6 million larceny-thefts, and 1.1 million car thefts. 
Now that may sound like a whole lot of crime going on -- in fact the total loss in all of these 9.8 million crimes was $17.6 Billion. That’s a whole lotta bucks.
Pilgrims, I can’t even make a wild ass guess as to how many lives this effected, how many victims suffered irrecoverable damage. How many criminals were convicted and sentenced to how many years in jail… Millions of years in jail - at least. Probably a lot of these criminals are still sitting in jail waiting for trial. Who knows?
What Ole’ Pecozbill on about you ask? Here’s what;
Bernard Madoff, New York mastermind of the greatest fraud in history - is awaiting trial for stealing $50 BILLION. That is $50,000,000,000! Is he incarcerated? He stole more money that all of the theft crimes in this country in an entire year TIMES THREE. What jail is he in? He ain’t!
Nosiree -- Ole’ Bernie the thief, has been placed under house arrest and is not allowed to leave his $7,000,000 New York City penthouse..
Folks have been robbed of millions and ruined -- at least one has committed suicide ---- and there sit’s ole’ Bernie - livin’ the good life.
And folks wonder why honest hard working citizens in this country, and not just the ones whose retirement plans have gone bust, whose money managers have closed shop and gone off to start anew or been bailed out with their tax dollars ---- are getting short tempered and angry~
It’s time for a change in this country all right!!
In the white collar courthouses for starters!
Now that may sound like a whole lot of crime going on -- in fact the total loss in all of these 9.8 million crimes was $17.6 Billion. That’s a whole lotta bucks.
Pilgrims, I can’t even make a wild ass guess as to how many lives this effected, how many victims suffered irrecoverable damage. How many criminals were convicted and sentenced to how many years in jail… Millions of years in jail - at least. Probably a lot of these criminals are still sitting in jail waiting for trial. Who knows?
What Ole’ Pecozbill on about you ask? Here’s what;
Bernard Madoff, New York mastermind of the greatest fraud in history - is awaiting trial for stealing $50 BILLION. That is $50,000,000,000! Is he incarcerated? He stole more money that all of the theft crimes in this country in an entire year TIMES THREE. What jail is he in? He ain’t!
Nosiree -- Ole’ Bernie the thief, has been placed under house arrest and is not allowed to leave his $7,000,000 New York City penthouse..
Folks have been robbed of millions and ruined -- at least one has committed suicide ---- and there sit’s ole’ Bernie - livin’ the good life.
And folks wonder why honest hard working citizens in this country, and not just the ones whose retirement plans have gone bust, whose money managers have closed shop and gone off to start anew or been bailed out with their tax dollars ---- are getting short tempered and angry~
It’s time for a change in this country all right!!
In the white collar courthouses for starters!
UAW members may suffer - but not their leaders....Fox News reports:..
Autoworkers Union Keeps $6 Million Golf Course for Members at $33 Million Lakeside Retreat
Friday , December 26, 2008
The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn't out of the bunker just yet.
Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year.
The UAW, known more for its strikes than its slices, hosts seminars and junkets at the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center in Onaway, Mich., which is nestled on "1,000 heavily forested acres" on Michigan's Black Lake, according to its Web site.
But the Black Lake club and retreat, which are among the union's biggest fixed assets, have lost $23 million in the past five years alone, a heavy albatross around the union's neck as it tries to manage a multibillion-dollar pension plan crisis.
Critics call it a resort for union leaders that wastes money from union dues.
"It's their members' money that they're spending on this thing," said Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts, a union watchdog group. "The union has bigger issues at hand than managing a golf course."
Friday , December 26, 2008
The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn't out of the bunker just yet.
Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year.
The UAW, known more for its strikes than its slices, hosts seminars and junkets at the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center in Onaway, Mich., which is nestled on "1,000 heavily forested acres" on Michigan's Black Lake, according to its Web site.
But the Black Lake club and retreat, which are among the union's biggest fixed assets, have lost $23 million in the past five years alone, a heavy albatross around the union's neck as it tries to manage a multibillion-dollar pension plan crisis.
Critics call it a resort for union leaders that wastes money from union dues.
"It's their members' money that they're spending on this thing," said Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts, a union watchdog group. "The union has bigger issues at hand than managing a golf course."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
City of Brotherly love ----- and move house quiet!!
From Philidelphia Inquirer Blog:
Phila. man shot because family talked during movie
By Barbara Boyer
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
A South Philadelphia man enraged because a father and son were talking during a Christmas showing of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button took care of the situation when he pulled a .380-caliber gun and shot the father, police said.
James Joseph Cialella Jr., 29, of the 1900 block of Hollywood Street is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons violations.
"It's truly frightening when you see something like this evolve into such violence," said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore.
Police were called to the Riverview Theatre in the 1400 block of Columbus Boulevard about 9:30 p.m. where the gunshot victim, a Philadelphia man who was not identified, told police a man sitting near him told his family to be quiet and threw popcorn at his son.
After exchanging words, Vanore said Cialella allegedly got out of his seat to confront the family when the father got up to protect them. That's when the victim was shot once in the left arm, sending others in the theatre running to safety.
Cialella then sat down to watch the movie. Police arrived a short time later and arrested Cialella and confiscated his weapon, Vanore said.
Phila. man shot because family talked during movie
By Barbara Boyer
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
A South Philadelphia man enraged because a father and son were talking during a Christmas showing of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button took care of the situation when he pulled a .380-caliber gun and shot the father, police said.
James Joseph Cialella Jr., 29, of the 1900 block of Hollywood Street is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons violations.
"It's truly frightening when you see something like this evolve into such violence," said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore.
Police were called to the Riverview Theatre in the 1400 block of Columbus Boulevard about 9:30 p.m. where the gunshot victim, a Philadelphia man who was not identified, told police a man sitting near him told his family to be quiet and threw popcorn at his son.
After exchanging words, Vanore said Cialella allegedly got out of his seat to confront the family when the father got up to protect them. That's when the victim was shot once in the left arm, sending others in the theatre running to safety.
Cialella then sat down to watch the movie. Police arrived a short time later and arrested Cialella and confiscated his weapon, Vanore said.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Thomas Sowell has some random thoughts worth reading if you missed them...
Random ThoughtsThomas Sowell
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Maybe the current bailout fever is Congress' way of getting into the spirit of the season-- saying in effect, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." They will undoubtedly also be saying, "Yes, New Jersey, there is a Santa Claus... Yes, Ohio, there is a Santa Claus. . ."
A reader suggests that members of Congress should wear uniforms, like NASCAR drivers, so that we will know who their corporate sponsors are. Many of those in Congress should also wear logos representing the teachers' unions, environmentalist extremists and other special interests.
They say we live and learn. Often what we learn is what damn fools we have been.
If there are still any educators or others who think that both sides of an issue should be presented, the non-profit Heartland Institute has put together Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and the British Channel 4 program "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in one package with two DVDs.
People who are impressed by how many of Barack Obama's advisors have Ivy League degrees seem not to remember how many people with Ivy League degrees mismanaged the Vietnam war and how many people with Ivy League degrees mismanaged economic policy during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The fact that sales at Starbucks are going down, while sales at McDonald's are going up, shows that people are adjusting to economic adversity by cutting back their spending. Only in Congress do people adjust to economic adversity and growing deficits by spending more money.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke seems to be pretty popular thus far. My own preference is for Federal Reserve chairmen who are unpopular. When Paul Volcker was chairman of the Fed back in the 1980s, he was hated like poison, but his policies finally broke the back of the inflation that had been out of control for years-- not without some painful costs, but few benefits can be gotten without costs.
It is fascinating to see that politicians whose interventions in mortgage lending have created a disaster in financial institutions are now moving on to intervene in the automobile industry.
After the San Francisco 49ers' interim head coach Mike Singletary has breathed some new life into that team, if the 49ers do not make him their regular head coach some other team probably will. What happens to Singletary may tell us more about the 49ers management than about Singletary.
Wal-Mart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Wal-Mart.
Ronald Reagan had a vision of America. Barack Obama has a vision of Barack Obama.
One of the signs of how easily we are bullied by small and vocal groups is how many universities, among other institutions, dare not even refer to the Christmas vacation but instead refer to "the winter holiday."
As American incomes have risen over the years, liberals have kept changing the definition of "poverty." Otherwise, the dwindling numbers of people who could be called "poor" would take away the liberals' main claim to influence and power.
If you didn't know that Governor Rod Blagojevich was a Democrat, you are unlikely to find out from the mainstream media. But, if you didn't know that recently convicted Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was a Republican, the media made sure to tell you.
An e-mail from a reader whose job requires him to take urine tests, to make sure he is drug-free, wonders why he is taxed to provide money to people on welfare who are also on drugs. He thinks they should have to take urine tests too, before they get his money.
Recent covers on Time magazine and Newsweek-- as well as the stories inside-- suggest that these magazines are as giddy as teenagers are over some rock stars, when it comes to Barack Obama.
Governor Rod Blagojevich may have inadvertently done us a big favor by discrediting the idea that we should look up to politicians as our protectors and saviors.
Friday, December 26, 2008
You can run but you can't hide................
Blood from mosquito traps Finnish suspect
HELSINKI (AFP) – Police in Finland believe they have caught a car-thief thanks to a DNA sample taken from a sample of his blood found inside a mosquito.
Last June a car was stolen in Lapua, some 380 kilometres (235 miles) north of Helsinki. It was soon found near a railway station in Seinaejoki, about 25 kilometres from where it was stolen.
"A police patrol carried out an inspection of the car and they noticed a mosquito that had sucked blood. It was sent to the laboratory for testing, which showed the blood belonged to a man who was in the police registers," inspector Sakari Palomaeki told AFP.
The suspect, who has been interrogated, has insisted he did not steal the car, saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car.
Palomaeki said a prosecutor would decide if the evidence was solid enough for charges to be pressed.
Finnish police said it was rare for them to use insects to solve crimes, although they are interested in everything found at a crime scene.
"It is not usual to use mosquitoes. In training we were not told to keep an eye on mosquitoes at crime scenes," Palomaeki said, laughing.
"It is not easy to find a small mosquito in a car, this just shows how thorough the crime scene investigation was," he added.
I don't reckon that TV's Las Vegas CSI program has any better tech's than Finlands Finest!!!!
HELSINKI (AFP) – Police in Finland believe they have caught a car-thief thanks to a DNA sample taken from a sample of his blood found inside a mosquito.
Last June a car was stolen in Lapua, some 380 kilometres (235 miles) north of Helsinki. It was soon found near a railway station in Seinaejoki, about 25 kilometres from where it was stolen.
"A police patrol carried out an inspection of the car and they noticed a mosquito that had sucked blood. It was sent to the laboratory for testing, which showed the blood belonged to a man who was in the police registers," inspector Sakari Palomaeki told AFP.
The suspect, who has been interrogated, has insisted he did not steal the car, saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car.
Palomaeki said a prosecutor would decide if the evidence was solid enough for charges to be pressed.
Finnish police said it was rare for them to use insects to solve crimes, although they are interested in everything found at a crime scene.
"It is not usual to use mosquitoes. In training we were not told to keep an eye on mosquitoes at crime scenes," Palomaeki said, laughing.
"It is not easy to find a small mosquito in a car, this just shows how thorough the crime scene investigation was," he added.
I don't reckon that TV's Las Vegas CSI program has any better tech's than Finlands Finest!!!!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Getting your money's worth!!!!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
2008 Final Baseball Payrolls
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Final 2008 payrolls for the 30 major league teams, according to information received by clubs from the commissioner's office. Figures are for 40-man rosters and include salaries and pro-rated shares of signing bonuses, earned incentive bonuses, non-cash compensation, buyouts of unexercised options and cash transactions. In some cases, parts of salaries that are deferred are discounted to reflect present-day values.
N.Y. Yankees $222,519,480
Boston 147,075,645
New York Mets 144,693,962
Detroit 136,198,404
Chicago Cubs 130,508,691
Los Angeles Angels 128,142,467
Los Angeles Dodgers 125,864,496
Seattle 120,456,113
Chicago White Sox 113,641,026
Philadelphia 112,654,711
St. Louis 109,989,046
Houston 100,189,948
Toronto 98,343,520
Atlanta 92,494,314
Milwaukee 90,324,347
Cincinnati 82,886,440
San Francisco 82,074,873
Arizona 80,998,526
Baltimore 78,888,250
Cleveland 78,663,582
Texas 78,640,138
Colorado 74,791,621
San Diego 71,212,182
Kansas City 69,297,547
Minnesota 65,096,667
Washington 59,699,668
Oakland 55,223,294
Tampa Bay 51,020,720
Pittsburgh 50,764,410
Florida 27,003,450
Total 2,879,357,538
2008 Final Baseball Payrolls
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Final 2008 payrolls for the 30 major league teams, according to information received by clubs from the commissioner's office. Figures are for 40-man rosters and include salaries and pro-rated shares of signing bonuses, earned incentive bonuses, non-cash compensation, buyouts of unexercised options and cash transactions. In some cases, parts of salaries that are deferred are discounted to reflect present-day values.
N.Y. Yankees $222,519,480
Boston 147,075,645
New York Mets 144,693,962
Detroit 136,198,404
Chicago Cubs 130,508,691
Los Angeles Angels 128,142,467
Los Angeles Dodgers 125,864,496
Seattle 120,456,113
Chicago White Sox 113,641,026
Philadelphia 112,654,711
St. Louis 109,989,046
Houston 100,189,948
Toronto 98,343,520
Atlanta 92,494,314
Milwaukee 90,324,347
Cincinnati 82,886,440
San Francisco 82,074,873
Arizona 80,998,526
Baltimore 78,888,250
Cleveland 78,663,582
Texas 78,640,138
Colorado 74,791,621
San Diego 71,212,182
Kansas City 69,297,547
Minnesota 65,096,667
Washington 59,699,668
Oakland 55,223,294
Tampa Bay 51,020,720
Pittsburgh 50,764,410
Florida 27,003,450
Total 2,879,357,538
Pilgrims, I was gonna do a whole monologue here about getting the biggest bang out of your buck, but these numbers speak so loud you wouldn't hear me! George Steinbrenner spends nearly twice as much as the number two teams payroll -- $110Million more than the Philly's who won the World Series and more than four times as much as the Tampa Bay Rays paid their players, who took them to the World Series with Philly!
You could almost believe Pelosi and Reid were running those top half dozen losin' teams... !!!
Well now - I see congress gave themselves another fat payraise this month!!
Bless their greedy little hearts, I reckon they feel like they deserve a raise with all their fine legislatin' and interferin' and all, Besides their approval rating is almost up to 20%, so only four out five Americans are unhappy with 'em!! Wheeeeeeee Doggies......
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Happy Kwanzaa, my a............!
Years ago, we were depicted as a nation of sheep. I reckon these last few years a more apt description of this great country would be a nation of lemmings! All running for the edge of the cliff to prove that we are more 'correct' than the lemming next to us...... from Human Events:
This Christmas Season - we are once again bombarded with attacks on our ignorance and dim witted Christian ways......
Kwanzaa: The Scientology of Holidays
by Erick Erickson
This Christmas Season - we are once again bombarded with attacks on our ignorance and dim witted Christian ways......
Kwanzaa: The Scientology of Holidays
by Erick Erickson
12/24/2008
What do you get when you take a bad science fiction writer with a desire for immortality and add a lust for tax breaks? Scientology. What do you get when you take a neo-marxist felon and add a desire for black nationalism? Kwanzaa. What do both Kwanzaa and Scientology have in common? They are fraudulent products of post-modern culture given legitimacy by a press hell bent on diminishing the Judeo-Christian heritage in the United States.
Over the next few weeks, the media will be wishing people “Happy Holidays” and profiling families celebrating Kwanzaa -- advent wreath lighters are too religious for media profiles. What they won’t tell you is what I will tell you.
Kwanzaa has absolutely nothing to do with Africa and everything to do with hating the United States. Kwanzaa is the brain child of Ron Everett, who you will not be surprised to learn, chaired the African American Studies department of California State University, Long Beach, from 1989 to 2002. Some time before that, he spent several years in jail for torture, changed his name to Maulana Ron Karenga, put on a dashiki, embraced marxism, and declared Kwanzaa a real holiday.
In 1971, a California jury convicted Karenga of assaulting and torturing two women. A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times documented the torture: “Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Ms. Davis's mouth and placed against Ms. Davis's face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.”
Being California, the state released Mr. Karenga in 1975, then promptly admitted him to public universities so he could become Dr. Ron Karenga. In 1977, Karenga outlined the principles of Kwanzaa and later noted, “People think it’s African, but it’s not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of Bloods were partying.” Karenga went on to call Christ “psychotic” and declared Christianity a “white religion.” Apparently, the media agreed.
As the late Tony Snow once commented, “There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent.” Kwanzaa actually is the perfect holiday for the mainstream media. Every other holiday celebrates a religious miracle, patriotic heros, or America itself. Every other holiday celebrates something greater than the self. Kwanzaa was made up by a felon establishing a holiday whereby people can celebrates the racial self. The self-absorbed mainstream media has been looking for a self-absorbing holiday. Now they have it, with a self-absorbed President-Elect to boot.
In short, Kwanzaa is the perfect post-modern politically correct holiday.
What do you get when you take a bad science fiction writer with a desire for immortality and add a lust for tax breaks? Scientology. What do you get when you take a neo-marxist felon and add a desire for black nationalism? Kwanzaa. What do both Kwanzaa and Scientology have in common? They are fraudulent products of post-modern culture given legitimacy by a press hell bent on diminishing the Judeo-Christian heritage in the United States.
Over the next few weeks, the media will be wishing people “Happy Holidays” and profiling families celebrating Kwanzaa -- advent wreath lighters are too religious for media profiles. What they won’t tell you is what I will tell you.
Kwanzaa has absolutely nothing to do with Africa and everything to do with hating the United States. Kwanzaa is the brain child of Ron Everett, who you will not be surprised to learn, chaired the African American Studies department of California State University, Long Beach, from 1989 to 2002. Some time before that, he spent several years in jail for torture, changed his name to Maulana Ron Karenga, put on a dashiki, embraced marxism, and declared Kwanzaa a real holiday.
In 1971, a California jury convicted Karenga of assaulting and torturing two women. A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times documented the torture: “Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Ms. Davis's mouth and placed against Ms. Davis's face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.”
Being California, the state released Mr. Karenga in 1975, then promptly admitted him to public universities so he could become Dr. Ron Karenga. In 1977, Karenga outlined the principles of Kwanzaa and later noted, “People think it’s African, but it’s not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of Bloods were partying.” Karenga went on to call Christ “psychotic” and declared Christianity a “white religion.” Apparently, the media agreed.
As the late Tony Snow once commented, “There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent.” Kwanzaa actually is the perfect holiday for the mainstream media. Every other holiday celebrates a religious miracle, patriotic heros, or America itself. Every other holiday celebrates something greater than the self. Kwanzaa was made up by a felon establishing a holiday whereby people can celebrates the racial self. The self-absorbed mainstream media has been looking for a self-absorbing holiday. Now they have it, with a self-absorbed President-Elect to boot.
In short, Kwanzaa is the perfect post-modern politically correct holiday.
Big Surprise - Annie's "Conservative of the Year" is.....
Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year
by Ann Coulter
Posted 12/22/2008
Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!
The entire presidential election year was kind of a downer for conservatives. Once the “maverick” John McCain won the nomination, the rest of the year was like watching a slow motion car crash. Except at least a slow-motion car crash is occasionally entertaining. So it was going to be a long year.
Until Palin.
When McCain chose our beauteous Sarah as his running mate, the maverick was finally acting like a real maverick -- as opposed to the media’s definition of a “maverick” which is: “agreeing with the editorial positions of the New York Times.”
Pre-Palin it had been one race -- boring old “You kids get off my lawn!” John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn't know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.
I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.
But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!
True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.
She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.
Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”
She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.
Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.
She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.
She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.
Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.
As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.
It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy.
I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate. (Nor, while we’re on the subject, was the media particularly interested in the beliefs of the religion that inspired the 9/11 attacks on America.)
But the press snapped right back into their anti-religious hysteria for a candidate who was a Pentecostal! The same media that couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s ties to former Weathermen or Syrian Nationalist Tony Rezko was soon hot on the trail of a rumor that Palin’s church had a speaker 30 years ago who spoke in tongues!
Let me think now: Were there ever any unusual or otherwise noteworthy speeches or sermons given in churches where Obama worshipped? Hmmm … it's on the tip of my tongue.
Liberals also suddenly decided that a woman with children could not handle the stress of higher office. Until Palin reared her beautiful head, this is precisely the sort of thinking liberals would have denounced as the Neanderthal, backwards, good old boy network attitude that had created a “glass ceiling.”
Let’s consider the facts: Palin’s oldest son was about to be under the tender care of Gen. David Petraeus after being shipped off to Iraq. Her next oldest child was about to be married and probably would prefer that her parents butt out. That left three children under the age of 15, which was almost the same as Obama had.
So Palin had one more child -- and a lot more executive experience -- than the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. (I suspect what liberals were really mad about was that if Palin became Vice President, she probably would have hired a nanny who was a U.S. citizen.)
Having indignantly rejected experience as a presidential qualification in the case of Obama, liberals had to raise questions about Palin’s experience gingerly. But, in short order, they threw caution to the wind and began energetically criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I call that two … two … two standards in one!
Like most Democrats, both Obama and Biden boasted of their humble beginnings, while having fully adopted the attitudes, pomposity and style of the elites.
Meanwhile, Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports.
Palin blows a kiss to fans during a rally in Kissimmee, Fla., on October 26. (Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)
Liberals were angry at Palin because they thought she should look and act like Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Upper crust, prissy and stiff.
Palin had a husband in the Steelworkers Union, a sister and brother-in-law who owned a gas station, and five attractive children -- one headed for Iraq, one a Down’s syndrome baby and one the cutest little girl anyone had ever seen.
In a nutshell, Palin was everything Democrats are always pretending to be, but never are.
She didn’t have to conjure up implausible images of herself duck hunting as Hillary Clinton did. Nor was Palin the typical Democratic elected female official who went straight from college into politics, like Nita Lowey.
Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule.
After Palin gave her barnburner of a speech at the Republican National Convention, a friend of mine in a liberal industry told me his friends were aggressively confronting him demanding to know if Palin was raised by a secret cult of Christians that taught children nothing but Creationism and public speaking.
Oh, how I wish he had said “yes.” Imagine the aneurisms! I think what liberals were trying to say was: Gosh, she’s an exceptionally attractive mother of five!
The Obama campaign was so alarmed by Palin’s speech, it loudly dismissed the speech saying she didn’t write it. At least that’s what a press release written by an Obama campaign staffer said.
Indeed, the first words out of every Palin critic's mouth were: "Good speech, but she didn't write it." So I guess all liberals were reading the same talking points written for them by the Obama campaign. At least Palin pays her speechwriters. Neil Kinnock is still waiting for his check.
Speaking of Joe Biden, he said that Palin’s speech had a lot of style but little substance. Inasmuch as Biden was Obama's running mate, I think that meant he liked it!
A newspaper in Boston responded to Palin’s speech by interviewing hairdressers who criticized Sarah's hairstyle. (Where were these people after Joe Biden's speech?)
Trendy dinner party opinion soon demanded that all liberals take up the cry that Palin must let the press have a whack at her. Almost immediately after she was introduced to the nation, the cry went up: “When are we going to be allowed to ask Palin questions?”
Palin’s refusal to meet with the press for one week after being chosen as McCain’s running mate was evidently more maddening than Obama's refusal to appear on Fox News for almost the entirety of his campaign.
Everyone acted as if Obama’s feat of running for President for two years constituted a complete and thorough vetting.
It might have been, except that the entire media had apparently agreed: “OK, none of us will ask Obama about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.”
Hillary was hissed by the audience for mentioning Rezko at a Democratic debate and George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one William Ayers question at another.
Osama bin Laden was more upset about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than liberals were -- especially after "Jeremiah Wright videos" passed "al Qaeda videos" for most total viewings on Youtube. (He was kicking himself for not coming up with that “God Damn America” line first!)
Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.
Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.
But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)
Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser. She ought to spend the next decade being a good governor, tending to her children so none of them turn out like Ron Reagan Jr., and reading everything Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Ronald Reagan and “Publius” have ever written. (She also might keep in mind that HUMAN EVENTS was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper!)
In time, HUMAN EVENTS’ 2008 Conservative of the Year will be ready to be our President and someday can sweep into office and dismantle all the heinous government programs Obama and the Democrats are about to foist on the nation. Who knows? She might even be able to run as the candidate of "hope" and "change."
by Ann Coulter
Posted 12/22/2008
Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!
The entire presidential election year was kind of a downer for conservatives. Once the “maverick” John McCain won the nomination, the rest of the year was like watching a slow motion car crash. Except at least a slow-motion car crash is occasionally entertaining. So it was going to be a long year.
Until Palin.
When McCain chose our beauteous Sarah as his running mate, the maverick was finally acting like a real maverick -- as opposed to the media’s definition of a “maverick” which is: “agreeing with the editorial positions of the New York Times.”
Pre-Palin it had been one race -- boring old “You kids get off my lawn!” John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn't know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.
I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.
But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!
True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.
She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.
Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”
She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.
Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.
She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.
She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.
Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.
As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.
It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy.
I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate. (Nor, while we’re on the subject, was the media particularly interested in the beliefs of the religion that inspired the 9/11 attacks on America.)
But the press snapped right back into their anti-religious hysteria for a candidate who was a Pentecostal! The same media that couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s ties to former Weathermen or Syrian Nationalist Tony Rezko was soon hot on the trail of a rumor that Palin’s church had a speaker 30 years ago who spoke in tongues!
Let me think now: Were there ever any unusual or otherwise noteworthy speeches or sermons given in churches where Obama worshipped? Hmmm … it's on the tip of my tongue.
Liberals also suddenly decided that a woman with children could not handle the stress of higher office. Until Palin reared her beautiful head, this is precisely the sort of thinking liberals would have denounced as the Neanderthal, backwards, good old boy network attitude that had created a “glass ceiling.”
Let’s consider the facts: Palin’s oldest son was about to be under the tender care of Gen. David Petraeus after being shipped off to Iraq. Her next oldest child was about to be married and probably would prefer that her parents butt out. That left three children under the age of 15, which was almost the same as Obama had.
So Palin had one more child -- and a lot more executive experience -- than the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. (I suspect what liberals were really mad about was that if Palin became Vice President, she probably would have hired a nanny who was a U.S. citizen.)
Having indignantly rejected experience as a presidential qualification in the case of Obama, liberals had to raise questions about Palin’s experience gingerly. But, in short order, they threw caution to the wind and began energetically criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I call that two … two … two standards in one!
Like most Democrats, both Obama and Biden boasted of their humble beginnings, while having fully adopted the attitudes, pomposity and style of the elites.
Meanwhile, Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports.
Palin blows a kiss to fans during a rally in Kissimmee, Fla., on October 26. (Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)
Liberals were angry at Palin because they thought she should look and act like Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Upper crust, prissy and stiff.
Palin had a husband in the Steelworkers Union, a sister and brother-in-law who owned a gas station, and five attractive children -- one headed for Iraq, one a Down’s syndrome baby and one the cutest little girl anyone had ever seen.
In a nutshell, Palin was everything Democrats are always pretending to be, but never are.
She didn’t have to conjure up implausible images of herself duck hunting as Hillary Clinton did. Nor was Palin the typical Democratic elected female official who went straight from college into politics, like Nita Lowey.
Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule.
After Palin gave her barnburner of a speech at the Republican National Convention, a friend of mine in a liberal industry told me his friends were aggressively confronting him demanding to know if Palin was raised by a secret cult of Christians that taught children nothing but Creationism and public speaking.
Oh, how I wish he had said “yes.” Imagine the aneurisms! I think what liberals were trying to say was: Gosh, she’s an exceptionally attractive mother of five!
The Obama campaign was so alarmed by Palin’s speech, it loudly dismissed the speech saying she didn’t write it. At least that’s what a press release written by an Obama campaign staffer said.
Indeed, the first words out of every Palin critic's mouth were: "Good speech, but she didn't write it." So I guess all liberals were reading the same talking points written for them by the Obama campaign. At least Palin pays her speechwriters. Neil Kinnock is still waiting for his check.
Speaking of Joe Biden, he said that Palin’s speech had a lot of style but little substance. Inasmuch as Biden was Obama's running mate, I think that meant he liked it!
A newspaper in Boston responded to Palin’s speech by interviewing hairdressers who criticized Sarah's hairstyle. (Where were these people after Joe Biden's speech?)
Trendy dinner party opinion soon demanded that all liberals take up the cry that Palin must let the press have a whack at her. Almost immediately after she was introduced to the nation, the cry went up: “When are we going to be allowed to ask Palin questions?”
Palin’s refusal to meet with the press for one week after being chosen as McCain’s running mate was evidently more maddening than Obama's refusal to appear on Fox News for almost the entirety of his campaign.
Everyone acted as if Obama’s feat of running for President for two years constituted a complete and thorough vetting.
It might have been, except that the entire media had apparently agreed: “OK, none of us will ask Obama about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.”
Hillary was hissed by the audience for mentioning Rezko at a Democratic debate and George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one William Ayers question at another.
Osama bin Laden was more upset about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than liberals were -- especially after "Jeremiah Wright videos" passed "al Qaeda videos" for most total viewings on Youtube. (He was kicking himself for not coming up with that “God Damn America” line first!)
Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.
Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.
But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)
Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser. She ought to spend the next decade being a good governor, tending to her children so none of them turn out like Ron Reagan Jr., and reading everything Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Ronald Reagan and “Publius” have ever written. (She also might keep in mind that HUMAN EVENTS was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper!)
In time, HUMAN EVENTS’ 2008 Conservative of the Year will be ready to be our President and someday can sweep into office and dismantle all the heinous government programs Obama and the Democrats are about to foist on the nation. Who knows? She might even be able to run as the candidate of "hope" and "change."
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Pardon clock is ticking............
and still President Bush hasn't included Border Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in one of his lists. He issued 19 meager pardons today, still less than half of either Clinton or Reagan in their eight years in office.Less than thirty days to go before time runs out! Will he do the right thing and free these wrongly convicted officers........... or just go back to Crawford and fiddle???
Monday, December 22, 2008
Well now Pilgrims, the final shoe has dropped.....
....... and Obamanation's pick for Secretary of Labor? Hilda Solis!! Who is she you ask? Let WND tell you -----:
Obama's Labor pick has communist ties
Radical leaders hail Solis as 'outstanding,' 'terrific'
Obama's Labor pick has communist ties
Radical leaders hail Solis as 'outstanding,' 'terrific'
December 21, 2008
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the Labor Department has close ties to U.S. communist and socialist organizations and has sent representatives to functions organized by national parties for both ideologies.
The pick of Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-Calif., a Congressional Hispanic Caucus leader considered to be one of the most reliably pro-union voices in the House, was hailed as a victory by communist and socialist leaders.
An article this past weekend in the Communist Party USA's People's Weekly World Newspaper welcomed Solis and quoted known socialist leaders calling her a "great choice" and an "outstanding" selection with "a life-long commitment to working people."
Among other personalities, the Communist paper quoted former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a top economic adviser to Obama, calling Solis a "terrific leader who I know first-hand will work tirelessly on behalf of America's working families."
WND previously reported Bonior is listed as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, an organization dedicated to transforming America into a socialist society. He was a frontrunner for the labor secretary post, but endorsed Solis after dropping out of the race.
Greg Sargent, a writer for the radical left-leaning Talking Points Memo blog quoted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, stating the person who best knows Solis is Vice Chair of the DSA Harold Meyerson.
Meyerson himself weighs in on Solis in a piece on the American Prospect website, heralding her "record of passionate commitment to working people, a high level of political smarts, and some genuine displays of raw guts that could make her a star of American liberalism."
Meyerson continues, "In the House, Solis has continued to champion labor causes, immigrants' rights, women's health and environmental protections."
Solis herself has close ties to both socialist and communist organizations in the U.S.
Trever Loudon, a communist researcher based in New Zealand, found that in November 2005 Solis addressed the DSA National Convention in Los Angeles, entitled, "The New Capital of Progressive Politics?"
"By appointing the strongly pro-union Solis," writes Loudon on his New Zeal blog, "president-elect Barack Obama has sent a clear signal to his far left support base that he has not abandoned his roots."
Also, this past June, Solis sent Elana Henry, a caseworker from Solis's East Los Angeles office, to represent her at a forum on worker's rights organized by Socialists International. According to the group's website Socialists International bills itself as the worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties. It has close ties to the DSA.
Solis also reportedly sent a representative to a major event of the Communist Party USA. The Communist Party's newspaper documents that on June 20, 1996, Solis sent Antonio Aguilar on her behalf to present an honoree at the Party's Southern California Friends of the People's Weekly World tribute to two local labor leaders.
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the Labor Department has close ties to U.S. communist and socialist organizations and has sent representatives to functions organized by national parties for both ideologies.
The pick of Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-Calif., a Congressional Hispanic Caucus leader considered to be one of the most reliably pro-union voices in the House, was hailed as a victory by communist and socialist leaders.
An article this past weekend in the Communist Party USA's People's Weekly World Newspaper welcomed Solis and quoted known socialist leaders calling her a "great choice" and an "outstanding" selection with "a life-long commitment to working people."
Among other personalities, the Communist paper quoted former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a top economic adviser to Obama, calling Solis a "terrific leader who I know first-hand will work tirelessly on behalf of America's working families."
WND previously reported Bonior is listed as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, an organization dedicated to transforming America into a socialist society. He was a frontrunner for the labor secretary post, but endorsed Solis after dropping out of the race.
Greg Sargent, a writer for the radical left-leaning Talking Points Memo blog quoted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, stating the person who best knows Solis is Vice Chair of the DSA Harold Meyerson.
Meyerson himself weighs in on Solis in a piece on the American Prospect website, heralding her "record of passionate commitment to working people, a high level of political smarts, and some genuine displays of raw guts that could make her a star of American liberalism."
Meyerson continues, "In the House, Solis has continued to champion labor causes, immigrants' rights, women's health and environmental protections."
Solis herself has close ties to both socialist and communist organizations in the U.S.
Trever Loudon, a communist researcher based in New Zealand, found that in November 2005 Solis addressed the DSA National Convention in Los Angeles, entitled, "The New Capital of Progressive Politics?"
"By appointing the strongly pro-union Solis," writes Loudon on his New Zeal blog, "president-elect Barack Obama has sent a clear signal to his far left support base that he has not abandoned his roots."
Also, this past June, Solis sent Elana Henry, a caseworker from Solis's East Los Angeles office, to represent her at a forum on worker's rights organized by Socialists International. According to the group's website Socialists International bills itself as the worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties. It has close ties to the DSA.
Solis also reportedly sent a representative to a major event of the Communist Party USA. The Communist Party's newspaper documents that on June 20, 1996, Solis sent Antonio Aguilar on her behalf to present an honoree at the Party's Southern California Friends of the People's Weekly World tribute to two local labor leaders.
....and the beat goes on!!!
If this cartoon means nothing to you -- bless your youthful hearts!!!
The first woman on the moon!!!!
"Deep Throat" may have died this week.......but
...his repeated admonition, "Follow the Money", applies as well today as it did back in the Nixon years. As Dick Morris reports it:
Clinton Donors Are Massive Conflict of Interest
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, December 22, 2008
Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it is clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.
Compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.
Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East. How can a secretary of state possibly be impartial in conflicts involving Israel when her husband has gotten tens of millions of dollars from Arabian governments and high-ranking people. Specifically, Clinton got:
Between $10 million and $25 million from:
-- The government of Saudi Arabia
Between $1 million and $5 million from:
-- Friends of Saudi Arabia
-- The Dubai Foundation
-- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid
-- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
-- Former Lebanon Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares
-- The government of Kuwait
-- The government of Qatar
-- The government of Oman
-- The government of Brunei
-- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates
He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.
Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return on their investment. Will that return now come with the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state?
After all, the next secretary of state will be called upon to mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East as her first assignment. How can Hillary Clinton undertake to do so impartially when her husband's library and foundation -- over which he has total control -- have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?
The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."
Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.
In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.
Given the complexities of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.
One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million. And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign. Corporate bailout recipients and wanna-be recipients donated to the Clinton fund. They include: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors.
And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $450,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.
How could a United States senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this kind of scale? And how could we have almost elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed? And how on earth can a secretary of state function with these conflicts hanging over her head?
More to the point --- why is she even being considered? Is the 'O' man setting her up for a fall?
Clinton Donors Are Massive Conflict of Interest
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, December 22, 2008
Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it is clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.
Compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.
Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East. How can a secretary of state possibly be impartial in conflicts involving Israel when her husband has gotten tens of millions of dollars from Arabian governments and high-ranking people. Specifically, Clinton got:
Between $10 million and $25 million from:
-- The government of Saudi Arabia
Between $1 million and $5 million from:
-- Friends of Saudi Arabia
-- The Dubai Foundation
-- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid
-- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
-- Former Lebanon Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares
-- The government of Kuwait
-- The government of Qatar
-- The government of Oman
-- The government of Brunei
-- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates
He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.
Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return on their investment. Will that return now come with the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state?
After all, the next secretary of state will be called upon to mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East as her first assignment. How can Hillary Clinton undertake to do so impartially when her husband's library and foundation -- over which he has total control -- have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?
The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."
Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.
In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.
Given the complexities of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.
One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million. And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign. Corporate bailout recipients and wanna-be recipients donated to the Clinton fund. They include: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors.
And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $450,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.
How could a United States senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this kind of scale? And how could we have almost elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed? And how on earth can a secretary of state function with these conflicts hanging over her head?
More to the point --- why is she even being considered? Is the 'O' man setting her up for a fall?
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Is Congress still relevant?
A dozen years ago the question was posed - "Is the President still relevant?" Bubba, the Pres, had to make a public White House statement to remind America that he still resided there.
Now fast forward twelve years --- the Congress declines to throw billions of bail out dollars at the auto companies. So, do they get forced into Chapter 11 reorganization? Not on you Daddy's mule they don't --- the sitting President "W", unilaterally grabs $17.400,000,000 (billion) from the specifically identified mortgage bail out kitty --- tosses it at GM and Chrysler and says: "Take, go and sin no more" or some such.
George Will addressed it well today:
The Final Blow Against Congress
George Will
Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A new Capitol Visitor Center recently opened, just in time for the transformation of the Capitol building into a tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters. The center is supposed to enhance the experience of visitors to Congress, although why there are visitors is a mystery.
Congress' marginalization was brutally underscored when, after Congress did not authorize $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, the executive branch said, in effect: Congress' opinions are mildly interesting, so we will listen very nicely -- then go out and do precisely what we want.
Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize. More money -- up to $17.4 billion -- than had been debated, thereby calling to mind Winston Churchill on naval appropriations: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight."
The president is dispensing money from the $700 billion Congress provided for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The unfounded assertion of a right to do this is notably brazen, given the indisputable fact that if Congress had known that TARP -- supposedly a measure for scouring "toxic"
assets from financial institutions -- was to become an instrument for unconstrained industrial policy, it would not have been passed.
If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules. This lawlessness tarted up as law explains the charade of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Republican senators that if they did not authorize the $14 billion, the GOP would again be regarded as the party of Herbert Hoover. [.......]
So we have a shrill, power mad Speaker of the House, a whiny, pencil necked Senate Majority Leader..... and they have both been upstaged by the President without protest!
What's next Pilgrims? These are strange times............
Now fast forward twelve years --- the Congress declines to throw billions of bail out dollars at the auto companies. So, do they get forced into Chapter 11 reorganization? Not on you Daddy's mule they don't --- the sitting President "W", unilaterally grabs $17.400,000,000 (billion) from the specifically identified mortgage bail out kitty --- tosses it at GM and Chrysler and says: "Take, go and sin no more" or some such.
George Will addressed it well today:
The Final Blow Against Congress
George Will
Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A new Capitol Visitor Center recently opened, just in time for the transformation of the Capitol building into a tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters. The center is supposed to enhance the experience of visitors to Congress, although why there are visitors is a mystery.
Congress' marginalization was brutally underscored when, after Congress did not authorize $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, the executive branch said, in effect: Congress' opinions are mildly interesting, so we will listen very nicely -- then go out and do precisely what we want.
Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize. More money -- up to $17.4 billion -- than had been debated, thereby calling to mind Winston Churchill on naval appropriations: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight."
The president is dispensing money from the $700 billion Congress provided for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The unfounded assertion of a right to do this is notably brazen, given the indisputable fact that if Congress had known that TARP -- supposedly a measure for scouring "toxic"
assets from financial institutions -- was to become an instrument for unconstrained industrial policy, it would not have been passed.
If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules. This lawlessness tarted up as law explains the charade of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Republican senators that if they did not authorize the $14 billion, the GOP would again be regarded as the party of Herbert Hoover. [.......]
So we have a shrill, power mad Speaker of the House, a whiny, pencil necked Senate Majority Leader..... and they have both been upstaged by the President without protest!
What's next Pilgrims? These are strange times............
Saturday, December 20, 2008
This e-mail came in over the transom plumb early this morning...
....and I haven't had a chance to source it yet -- but there is enough accuracy to allow me to post it without comment and then follow up ----- Hope you've had your morning coffee.....
The Cerberus Bailout Connection
Bush gave General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC up to $17.4 billion today.
Cerberus bought 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler AG for $7.4 billion in 2007. Cerberus said it doesn’t have the funds necessary to bail out Chrysler.
General Motors sold a 51% stake in its GMAC finance unit to an investor group led by Cerberus Capital Management in November 2006.
On Oct. 19, 2006, John W. Snow — President Bush's second Secretary of the Treasury — was named chairman of Cerberus.
Dan Quayle is chairman of global investments for Cerberus Capital Management.
Why would George W. Bush choose to bail out two companies controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, which is controlled by folks close so to Bush ?
The Cerberus Bailout Connection
Bush gave General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC up to $17.4 billion today.
Cerberus bought 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler AG for $7.4 billion in 2007. Cerberus said it doesn’t have the funds necessary to bail out Chrysler.
General Motors sold a 51% stake in its GMAC finance unit to an investor group led by Cerberus Capital Management in November 2006.
On Oct. 19, 2006, John W. Snow — President Bush's second Secretary of the Treasury — was named chairman of Cerberus.
Dan Quayle is chairman of global investments for Cerberus Capital Management.
Why would George W. Bush choose to bail out two companies controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, which is controlled by folks close so to Bush ?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Global Warming just keeps rearing it's ugly hot head!!!!
More snow, cold head for Aspen
Aspen Times Staff Report
ASPEN — The snow in Aspen just keeps on coming, but it may be too cold to enjoy it by Saturday.
A winter storm that dumped up to a foot of snow on local ski slopes over the past two days has moved out, but another system is headed for Aspen Friday night. So are plummeting temperatures and a brutal wind chill.
On the heels of the winter storm warning that expired Friday morning, the National Weather Service has issued a winter storm watch for the northwest mountains of Colorado, including Aspen and Snowmass, starting Friday evening. It extends until Saturday evening.
The weather service is predicting 3 to 5 inches of new snow in Aspen on Friday night, with lows of 5 below to 5 above and wind-chill readings of 8 to 18 below.
Saturday’s forecast calls for yet more snow — 2 to 4 inches in town — and highs of 5 to 15, with wind-chill readings of 8 to 18 below. The weather service is predicting 2 to 4 inches of additional snow Saturday night, with lows of 5 to 15 below and wind-chill readings of 22 to 32 below.
The cold snap continues Sunday, when the weather service is calling for a 40 percent chance of snow, highs of 10 to 20 and wind-chill readings of 21 to 31 below in the morning.
The extended forecast calls for more snow Monday, along with continued frigid temperatures until Thursday — Christmas Day — when the weather service is calling for partly sunny skies and highs of 25 to 35.
Skiers and riders at Aspen and Snowmass on Friday morning found another layer of fresh powder on the slopes. Aspen Highlands reported 8 inches of new snow over the past 24 hours (and 12 inches over the past 48 hours). Snowmass picked up 7 inches over the past 24 hours, Aspen Mountain reported 5 inches and Buttermilk had 3 inches.
Sunlight Mountain Resort outside Glenwood Springs reported 7 inches of new snow on Friday morning.
Elsewhere around the state, morning snow reports for the preceding 24 hours included 7 inches at Vail, 12 inches at Telluride, 4 inches at Steamboat, 6 inches at Powderhorn, 24 inches at Silverton, 9 inches at Crested Butte, 6 inches at Beaver Creek and 4.50 inches at Copper Mountain.
Aspen Times Staff Report
ASPEN — The snow in Aspen just keeps on coming, but it may be too cold to enjoy it by Saturday.
A winter storm that dumped up to a foot of snow on local ski slopes over the past two days has moved out, but another system is headed for Aspen Friday night. So are plummeting temperatures and a brutal wind chill.
On the heels of the winter storm warning that expired Friday morning, the National Weather Service has issued a winter storm watch for the northwest mountains of Colorado, including Aspen and Snowmass, starting Friday evening. It extends until Saturday evening.
The weather service is predicting 3 to 5 inches of new snow in Aspen on Friday night, with lows of 5 below to 5 above and wind-chill readings of 8 to 18 below.
Saturday’s forecast calls for yet more snow — 2 to 4 inches in town — and highs of 5 to 15, with wind-chill readings of 8 to 18 below. The weather service is predicting 2 to 4 inches of additional snow Saturday night, with lows of 5 to 15 below and wind-chill readings of 22 to 32 below.
The cold snap continues Sunday, when the weather service is calling for a 40 percent chance of snow, highs of 10 to 20 and wind-chill readings of 21 to 31 below in the morning.
The extended forecast calls for more snow Monday, along with continued frigid temperatures until Thursday — Christmas Day — when the weather service is calling for partly sunny skies and highs of 25 to 35.
Skiers and riders at Aspen and Snowmass on Friday morning found another layer of fresh powder on the slopes. Aspen Highlands reported 8 inches of new snow over the past 24 hours (and 12 inches over the past 48 hours). Snowmass picked up 7 inches over the past 24 hours, Aspen Mountain reported 5 inches and Buttermilk had 3 inches.
Sunlight Mountain Resort outside Glenwood Springs reported 7 inches of new snow on Friday morning.
Elsewhere around the state, morning snow reports for the preceding 24 hours included 7 inches at Vail, 12 inches at Telluride, 4 inches at Steamboat, 6 inches at Powderhorn, 24 inches at Silverton, 9 inches at Crested Butte, 6 inches at Beaver Creek and 4.50 inches at Copper Mountain.
I wonder what all those Hollywoodies and their East Coast liberal friends are doing to fight off the effects of all this global warming!
Ready on the firing line!!! Fire away Annie!!!
ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS 20 EXTRA VOTES FOR FRANKEN
by Ann Coulter
December 17, 2008
It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.
As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, "discovered" ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 -- two days before the election.
Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don't worry about it -- they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.
Then another 400-odd statistically improbable "corrections" were made in other Democratic strongholds until -- by the end of election week -- Coleman's lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.
Since then, highly irregular counting methods have added to Franken's total bit by bit, to the point that Coleman is now ahead by only 188 votes.
As long as Coleman maintains any lead at all, Republicans don't seem to care that Coleman's advantage is being shrunk by laughable ballot "discoveries" and disreputable standard-switching from precinct to precinct -- depending on which method of counting ballots is most advantageous to Franken.
Consider a few other chilling examples of Democrats thieving their way to victory over the years.
In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount -- which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state's Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won by (at least) two votes.
Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington when ... the overwhelmingly Democratic U.S. Senate refused to seat Wyman.
Despite New Hampshire's certification of Wyman as the winner of the election, this was the post-Watergate Senate, when Democrats could get away with anything -- up to and including a prank known as "President Jimmy Carter."
The U.S. Senate spent months examining disputed ballots from the New Hampshire election. Unable to come up with a method to declare the Democrat the winner that didn't require a guillotine, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.
It was a breathtaking abuse of power. New Hampshire had certified a winner of its Senate election, but it was a Republican, so the Democratic Senate simply ordered a new election.
Demoralized Republicans stayed away from the race and, this time, the Democrat won the re-vote.
Even more egregious was the Indiana House race in 1984. On election night, the incumbent Democrat Frank McCloskey appeared to have won a narrow victory of 72 votes. But after a correction was made in one county, it turned out his Republican opponent, Richard McIntyre, had won by 34 votes.
McIntyre was certified the winner -- which is when the trouble usually starts for a Republican.
Again, a majority Democrat House refused to seat the certified winner in a close election. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a Republican.
Consequently, Indiana performed yet another recount of the entire district, which again showed that Republican McIntyre was the winner -- this time by 418 votes. Now he was really asking for it. The nerve of this guy! Hey, buddy, do you mind? We're trying to throw an election over here!
As The Washington Post reported at the time: There were "no allegations of fraud" in the recount and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to "by election commissions dominated by Democrats."
So naturally the House refused to seat the Republican even though he had received the most votes (hereinafter referred to as "the winner"). The House proceeded to conduct its own recount. (If you haven't detected a pattern by this point, please ask your doctor if Prilosec is right for you.)
This time, instead of ordering the district to hold another election, the Democratic House saved all concerned a lot of time and money by simply declaring Democrat Frank McCloskey the winner by four votes.
The vote-theft most like Minnesota this year was the infamous 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State. The Republican won the race on election night, but ballots favoring the Democrat kept being "discovered" until the Democrat finally eked out a majority. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the victor.
You would have to go back to Reconstruction to find an election that was stolen by the Republicans this way, but it's all in a day's work for the Democrats.
That's why they were so testy about the 2000 Florida election. It was the one time in the last century Republicans wouldn't let Democrats steal an election they lost by less than a thousand votes.
No matter how many times Democrats steal elections, Republicans keep thinking the next time will be different. Minnesota is famously clean, isn't it? It must be different. It's not different. It's still the Democrats.
by Ann Coulter
December 17, 2008
It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.
As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, "discovered" ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 -- two days before the election.
Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don't worry about it -- they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.
Then another 400-odd statistically improbable "corrections" were made in other Democratic strongholds until -- by the end of election week -- Coleman's lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.
Since then, highly irregular counting methods have added to Franken's total bit by bit, to the point that Coleman is now ahead by only 188 votes.
As long as Coleman maintains any lead at all, Republicans don't seem to care that Coleman's advantage is being shrunk by laughable ballot "discoveries" and disreputable standard-switching from precinct to precinct -- depending on which method of counting ballots is most advantageous to Franken.
Consider a few other chilling examples of Democrats thieving their way to victory over the years.
In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount -- which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state's Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won by (at least) two votes.
Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington when ... the overwhelmingly Democratic U.S. Senate refused to seat Wyman.
Despite New Hampshire's certification of Wyman as the winner of the election, this was the post-Watergate Senate, when Democrats could get away with anything -- up to and including a prank known as "President Jimmy Carter."
The U.S. Senate spent months examining disputed ballots from the New Hampshire election. Unable to come up with a method to declare the Democrat the winner that didn't require a guillotine, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.
It was a breathtaking abuse of power. New Hampshire had certified a winner of its Senate election, but it was a Republican, so the Democratic Senate simply ordered a new election.
Demoralized Republicans stayed away from the race and, this time, the Democrat won the re-vote.
Even more egregious was the Indiana House race in 1984. On election night, the incumbent Democrat Frank McCloskey appeared to have won a narrow victory of 72 votes. But after a correction was made in one county, it turned out his Republican opponent, Richard McIntyre, had won by 34 votes.
McIntyre was certified the winner -- which is when the trouble usually starts for a Republican.
Again, a majority Democrat House refused to seat the certified winner in a close election. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a Republican.
Consequently, Indiana performed yet another recount of the entire district, which again showed that Republican McIntyre was the winner -- this time by 418 votes. Now he was really asking for it. The nerve of this guy! Hey, buddy, do you mind? We're trying to throw an election over here!
As The Washington Post reported at the time: There were "no allegations of fraud" in the recount and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to "by election commissions dominated by Democrats."
So naturally the House refused to seat the Republican even though he had received the most votes (hereinafter referred to as "the winner"). The House proceeded to conduct its own recount. (If you haven't detected a pattern by this point, please ask your doctor if Prilosec is right for you.)
This time, instead of ordering the district to hold another election, the Democratic House saved all concerned a lot of time and money by simply declaring Democrat Frank McCloskey the winner by four votes.
The vote-theft most like Minnesota this year was the infamous 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State. The Republican won the race on election night, but ballots favoring the Democrat kept being "discovered" until the Democrat finally eked out a majority. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the victor.
You would have to go back to Reconstruction to find an election that was stolen by the Republicans this way, but it's all in a day's work for the Democrats.
That's why they were so testy about the 2000 Florida election. It was the one time in the last century Republicans wouldn't let Democrats steal an election they lost by less than a thousand votes.
No matter how many times Democrats steal elections, Republicans keep thinking the next time will be different. Minnesota is famously clean, isn't it? It must be different. It's not different. It's still the Democrats.
Ole Pecoz has already made his thought's about the little rich Kennedy becoming Senator...
a couple of days ago down below. Here is a more erudite discussion of this foolishness!!:
Cinderella vs. the Barracuda
A perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.
By Jonah Goldberg
For people who think there’s no cultural divide in this country, consider the treatment of two women much in the news in 2008.
The first is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. A woman from very humble roots and with a very blue-collar life story, she worked with her steelworker and professional-fisherman husband to provide a life for their large family. She got involved in the PTA. She became mayor of her small town, then rose, by dint of her dedication and almost naive fearlessness, to the job of governor. In a mainstream, almost romantic sense, it’s almost like she was designed by God for a Hallmark movie of the week.
But, when John McCain picked her to be his running mate, the full fury of the liberal establishment — and sizable swaths of the conservative establishment, some of whom dubbed her a “cancer” on the GOP — came down on her with a vengeance usually reserved for Klansmen and pedophiles. Don’t get me wrong: There were valid criticisms to make. But that is quite a different thing than saying all of the criticism was valid or that the intensity and volume of the criticism was warranted.
Then there’s Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, sister of John Jr., niece of Senators Ted and Robert Kennedy, granddaughter of Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and the cousin of myriad other Kennedys and Shrivers who’ve burrowed deep into the timber of the house of liberalism. A multimillionaire from birth, Ms. Kennedy has spent most of her life on the charity-benefit and cotillion circuit. A product of the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts before she attended Harvard and Columbia, Kennedy has made the importance of public education her signature cause.
Sweet Caroline (she was the inspiration for the Neil Diamond song) recently made it known that she would like to be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat.
One could say without fear of overstating things that the liberal reaction to the inexperienced Caroline has been somewhat more gracious than the reaction to the “inexperienced” Palin. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has devoted two columns in as many weeks to this “fairy tale” scenario in which Kennedy, our “tragic national princess,” is finally rewarded — for her years of quiet dignity, selflessly avoiding scandal and the paparazzi — with the Senate seat that once belonged to her uncle Bobby. What’s astounding about the normally sensible Marcus’s case for “the Cinderella Kennedy” (New York magazine’s phrase) is that she doesn’t really make one, at least not on the merits. Marcus doesn’t even bother. It’s all schoolgirl gushing.
The editors of the New York Times, in a more skeptical editorial, summarized her qualifications thusly: “Ms. Kennedy has much going for her. As a public figure, she carries the glamour and poignancy of her family ...” The editors then went on to describe what great liberals her dad and uncles were. That’s it.
This a perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.
Here’s a news flash: Not everyone truckles with doe-eyed awe at “America’s royal family.” Some of us don’t even like the idea of American royal families. JFK and RFK had their good points, but they don’t deserve the beatification they receive on a daily basis. As a man, Teddy Kennedy is hardly a role model, and as a public servant he’s not much better. I, for one, don’t think denying poor black kids private-school scholarships (aka vouchers) is heroic. Nor do I think his support for alternative energy, except when it might obstruct his Hyannis Port estate’s views with windmills, is admirable.
Simply, the Kennedy clan is no priestly caste, serving as the conscience of the nation, and its progeny do not deserve eternal deference.
Now, I know the comparison between Palin and Caroline Kennedy is not perfect. Each has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and the jobs of senator and vice president aren’t identical (the former actually has more responsibility, for starters).
But the comparison is nonetheless revealing. Palin’s selection triggered troughs of bile, vomited up from nearly every respectable liberal quarter. A Florida congressman, and Obama surrogate, insinuated that Palin was a “Nazi sympathizer” and anti-Semite (she’s not, but Caroline Kennedy’s grandfather was). Her by-the-bootstraps story was ridiculed by nearly every ex-debutante newsreader and avowed “feminist” in America.
Meanwhile, Caroline, with a resume perfectly suited to being a Kennedy and little else, is a Cinderella who deserves a Senate seat because, well, she just does.
Whatever Palin’s faults, Sarah Barracuda’s America has a lot more going for it than Sweet Caroline’s.
From Jonah's mouth to God's ear......................... we hope!
Cinderella vs. the Barracuda
A perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.
By Jonah Goldberg
For people who think there’s no cultural divide in this country, consider the treatment of two women much in the news in 2008.
The first is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. A woman from very humble roots and with a very blue-collar life story, she worked with her steelworker and professional-fisherman husband to provide a life for their large family. She got involved in the PTA. She became mayor of her small town, then rose, by dint of her dedication and almost naive fearlessness, to the job of governor. In a mainstream, almost romantic sense, it’s almost like she was designed by God for a Hallmark movie of the week.
But, when John McCain picked her to be his running mate, the full fury of the liberal establishment — and sizable swaths of the conservative establishment, some of whom dubbed her a “cancer” on the GOP — came down on her with a vengeance usually reserved for Klansmen and pedophiles. Don’t get me wrong: There were valid criticisms to make. But that is quite a different thing than saying all of the criticism was valid or that the intensity and volume of the criticism was warranted.
Then there’s Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, sister of John Jr., niece of Senators Ted and Robert Kennedy, granddaughter of Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and the cousin of myriad other Kennedys and Shrivers who’ve burrowed deep into the timber of the house of liberalism. A multimillionaire from birth, Ms. Kennedy has spent most of her life on the charity-benefit and cotillion circuit. A product of the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts before she attended Harvard and Columbia, Kennedy has made the importance of public education her signature cause.
Sweet Caroline (she was the inspiration for the Neil Diamond song) recently made it known that she would like to be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat.
One could say without fear of overstating things that the liberal reaction to the inexperienced Caroline has been somewhat more gracious than the reaction to the “inexperienced” Palin. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has devoted two columns in as many weeks to this “fairy tale” scenario in which Kennedy, our “tragic national princess,” is finally rewarded — for her years of quiet dignity, selflessly avoiding scandal and the paparazzi — with the Senate seat that once belonged to her uncle Bobby. What’s astounding about the normally sensible Marcus’s case for “the Cinderella Kennedy” (New York magazine’s phrase) is that she doesn’t really make one, at least not on the merits. Marcus doesn’t even bother. It’s all schoolgirl gushing.
The editors of the New York Times, in a more skeptical editorial, summarized her qualifications thusly: “Ms. Kennedy has much going for her. As a public figure, she carries the glamour and poignancy of her family ...” The editors then went on to describe what great liberals her dad and uncles were. That’s it.
This a perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.
Here’s a news flash: Not everyone truckles with doe-eyed awe at “America’s royal family.” Some of us don’t even like the idea of American royal families. JFK and RFK had their good points, but they don’t deserve the beatification they receive on a daily basis. As a man, Teddy Kennedy is hardly a role model, and as a public servant he’s not much better. I, for one, don’t think denying poor black kids private-school scholarships (aka vouchers) is heroic. Nor do I think his support for alternative energy, except when it might obstruct his Hyannis Port estate’s views with windmills, is admirable.
Simply, the Kennedy clan is no priestly caste, serving as the conscience of the nation, and its progeny do not deserve eternal deference.
Now, I know the comparison between Palin and Caroline Kennedy is not perfect. Each has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and the jobs of senator and vice president aren’t identical (the former actually has more responsibility, for starters).
But the comparison is nonetheless revealing. Palin’s selection triggered troughs of bile, vomited up from nearly every respectable liberal quarter. A Florida congressman, and Obama surrogate, insinuated that Palin was a “Nazi sympathizer” and anti-Semite (she’s not, but Caroline Kennedy’s grandfather was). Her by-the-bootstraps story was ridiculed by nearly every ex-debutante newsreader and avowed “feminist” in America.
Meanwhile, Caroline, with a resume perfectly suited to being a Kennedy and little else, is a Cinderella who deserves a Senate seat because, well, she just does.
Whatever Palin’s faults, Sarah Barracuda’s America has a lot more going for it than Sweet Caroline’s.
From Jonah's mouth to God's ear......................... we hope!
Gotta wonder how long before this lad 'recants' when he comes out of CNN's woodshed!!
CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/18/2008
Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.
“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.
Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.
“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.
“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”
Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.
Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.
“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”
Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”
His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”
So what do y'all think, how many days before young Chad comes out and recants his frank and refreshing comments?
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/18/2008
Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.
“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.
Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.
“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.
“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”
Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.
Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.
“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”
Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”
His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”
So what do y'all think, how many days before young Chad comes out and recants his frank and refreshing comments?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
I'm not even gonna comment on this video,
'cause no comment is needed -- the video says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This video shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress in 2002 that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But congress refused to listen, along with Barney Franks. This video says it all.
Also that the liberal AMERICAN media did not want this video on You Tube, so they had Time Warner threaten a law suit (proprietary rights) if it was not taken off.
This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada . Everyone in America needs to see this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
This video shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress in 2002 that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But congress refused to listen, along with Barney Franks. This video says it all.
Also that the liberal AMERICAN media did not want this video on You Tube, so they had Time Warner threaten a law suit (proprietary rights) if it was not taken off.
This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada . Everyone in America needs to see this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
Why not just rename this country 'Republic of Kennedy' and be done with it!!
So.... Ms Caroline K Schlossburg wants to be a United States Senator from the round heeled state of New York!! I reckon she'd better drop that married name and go back to her maiden name -- KENNEDY!
What's that you say Pilgrims...she already has? Well shucks, who knew?
Let's see now, if she gets the anointment , oops sorry, appointment, it's possible she'll rise in her NYC penthouse, cross over the Triborough Bridge, er, that's the Robert Kennedy Bridge now ain't it. She'll 
arrive at Idlewild Airport, er, that's John F Kennedy Airport I reckon. From there she'll fly the shuttle down to Washington passing over RFK stadium, and the Kennedy Center for a day at work in the Capitol Building --- oh, they haven't re-named that building for a Kennedy yet --- well shucks, wait 'til Uncle Teddy passes on to his (I hope) just rewards.... they'll think on renaming that building after him.
arrive at Idlewild Airport, er, that's John F Kennedy Airport I reckon. From there she'll fly the shuttle down to Washington passing over RFK stadium, and the Kennedy Center for a day at work in the Capitol Building --- oh, they haven't re-named that building for a Kennedy yet --- well shucks, wait 'til Uncle Teddy passes on to his (I hope) just rewards.... they'll think on renaming that building after him. In this country -- Nepotism - thy name is Kennedy!! Ain't nobody in this damn country got a set of cajones anymore?
The Smoking Gun's Top Twenty for 2008
The website, The Smoking Gun, has just published their Top Twenty mug shot photos for 2008. I thought I'd save y'all a little time and sort throught them. I have named my three picks;
The Good,
The Bad,
& The Downright Ugly.
For you pilgrims interested in seeing the whole colorful collection, go to:
And those of you who wonder who in hell were all those folks that voted for 'O' will be particularly pleased to see The Smoking Guns choice for #1 for the year!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)