tranquil hegemony

boys don't cry

2010-12-17T10:04:00.003-06:00

I have to disagree with Sarah Palin on this one. I just heard a clip where she said if she broke down crying ala John Boehner while talking about the future of our children and grandchildren, she would be mocked. Oh, there's no doubt about that. But she'd be mocked because she's Sarah Palin, not because she's a woman. On the contrary, I think the double standard is the other way around. It's definitely not kosher for dudes to cry in public without being mocked to some degree. Unless their dog just died or they've lost a limb in a tragic wood shipper incident. From Brett Favre to John Boehner to those televangelists we all grew up watching, guys aren't supposed to cry in public.

Here's the thing, though. When I heard John Boehner crying (I still haven't seen it, only heard it on talk radio) I thought, my God, man, compose yourself. And then I had to wonder, is this like when I start crying and it's just unstoppable? There have been a few instances in my life where I've just started crying, say, at work, and it was really bad timing, or unwarranted, and I don't even know why I started crying. And I don't mean weeping uncontrollably, just tearing up and needing a moment to compose myself, but still, crying like Mr. Boehner. I completely chalked it up to hormones, honestly. I thought, well, I'm a chick and we have all of those hormones to deal with all the time. Yeah, that must be it. And for the most part, guys don't do that. At least not that I've seen.

Obviously, men cry. They're not robots. Okay, so they're robots that can cry. And carry heavy things for us. But they have feelings and passions and are fully justified in crying if they need/want to. I think this is one of those double standards that is going to die hard. If at all. And so what? It makes me uncomfortable when guys cry around me. That doesn't mean they shouldn't or won't. On the scale of double standards that deserve our time and attention, this one is of minimal importance.

2010-08-13T21:02:00.003-05:00

I just accidentally watched the last 4 or so minutes of the Rachel Maddow "show." She wrapped up the propaganda hour with some recent quotes from various conservatives regarding unemployment benefits, making special note that the 35th anniversary of social security and unemployment is coming up.

Her tone and commentary were predictably mocking and inane. She didn't make one mention of the fact that what conservatives have a problem with is the seemingly unending extensions of unemployment by democrats in the past 18 months. Also infuriating was that she quoted John Kyle, Sharon Angle and various high profile republicans making what were actually quite honest and accurate statements about unemployment benefits, but since she was making specific note of their feelings about people on unemployment, she could have very easily included Harry Reid's famous statement about how unemployment has led more men to beat their wives! And that's why we should extend unemployment benefits for 2 years...to buy abused wives some time? She also made many mentions of how very very moral it is to give out unemployment benefits.

The question I am left with whenever I spy on the enemy by watching a bit of Chris Matthews or Olberman or Maddow is, have they ever met an actual person? Or more accurately, when is the last time they were around people who weren't either in the industry or in politics or related to them? Oh, or works for them? Chris Matthews literally laughed at a guy from the Heritage Foundation who said that people who have unending unemployment benefits are discouraged from moving to a new city or state to seek employment if they can't find work in their town. I mean he threw his head back and belly fucking laughed at the guy.

The fact is that there are people who game the system. And "the system" is any and every entitlement program in America. And the fact is also that there are people who need a safety net. But it's really only liberals who don't accept the reality that the dynamic has shifted to majority scammers on these programs. The people receiving entitlements aren't Vietnamese boat people or the lost boys of Sudan, they're people who are simply taking advantage of what is available. I guess that's more the point I should make: a lot of the people receiving entitlements are convinced it's owed to them simply because they qualify for them, but the reason they qualify for them is because the standards have been lowered so that more and more people who are able bodied, fully capable of working, maybe in debt or living beyond their means, and they don't even think twice, fuck, they don't even think once, about whether it's right or wrong to take government money just because it's there.

And let's not forget, people who are in "poverty" in the US have cell phones and SUVs. People who are in poverty in third world shit hole countries literally give up their children in the hope of a better life for them. There is no comparison.

2010-07-30T10:20:00.005-05:00

That's right...bow to your successor!

Chris Christie for President!!! I've already got the t-shirt!

Michael Savage Versus The World

2010-07-29T20:57:00.002-05:00

I'm a talk radio junkie. Since I'm a conservative, you'd be right to assume I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. I also, however, listen to PRI, NPR, and CSPAN radio.

On the days I work out of the house, I start my day with a little of the Mancow show - that guy is funny! And it's such a fun mix of infantile potty humor and political talk and celebrity guests - it's just nuts! I only listen for about 45 minutes or an hour until Laura Ingraham starts.

I discovered Laura probably 5 years ago, and she's just fantastic. She can be really annoying at times, say, when she goes off on a rant about being a Catholic convert or sometimes her sense of humor is just really dorky, but she's overall very funny and smart.

Then, of course, I listen to the Maha Rushie. Rush is my personal inspiration. He's the best. I will never understand why he is so reviled..wait, I take that back. He scares the Left because he's effective, he's right, he's popular, so they demonize him. Don't believe the hype that he's hated. He wouldn't have the most most listened to radio program in America if he was everything they say he is. I'm a full-time student of the EIB Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies. I even have the t shirt to prove it.

When Rush is over, I log into TRN and catch the previous day's episode of Michael Savage. If ever a man was misunderstood and lied about, it's Dr. Savage. If you've never listened to the Savage Nation or read any of his many, many books, (some written as Michael Weiner) and you've only heard commentary about him, your opinion should not yet be fully formed. I've been a loyal member of the Savage Nation since I stumbled upon his show driving home one day several years ago, and he was recounting the story "dead man's pants," which, if you're a fellow fan of Dr. Savage, you will immediately recognize.

He's a perfect mixture of old man grumpitude, (often belittling and hanging up on his less intelligent callers,) wise old world traveler, very educated and successful and financially successful, but without an ounce of elitism ever coming across. He's clearly proud of his accomplishments, his family, loves the beauty of the area he lives in, despite the liberal domination. He's the son of immigrants and proud of it. He values this country and would stop at nothing to protect it, and that's exactly how I feel-the main difference being I have an audience of one, and he's married to me, whereas Dr. Savage has the third listened to radio program in America.

So, when Dr. Savaged made mention of a WSJ article about him and said he was going to read it for us, but then suddenly changed his mind and his mood was noticeably affected by this, I was concerned. So I read the article for myself. What a load of tripe. Worse than that, it was a blatant, hit piece. And I mean hit piece literally. The opening line states specifically where Dr. Savage lives-information he intentionally does not give out publicly. It then goes on to report when he enjoys having dinner other places he frequents, all the while interspersing little factoids about how he live with the awareness of death threats and is careful as possible. I read this lame article several times over and over trying to find a point. Any redeeming quality. I could find none. I actually think the article should be pulled and the WSJ should be ashamed of themselves. If anything should happen to Dr. Savage over this information being disseminated, there will be hell to pay with the members of the Savage Nation. the WSJ will be held responsible.

I would like to do a quick compare and contrast between the Savage Nation and The World, on PRI. What actually inspired this whole rant, prior even to reading the WSJ article, was just how pretentious and out of touch the PRI gang really comes across as. Don't misunderstand, I enjoy PRI and the international stories they have are stories often not covered anywhere else in the mainstream media. I give them credit for that, and that's why I'm a fan. I could do without the outright liberal bias, but even that is less bothersome than those little sound quote things they do in between programming. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but you'll hear someone say something random like "I was standing in line and I saw a guy in a cowboy hat next to a Hasidic jew." And she says it as if she was retelling the tale of the time she saw a ghost and one-armed naked midget hold up a bank. I mean, if the most exciting people you've ever seen were a guy in a cowboy hat, made all the more exciting because he was next to a hasidic jew, you need to get out more. One other random quote played a lot as filler between shows is an obviously older lady saying "Most people make clay cups and then make the handle and then put them together. Well, what if I want to hang the handle on the wall?" She says it with such indignation as if someone taunted her in the first grade about how she made pottery and she's still harboring latent anger. Lady, nobody cares if you want to hang your shitty pottery pieces on you wall. Go for it! But it doesn't make you an artist. Sorry.

Anyway, I was overcome in response to the cowboy hat jew statement that I had "known" more colorful people just from simple life stories shared by Michael Savage. They are funny, heart-felt, genuine, and they take you there-wherever "there" is. His dad's antique shop, taking the train to visit cousins, making an after hours delivery to the half man, half woman. I could go on.

I would like to recommend whoever those hippies who make those inane statements that are meant to come across as, I guess deep and showcasing observed diversity, you could learn a thing or two from Dr. Savage. His stories are real and have meaning. A contrived quick statement about seeing a guy in a cowboy hat standing next to a hasidic jew sounds like a trip to the grocery store to me, to be honest with you. I can be in line behind a guy in a turban, a 12 year old girl dressed up like a 25 year old hooker, an American solder, in full-fatigues just getting a few things to take wherever he may be going, and me, I'm in line wearing my "Chris Christie for President" t shirt that nobody ever comments on. I had it made to stir up controversy, but nobody in Texas seems to know who he is. I guess I have to make a pamphlet to go with my shirt.

Whatever, in sum, PRI tries too hard to say things that "portray diversity caught in daily life" that might be their purpose, I don't know. Sadly, they are coming across as lame and elitist.

a difference without a distinction

2010-07-29T20:52:00.003-05:00

Is there really so much difference between this woman and this woman? Different methods, same outcome.

2010-03-11T13:00:00.003-06:00

Chris Christie/Liz Cheney 2012

2009-12-24T09:26:00.005-06:00

I guess it's too late

This Christmas Eve, America got one gift early; and it's one we can't give back, no matter how much we don't want it. So-called "healthcare reform" passed in a straight party-line vote early this morning. Even though the majority of Americans, Senators and Congressmen have NOT even read the bill, not to mention the fact that it will surely become an even bigger monstrosity in committee, there are a few facts we do know...and they are quite telling.

"The approved Senate bill would reform health insurance regulations, require individuals to purchase insurance, and create a subsidy from the federal government for those who cannot afford it to purchase it on a health exchange managed by the federal government. To pay for the expanded coverage, the bill raises payroll taxes for income over $250,000, imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-dollar insurance policies, and creates new taxes and fees for medical suppliers."

The road that lies ahead for America is not uncharted territory. It is not some healthcare utopia as Democrats and socialized medicine supporters might have you believe. We need only to look to European socialized medicine, Canadian socialized medicine, and to our own American states that have already implemented socialized healthcare--Wisconsin, Massachusetts, for example.

The result we await is both predictable and deadly. Nations and people of nations with socialized healthcare do not prosper under these systems-they wait for rationed healthcare, they are dependent on government boards of non-medical professionals who are somehow "experts" to decide their fate, which tests and procedures they are deemed worthy of or deemed the appropriate age for.

The bottom line is that "healthcare reform" does NOT cover all Americans, which was it's stated purpose; it will NOT lower the deficit, in fact it will have a devastating effect on our economy; it penalizes people who currently have decent health insurance--as if we are somehow responsible for the fact that there are people without health insurance; and the enormity of the new government beaurocracy that we are witnessing being born at this moment is sickening.

But, I guess it's too late. I am left wondering where all of the people of the world who currently come to America for healthcare they are denied in their countries with socialized medicine are going to go. We are literally the last great bastion of freedom on the planet. But we are so many years removed from the hardships of the Great Depression, or even the gas lines of the 1970s that we have grown complacent in our freedom and prosperity and take it for granted. Well, as we sit and take America for granted, we are losing her. We have elected a president who doesn't see our greatness, and proudly tells us as much. He and his administration look to Europe and Asia for inspiration instead of to the founding fathers and our founding documents. Healthcare reform is simply a way to grow the government. It's not going to fix anything-in fact it's going to make it worse. Democrats got what they wanted: a symbolic victory of passing the healthcare reform they've been attempting to get implemented for decades, and they got it under the first black president. They are absolutely giddy about the symbolism. As for the substance? Don't bother them for details, that's not what's important.

Hey, Tiger...just be glad you don't live in Somalia

2009-12-22T13:33:00.007-06:00

However you slice it, Tiger Woods is lucky. In so many ways. He's lived a life of privilege, spoiled and taking advantage of all his life had to offer. And with the easy life came easy women.

But as bad as things may look right now to Tiger, losing your family right before Christmas, irreparably destroying a carefully cultivated and very lucrative public image, already losing a few endorsement deals as well as countless female fans, it could be worse. Much, much worse.

You see, in America, infidelity is not a big deal. We expect our celebrities to cheat, in fact we're more surprised if they don't. In Somalia, however, they stone their adulterers in public. Instead of being named player of the year, Tiger could have had the same fate as this man.

So, Tiger Woods, here's something to be happy about this holiday season: you don't live in a backwards country ruled by militant Islamists who publicly pummel your head with rocks while you're buried up to your neck if you break your marriage vows. But you just might get some coal in your stocking. Because you are an asshole.

One Stupid Liberal Bitch's Perspective

2009-11-18T21:14:00.004-06:00

The title of this story should be How One Stupid Whiny Liberal Bitch Didn't Enjoy Her Abnormal Mammogram Results. Really? You didn't have a fun time waiting for the results of your abnormal mammogram? And it was stressful getting a needle biopsy around the holidays? Not one ounce of gratitude for the thorough work of the people involved in your top-notch medical care? From the mammogram tech to the radiologist, it sounds to me like you received great care and attention from all involved and your response to the fact that you are extremely fortunate to NOT FUCKING HAVE CANCER is to recommend women not get screening mammograms in case they have an abnormal mammogram that ends up not being cancer, which is actually a good thing that you somehow made into a bad thing.

The money quote from this piece of tripe is the following tidbit of wisdom, seeming to come as either an afterthought or simply a mindless platitude:

"In retrospect, my experience is trivial when I think of dear friends who did have breast cancer that was found and treated early thanks to regular mammograms. Or the ones for whom detection came too late. "

Then she actually goes on to pose the question, "Still, I can't help but think: Wouldn't it have been nice if these new standards had been in place back then? " Hello, McFly! What makes you think women of any age can't have suspicious findings on their mammograms that require further testing and then turn out to be nothing? The answer to that question is that you aren't thinking. You're towing the liberal line and supporting a ridiculous recommendation that is nothing more than the first attempt at health care rationing, and we all know it.

This whole "article" is completely pointless and maddening. What would she prefer have happened? Doctors simply not do any follow up or doctors use their psychic powers to determine if there was a serious problem? Let's all get real here, dealing with medical problems sucks. It isn't fun. But you know what is fun? Finding out you don't fucking have cancer! How is she not just relieved and grateful? I guess I just don't get it.

2009-11-17T12:23:00.006-06:00

PRUDEN: Obama bows, the nation cringes

A little traveling, like a little learning, can be a dangerous thing. Barack Obama on the loose in a foreign land is enough to frighten protocol officers and embarrass the rest of us.

He went off to Asia to tell the Chinese a thing or two about world trade, to prepare the world for a treaty to make the sun change its spots, and of course to pay his respects to assorted heads of state, with particular attention to any royal head (perhaps even including Miss Universe) who crosses his path.

So far it's a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

Now we know why Mr. Obama stunned everyone with an earlier similar bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, only the bow to the Japanese emperor was far more flamboyant, a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority. He was only practicing his bow in Riyadh. Sometimes rituals are learned with difficulty. It took Bill Clinton months to learn how to return a military salute worthy of a commander in chief; like any draft dodger, he kept poking a thumb in his eye until he finally got it. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seems right at home now giving a wow of a bow. This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he's strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.

full story here

My two dads...I loved that show!

2009-11-01T07:06:00.008-06:00

I've had gay adoption on my mind lately. Probably because I've had gay adoption on my TV lately. Two of the only good shows on TV right now, Modern Family and Flipping Out, feature gay men raising a baby daughter. Granted, one show is a sit-com while the other is a reality show with two actual gay guys and a real daughter, but seeing it so often has prompted me to think a bit more about the reality of it.

I have always been in support of gay adoption, in theory. After all, there are all kinds of families and all kinds of kids that need homes. Why rule out an entire avenue of adoption for kids? But I have to admit, my gut reaction when I first saw Ryan and Chloe (on Flipping Out) was a little twinge of sadness that she would not have the opportunity to have a mother. Don't girls need mothers?

Then that led me to think about all of the single fathers raising daughters with no moms in the picture, for whatever reason. So what's the difference? Does it matter that the gay fathers scenario is mom-less by design and not by circumstance? Honestly, I don't think it does. I think Chloe is lucky to have two parents who love her and can provide for her. Although I think she should probably spend less unsupervised time with Jeff until he develops better child-appropriate humor boundaries.

In Praise of Diversity in the Absence of Talent on ABDC

2009-09-24T15:00:00.008-05:00

How does diversity enhance dancing abilities? It doesn’t.

And that was on full display this season on MTV’s America’s Best Dance Crew. It's about to come to an end, with the final two crews being Afroborike, representing Latinos and We are Heroes, an all-girl crew of various ethnicities. This season also featured a transgender man leading a troop of Vogue-ers from New York City.

It seems like a concerted effort was made when choosing crews for this season to choose dancers who were diverse rather than the most talented, with an emphasis on all-female crews and those with a "different" factor. I say that with all due respect to the dancers who represented this season, but with much more respect for all of the crews of the past seasons.

Last season, with crews that represented a wide range of dance styles including clogging, I don't recall any special mention of how diverse the dancers were. The judges mentioned the diversity of this season's dancers at every possible opportunity when judging the performances each week. To their credit, however, they also pointed out this is the weakest season by far. They had to, there’s not one crew this season that would have made it past week one up against literally any crew from any past season.

I wonder if the irony was not lost on the judges. Each week they ripped into the dancers telling them how they need to step it up, while simultaneously praising their diversity. It seems to me diversity for the sake of diversity has to be applauded in the absence of talent.

You shouldn't stack the deck and lower the bar just to get the result you want-and you don't have to. With a nation full of talented, eager dancers who would love to audition for this show, you organically get a range of whatever the gender, nationality or ethnicity of the people would naturally represent. The winners rise to the top based on their talent, and that should be enough.

One of the judges made sure to point out last week that regardless of which crew won, since one crew is all female and the other is half females, "a woman will hold the trophy for the first time this season." That comment spoke volumes and pretty much removed any doubt I had about whether this "season of diversity" was forced or just a natural occurrence.

Isn't the point of the show for the best dance crew to win? Regardless of the gender or ethnicity of the dancers? I guess JabbaWockeeZ had the right idea dancing in masks.

Do the race hustle!

2009-09-16T10:14:00.008-05:00

Noted anti-semite and self-appointed spokesman for "the South" Jimma Carter has broken his silence on the role race plays in Americans' opposition to the current president's administration's policies. Thank goodness he is providing yet another voice of insanity in this difficult time in national politics. After all, how else are we supposed to know we're racists if people like Jimma, as well as the entire mainstream media, don't tell us?

I would also like to give special thanks to Newsweek for letting me know my baby is racist as well. If it weren't for "researchers at the University of Texas" in one of the most liberal cities in America, I would have continued to live my life totally unaware that my baby just might be a hate-filled bigot behind those big blue eyes. Maybe it's her bright blue eyes that make her a racist - hard to tell what their groundbreaking racist baby study really revealed...other than you can get a book published on how to start the multicultural indoctrination as early as while you're still in labor & delivery.

2009-08-19T08:09:00.006-05:00

I watched an Oprah show yesterday. I haven't seen the show since I turned it off in disgust back after her "Secrets of Motherhood" embarrassment of a show. This one was about childhood obesity, and it had Dr. Oz, so I watched. It was a summer rerun, but I'm glad I watched for two reasons.

Reason one is that the author of a great book that I really like was a guest. His name is David Zinczenko & he's now written a book about what kids should eat to be healthy. Good for him. He's cute and funny and a great writer.

Reason two: Dr. Oz is awesome and I love him. I wish he was my dad. The best thing about him is that he tells the truth, even to Oprah. Yesterday he said something like, if you want to get fat, go on food stamps. I remember once he told Oprah that adult stem cells showed more promise than embryonic. She was floored. How does his intelligence not rub off her liberal mindlessness?

the stem cell debate is dead

Oh, snap! Hillary shows who's boss...or at least Secretary of State

2009-08-12T13:07:00.018-05:00

Okay, so I have to admit I was psyched when I heard the audio of Hillary's snippy response to a question from an African student. I did a search to find the video and had to watch it twice-once I was distracted by her unflattering outfit and then again to absorb the whole event.

Honest to god, my reaction is this: I probably would have said the same thing. Not only said the same thing, I would have sat back with indignation the way she did. The difference between me and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she is, as she reminded that student, the Secretary of State; but she didn't act like it.

The problem I have with libs is that they want all the accolades and respect that comes along with positions of power, but none of the responsibility or expectations. Plus, I think the years and years of not being held accountable by the friendly mainstream media has made them lazy.

As it turns out, it was apparently a "lost in translation" moment, but a very telling and fascinating moment none the less.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The problem with the clip above, from MSNBC, is that it conveniently leaves out the actual question she was asked and just makes her look bad. God, I can't believe I'm defending Hillary, bleh. But the fact is, the commentary about her reaction to this question is biased. Brian Williams has the balls to say "She thought someone asked her..." She thought someone asked her, Brian Williams? I'm pretty sure someone DID ask her a specific sexist question. Yes, it was supposedly an error in the translation, but the question she was asked was offensive.

2009-08-08T23:39:00.003-05:00

Are outside forces influencing my internal dialog?

I like to think I am more influenced by hormones and deep thought, but how possible is it really that I am but a product of 34 years of market researched advertisements and poll-driven politics?

Am I a philosopher and a poet or merely a member of the mob? An individualized manifestation of the masses?

It doesn't matter that I don't fit the mold, because the mold can be modified to fit me. I wonder if it's too late. If I threw away my tv and computer and moved to a cabin in the woods ala Thoreau can I escape the influence the modern world has had on me or I on it? If I decided to run for president on a platform of honesty and putting what's best for US first would I make it past Katie Couric? I assume not.

crackheads have better skin than me

2009-08-06T21:52:00.002-05:00

I will freely admit I'm addicted to the show Intervention. It's purely voyeuristic and pathetic, but I love it. You get to watch addicts at their worst, and often times go through rehab, and see an update at the end of the show to see the positive impact the intervention had on their lives. I love it. It might seem strange to you, but the question I am left to ask myself after almost every episode is "how come that crack whore has such clear skin?"

I have been plagued by bad skin since literally junior high, and it sucks. I've tried many topical prescription meds such as Retin A, and also several antibiotic treatments, but to no long-term avail. I read online to put toothpaste on zits to dry them out, and I seriously have toothpaste on my face as I type these words. I recently went on a cucumber salad detox diet that was supposed to cleanse my system and stop diet-related acne. Nothing works with any consistency. It is beyond frustrating and embarrassing to be 34 with a broken out face. The only time I don't feel self-conscious about it is when I'm at home with my family.

I am jealous of people who take their clear skin for granted. I feel like I was cursed with bad skin. It's one thing to have a face full of acne when you're seventeen, but when you're a mom, a woman in the workforce, a wife, an adult, it takes on a whole new meaning. A new level of importance.

I made an appointment to see my doc on Monday to try to start some other form of treatment. We'll see how that goes. I'm doing some research into Accutane; I've heard it works, but had terrible side effects. I'll have to weigh the pros and cons.

Say it with roses: Harvard prof sends gift to 911 caller

2009-08-01T20:54:00.004-05:00

more symbolism instead of substance

I guess it's a good thing that Whalen received flowers from Gates and all, but why is that all she gets? No beer at the white house with the boys? No public appreciation for her attempt to be a conscientious neighbor? And I am sick of reading/hearing that "the arrest sparked a national debate about race and police relations." Actually, it sparked a debate about how stupid our president is, how even cops who bend over backwards training in "racial sensitivity" are no match for angry old black guys with a chip on their shoulders, and how even liberal cops who probably voted for Obama aren't immune from this kind of bullshit.

Right from the get-go, Obama attempted to draw an illogical parallel between this case and racial profiling when there was obviously no profiling done. And Gates attempted to become the newest black representative in the race hustling business-claiming to represent "poor blacks" whom it turns out he didn't have very nice things to say about in his last PBS special .

2009-08-01T20:45:00.001-05:00

"No positive spin is possible. Admit mistake."

2009-07-17T08:02:00.005-05:00

Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First US Conference

Hmmmm. "A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S." And the conference is called "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam." Way to endorse the decline of Western civilization, posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.

Reading this story brought to mind a recent article about a conference being cancelled.

Muslim Group Shuts Down Conservative Conference

Hmmmm. Seems "The manager of a prominent Nashville hotel cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders."

I love how Geert Wilders is "controversial" but a radical Muslim group trying to destroy America is pretty much accepted as mainstream.

I still manage to find it hard to believe and accept that eight years post- 9/11 America seems to have over-corrected in its stance on radical Islam. Every attempt is made to not even appear to hold all Muslims responsible for Islamic terrorism, which is fine, but it's done at the expense of dealing with the fact that there actually are radical Muslim terrorists and they are among us.

2009-07-16T21:01:00.012-05:00

So I was mindlessly perusing my Facebook page when I came across a link on a friend's page to an article from THE NEW YORK TIMES. It peaked my interest because it said "U.S. Opens Path to Asylum for Victims of Sexual Abuse - NYTimes.com" This friend happens to be of a liberal bent, and it was from the Times, but I care about asylum for victims of sexual abuse, so I clicked the link and read the article.

It was obvious from the get-go that this article followed the expected and accepted narrative of every article in every mainstream media outlet since Obama has been elected, nay, since Obama became the presumptive candidate of choice of the mainstream left. The narrative being: Obama administration, good; Bush administration, bad; Clinton administration, meh. No matter what the facts are. I repeat, no matter what the facts in the actual "article" are, the narrative must be followed.

Let's discuss the facts at hand, shall we? The opening paragraph sets the stage rather well, I think:

"The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance in a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees."

One could take from this paragraph that the facts are these: the Bush administration, aka George Bush personally, is against asylum for abused women and he did everything in his power as an evil white man of privilege to assure foreign women deserving of asylum were denied such, even going so far as to kick them in the head and laugh at them as they were delivered back to their attackers to be abused some more. Dear Leader Obama, on the other hand, in stark contrast, has personally saved countless abused women from all over planet Earth; women who, on occasion, did not even know they were being abused until he informed them.

2nd paragraph: "In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country." This literally applies to all women in Saudi Arabia, as well as several other middle eastern countries. These countries don't try to hide, or feel bad about, the way women are treated. Did Obama tell the Saudi Prince about this policy while he was visiting him, I wonder?

The article then goes on to cite a case of a woman from Mexico who was seeking asylum from her abusive husband. This is the case that is setting the precedent of how the current administration will handle "abused woman" asylum cases, apparently. Here's where they start to lose me, because the woman, whether truly abused or not, is in a country where she has many options to deal with her abuse. If she has the wherewith all to get a lawyer and seek asylum in her neighbor to the north, she could most likely prosecute her husband in Mexico; or seek a divorce or some other form of justice. She is not in Africa or the Middle East where she would have no other recourse than to seek asylum in America.

Then comes this gem of a paragraph: "Moving cautiously, the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately recommend asylum for the Mexican woman, who is identified in the court papers only by her initials as L.R. But the department, in the unusual submission written by senior government lawyers, concluded in plain terms that “it is possible” that the Mexican woman “and other applicants who have experienced domestic violence could qualify for asylum.”

Wow! Such a bold move by the Obama administration! After all, that's what the article is about, right? How fantastic it is that abused women can now seek asylum in the US? Oh, wait, what? "It is possible....that they could qualify for asylum." Halelujah! Praise baby Obama Jesus!

Next, we are informed that " As recently as last year, Bush administration lawyers had argued in the same case that in spite of her husband’s brutality, L.R. and other battered women could not meet the standards of American asylum law." It would appear that she didn't meat the standard of abuse for asylum...and it's still not clear whether she meets the standard for asylum under Obama! Didn't they just say "the DHS did not immediately recommend asylum for the woman?"

Then the article has the nerve to say that "The Obama administration’s position caps a legal odyssey for foreign women seeking protection in the United States..." I'm sorry? The Obama administration position? You'll have to explain this one to me. The official policy doesn't seem to have changed. The woman hasn't received asylum. Nothing has changed, and yet we're supposed to give the Obama administration credit for what? Wanting to give her asylum? Disagreeing with Bush "on principal?" And how does any of this "cap a legal odyssey??" Are abused woman now freely granted asylum in the US thanks to Obama? It doesn't appear so.

"During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to clarify the matter, but they have never gone into effect." As expected, in deference to Secretary of State Clinton, any reference to the Clinton administration is muted.

Finally, we get to a few facts, which are luckily hard to distort and politicize: "“Although each case is highly fact-dependent and requires scrutiny of the specific threat an applicant faces,” said Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, “the department continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum in the United States.” He said officials hoped to complete regulations governing the complex cases." The fact is, this is a complex issue that should require a case by case review.

The next sentence, set apart on it's own in a symbolic island being stated simply yet blindly ignored, is the following:

"The new policy does not involve women fleeing genital mutilation."

And here is where I lose my shit. If there is a case where asylum is justified more clearly and obviously, I would like to know. The entire article becomes nothing more than a sham, a less than newsworthy fluff piece making something out of nothing. And it couldn't be more obvious. And it couldn't be more pathetic. There is real news to be reported, and the author, a woman no less, chooses to create a piece of Obama mythology and give him credit for a deed not even done.

The article then fizzles out with details from the cited abuse case from Mexico and some musings about how complex the asylum process is, lamentably so, apparently. The feeling I am left with after reading this drivel is disgust. Disgust at the author, who is merely a representation of the state-run media's intentional bias toward keeping Obama popular-even if it means making him a hero in instances where he has done nothing substantive. The only bit of information gleaned from this piece was that women who are subject to FGM do not qualify for asylum. And for that information I am grateful. I think that should have been the headline.

2009-07-03T15:42:00.002-05:00

Congress's Travel Tab Swells
Spending on Taxpayer-Funded Trips Rises Tenfold; From Italy to the Galápagos

from wsj.com

2009-06-26T11:27:00.001-05:00

Obama, the African Colonial

from American Thinker

2009-06-26T11:23:00.001-05:00

The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

from wsj.com

2009-06-19T14:21:00.003-05:00

Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare

from Forbes.com

2009-06-19T13:07:00.002-05:00

Divided We Stand

from wsj.com

What would California look like broken in three? Or a Republic of New England? With the federal government reaching for ever more power, redrawing the map is enticing, says Paul Starobin

This really pisses me off...

2009-06-19T12:38:00.001-05:00

Fannie, Freddie Were at Center of Financial Crisis But Are Not Included in Obama’s New Financial Regulations

from cnsnews.com

2009-06-12T09:41:00.002-05:00

From Newsmax.com

Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews

By: Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us...

2009-06-10T21:23:00.004-05:00

I think what surprises me the most about this interview is a)that they would have John Ziegler on in the first place and b)the fact this chick is surprised that he's being so critical of msnbc! He made a documentary called "Media Malpractice." He rightly asserts that the mainstream media is basically responsible for getting Obama elected and keeping him popular, despite one horrendous policy mistake after another.

I don't really know what to say about this. It speaks for itself, really.

The media and the Obama administration are busy accusing our brave troops of "torture" while they're secretly instituting the reading of Miranda rights to terrorists in Afghanistan.

Still bored...

2009-06-03T15:20:00.002-05:00

Now I'm not only bored, I'm having a bad day. It's 3:20 pm (computer time) and my boss has pissed me off and given me other people's work to do. Long story short, I'm not having a good afternoon. So, I'm taking a few minutes to eat some almonds, blog and listen to internet radio. Here's how simple I am: I just found a station playing "Midnight at the Oasis" and I'm happy now. :D

I'm sooo bored....

2009-06-03T10:46:00.008-05:00

Today is dragging...the morning is taking too long. I've been at work since 6:50 this am and it is now, depending on whether you ask my computer or my phone, either 10:47 in the am or 10:43. I think I'll go with my computer, since it's technically later.

So far today I have done scant amounts of actual work, usually when my boss was walking by. I have also read some entries on April Winchell's blog, eaten breakfast and a snack (oatmeal, and almonds,) I created and deleted a new blog on Word Press, and listened to yesterday's Michael Savage show on a website with his shows archives.

I forgot to change my alarm clock to wake me up at 5:15 instead of 5:45 so I didn't get to work out this morning, so that's probably why I'm dragging ass. Monday, Wednesday and Friday I get up early and do workouts from The Abs Diet for Women, and the other days I either do a lighter workout or take the day off. I'm also eating foods recommended in the book and avoiding bad shit like soda and tasty, tasty cheeseburgers. I miss cheeseburgers. We'll meet again one day soon.

(pause to answer phone call from my husband)

So he is "trying" to get a job, apparently utilizing the age-old strategy of waiting for an employer to come knock on our door and offer him a job. He has yet to apply for any jobs. I told him I'm going to quit my job to inspire him to get a job so we don't end up homeless. I think he's calling my bluff on that one. I'm just too fucking responsible. It's in my DNA to work and support myself, and apparenly others, as well.

2009-05-16T08:33:00.001-05:00

Thought police muscle up in Britain

from The Australian

2009-05-06T17:05:00.001-05:00

NARCISSIST IN CHIEF
Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick

read it here

2009-04-30T13:23:00.002-05:00

FACT CHECK: Obama's job, deficit claims are iffy
guardian.co.uk

President Barack Obama turned the page on 100 days in office with an iffy boast about job creation and claims of fiscal prudence that are hard to square with his spending.

Obama spoke with abundant confidence about his chances for achieving the big-ticket items on his agenda despite economic calamity:

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

He pitched a remedy for Social Security's long-term crisis that analysts say won't fix half the problem.

Obama held a prime-time news conference Wednesday and addressed citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school, using both events to review progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

2009-04-30T10:52:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?

2009-04-24T08:33:00.002-05:00

Please click on image to enlarge. Found this courtesy of MichaelSavage.com

2009-04-24T07:52:00.002-05:00

The Case for a Federalism Amendment
How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.
from wsj.com

By Randy E. Barnett

In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of "tea party" rallies around the country, and various states are considering "sovereignty resolutions" invoking the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan's proposal urges "the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States."

While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Article V provides that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states," Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.

Here's how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.

What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?

One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Alternatively, to restore balance between federal and state power and better protect individual liberty, the repeal of the income tax amendment could be folded into a new "Federalism Amendment" like this:

Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.

Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.

Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.

Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.

Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not "commerce . . . among the several states," but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.

Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.

Section 3 adopts James Madison's reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.

Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers.

Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened -- including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.

2009-04-22T07:54:00.001-05:00

Are You an ‘Extremist’?
By Thomas Sowell

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanimo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about "right-wing extremists."

Just who are these right-wing extremists?

According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

If you fit into any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN — its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored — the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration — and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

Why such an organization? For what purpose?

Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grassroots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration — and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.

2009-04-17T20:44:00.002-05:00

If this stupid bitch wants to see angry Republicans in action, I think she may just get her wish. I'm gonna shove her limbic brain up her liberal elitist asshole. I will be boycotting my favorite show, 24. I will be emailing a response to her baseless allegations that the Republican conservative movement has morphed into the white power movement. But most of all, I will be, for the first time, attending a local Republican party gathering tomorrow. I am livid. My limbic brain is just seething right now. How dare she? Who do these moronic infantile Obama ball lickers think they are? The time has come to respond. Loudly. To respond to their horrible, ignorant claims as to who we are. The left has outed itself to be as intolerant closed-minded and elitist as they constantly accuse the right of being.

2009-04-17T10:22:00.002-05:00

Rendering Unto Caesar
by Patrick J. Buchanan
04/17/2009

HumanEvents.com

2009-04-15T10:22:00.002-05:00

Ziegler: USC, Cronkite should be embarrassed

Hotair.com

2009-04-15T07:47:00.003-05:00

DHS Report Warns Of Right Wing Extremists

Conservatives are up in arms about a report from the Department Of Homeland Security entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In Radicalization And Recruitment." (Here it is, in PDF form.)

2009-04-15T07:41:00.002-05:00

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment
HCR 50 Reiterates Texas’ Rights Over Powers Not Otherwise Granted to Federal Government

Woo Hoo!

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said.

2009-04-13T16:24:00.001-05:00

Navy kills 3 pirates to save US captain

2009-04-10T15:23:00.003-05:00

R.I.P. "strong foreign policy" and "traditional values"

...and hello "porky amendments!"

2009-04-10T12:42:00.003-05:00

Environmentalists Pick Up Where Communists Left Off
by Charles Krauthammer

from Townhall.com

isn't it ironic

2009-04-10T08:28:00.003-05:00

The 7 lawmakers who recently went to Cuba to visit the Castro brothers were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, yet they made no mention of the plight of Afro-Cubans. It would seem to this observer to be something worth at least a mention, no? Here's the facts:

Afro Cubans in Civil Society

• Afro-Cubans comprise over 60 percent of the island’s population, yet…
• Black and dark-skinned multiracial Cubans constitute only five percent of hospitality workers catering to Europeans and other tourists' international joint ventures with foreign firms (which tend to offer the highest wages by Cuban standards), while making up nearly 70 percent of the state-run labor force.
• Moreover, only about 35 percent of managerial positions in the state-run sector are held by black and biracial (mulatto) Cubans.
• Afro-Cubans are disproportionately represented in the prison population -- 80 percent of Cuba’s inmates are black or mulatto.
• Cubans of European ancestry receive as much as 250 percent more in remittances (cash subsidies) from family abroad than their Afro-Cuban neighbors. Growing income disparities may in turn be affecting the educational opportunities as well as occupational options of many Cubans of African ancestry.
• In terms of higher education, Afro-Cubans are already perceived to be woefully underrepresented – accounting for as little as three percent of university enrollments.

2009-04-10T07:43:00.004-05:00

Somali pirates living the high life
BBC News

"Piracy in many ways is socially acceptable. They have become fashionable.

Most of them are aged between 20 and 35 years - in it for the money.

And the rewards they receive are rich in a country where almost half the population need food aid after 17 years of non-stop conflict."

What's so fucking funny?

2009-04-09T11:26:00.015-05:00

Did you hear the one about the Somali pirates who kidnapped an American ship captain?

Apparently it's so funny that Hillary Clinton couldn't stop laughing while addressing this hilarious issue. I think the reason Hillary and Barack can't control their laughter is because they're positively giddy that they're getting away with all this shit they're pulling. Well, the joke's on us, people.

At least she didn't say, "Hey guys, we're talking about Morocco right now."

First we got our Dear Leader himself giggling like a geisha on 60 Minutes.

Now Hillary can't make a statement about a very serious on-going issue without cackling nonsensically as she speaks.

Remembering John O'Neill

2009-04-09T10:29:00.006-05:00

In this time of changing the "war on terror" into the "attempt to appease radical islam" or whatever the new official title is, it feels like a good time to revisit an old friend. Someone who put in countless hours researching radical islam and terror networks, well before 9/11. Someone who "connected the dots" but was ignored. A great man named John O'Neill.

If you're not familiar with John O'Neill, please feel free to watch this PBS Frontline documentary.

I felt compelled to watch it again as time takes us further and further from the intense feelings we had on 9/11. I fear our elected leaders are suffering from the complacency that so many years without an attack has allowed them to have.

The terrible irony is that as they become more complacent, our enemies grow stronger and more determined, and grow in numbers and support. We are showing the world a weak face at the moment. What better time to attack than when you feel emboldened, even supported, by your enemies' leadership? An American president who bows to a Saudi king? An American president who posts a supplication video to Iran on YouTube? Wow. We're not sending mixed messages, we're sending direct messages: times have changed. There's a new sheriff in town, and he's unarmed.

2009-04-09T07:21:00.002-05:00

Let's All Surrender Our Weapons -- You First!
by Ann Coulter
04/08/2009

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.

So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:

-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.

-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.

-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.

-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.

-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...

Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.

If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.

"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

what's the haps

2009-04-08T11:27:00.005-05:00

Chinese and Russian cyberspies 'penetrate US electrical grid'
Foreign spies have infiltrated the US electrical grid, leaving behind software programs that could disrupt the system in a time of war, American national security officials have claimed.
full article

Chinese businessman accused of using New York banks to buy Iran materials to make nuclear weapons
A Chinese businessman and his company have been charged with illegally using New York banks to help Iran buy materials to make nuclear weapons, Manhattan's chief prosecutor said on Tuesday.
full article

Oh, and some morons went to Cuba.

CNN shows up what's up in Swat

2009-04-07T21:01:00.000-05:00

disturbing story of the day

2009-04-07T09:15:00.004-05:00

Saudi Marriage Official Says 1-Year-Old Brides OK

marriage, Islam style

2009-04-07T08:33:00.001-05:00

If Obama Believes Austrian Is a Language, So Will AP
from Newsbusters

The End of an Era

2009-04-06T21:18:00.006-05:00

It's official. I've removed Oprah from my DVR list of shows to record. I haven't really been watching lately because she hasn't had any good shows in months, but today I decided to give it a go and at 4pm I switched over to see what the show was about.

I was immediately disappointed, because although the topic was motherhood, it was from the perspective of the new show In The Motherhood, which I detest.

I got through about twenty minutes before I was so disgusted I not only turned it off, but I removed it from my DVR list. I'm done.

They played a clip of a woman saying she had gone three weeks without bathing her kids and another woman said she would leave her kids in bed crying while she and her her husband drank wine. The audience laughed and applauded. what's going on?

Did I miss a parenting memo? Is this some new form of humor that I just don't get? It's hip and cool to be neglectful?

One thing the women on the show kept repeating and agreeing with each other about was how "no one tells you how hard it is to be a parent" and "I didn't know what to expect when I became a mom." What? Is it not 2009? Are there not a million books, magazines, TV shows on the very issue of being a parent?

I'm really disturbed by this seemingly growing trend of too cool to be bothered parents. And the worst part is, they're encouraging each other. Instead of saying, "What the fuck! You didn't bath your baby for three weeks?" people are saying "You think that's bad, I don't even know where my baby is right now!" And then they share a laugh and a glass of wine.

And Oprah of all people is encouraging this. The co-messages she's attempting to give are that:

Being a mom is the hardest job on Earth and
That being said, it's understandable that you can occasionally lose your shit and stop being responsible for your kids well being

I mean, seriously, one woman said she forgot to feed her kids dinner. They were attempting to pass off these stories as cute little "mom anecdotes", but they came across as things you should be embarrassed about and not share in public. Or maybe you should be telling to your court-appointed therapist.

I love this guy!

2009-04-06T21:00:00.001-05:00

Oh, really?

2009-04-05T08:51:00.003-05:00

Fannie, Freddie worker bonuses total $210M
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP Real Estate Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009

Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies.

read all about it

2009-04-04T21:50:00.008-05:00

OBAMA'S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK

By MEGHAN CLYNE, from NewYorkPost.com

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience."

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his "advocacy of unfettered presidential power" to President Richard Nixon's. And that was the first Bush -- Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm.

Koh has also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' use in the 1980s of the International Court of Justice to get Congress to stop funding the Contras. Imagine such international lawyering by rogue nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela today, and you can see the danger in Koh's theories.

Koh, a self-described "activist," would plainly promote his views aggressively once at State. He's not likely to feel limited by the letter of the law -- in 1994, he told The New Republic: "I'd rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Worse, the State job might be a launching pad for a Supreme Court nomination. (He's on many liberals' short lists for the high court.) Since this job requires Senate confirmation, it's certainly a useful trial run.

What happens to Koh in the Senate will send an important signal. If he sails through to State, he's a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. So Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront his radical views.

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.

Riddle Me This

2009-04-03T22:16:00.005-05:00

Can someone please explain to me what is so intimidating about women that we must be oppressed so violently? Seriously, if there is one major difference between the genders, it is that we, women, are the givers of life. Is our god-like power so intimidating that you men feel we should be, what, oppressed, killed, what? I can't figure it out. It can't just be religion. Religion is just the guise man hides behind to commit atrocities. Is it because you are physically stronger? I've always said no law can protect any woman in an empty parking lot at night. We are often at your mercy due to the constraints of our physical abilities.

I remember the first time I discovered Ms. Magazine.

It had articles on how women are treated abroad in various countries, as well as women's issues here on the home front. It was 1993 and I was 18. I was in a waiting room at the VA hospital next to the county hospital I worked at. Our mammogram machine was down and I had to walk some patients over to get their exams done at the hospital next door. There was a Ms. magazine in the waiting room and I read it and I actually stole it and took it home and sent in the form to subscribe to it. I was hooked.

I remained a loyal subscriber for a few years until the magazine took a turn toward a theme that was heavy lesbian issues and gay rights and anti-Americanism and less overall "women's issues." I was sad to let it go, but by then I found plenty of other sources of info about women's rights; various websites and other magazines. And at that point I was a political naive and hadn't developed the conservative prowess that I have now. ;)

I am not just proud to be an American, nay, I am grateful to be an American woman. (Cue Lee Greenwood.) I am so very aware of how lucky I am to have been born in a country where I am not forced to wear a burka.

Did you know there was more to the burka than the outer covering? Well, there is. In Iran, the "burka" is a pinching mask of black bands pressing against the eyebrows and nose, and ending in a point just above the mouth.

The Taliban is actually gaining ground in this "post 9/11" world we seem to have found ourselves in. Did you know England and Canada have Sharia courts? We are heading in the wrong direction and I'm scared. I'm scared as a woman. I'm scared for America. I'm scared for Americans. Who would have thunk it that 7 years post 9/11 we'd have a president named Hussein and we'd be on the fast-track toward Socialism and we'd be CLOSING GITMO and downsizing the military. If this is a dream, someone wake me up.

2009-04-03T21:32:00.003-05:00

2009-04-03T09:44:00.005-05:00

I keep hearing how "historic" this G-20 Summit is.

The only thing historic about this most recent G-20 conference is that it's the year America joined the anti-America contingent. It's a sight to behold, honestly.

In between paling around with various world leaders and spouting global warming nonsense, Obama managed to blame America for all the world's problems.

I think it was Peggy Noonan who said she was glad we didn't have to worry about Presidential gafs this time around. Instead we have to worry about an American president who supplicates himself to the Saudi king.

disturbing story of the day

2009-04-03T09:25:00.003-05:00

Police: Mother Drugs Daughter in Attempt to Get Her Pregnant

UNIONTOWN, Pa. — Police say a western Pennsylvania mother drugged her 13-year-old daughter so her boyfriend could get the girl pregnant.

Uniontown police say 32-year-old Shana Brown is no longer able to have children, but wanted a baby with her boyfriend.

Det. Donald Gmitter says Brown and her boyfriend, 40-year-old Duane Calloway, attempted to impregnate the girl on three occasions. Gmitter says the girl prevented the rapes. The girl's paternal grandmother reported the incidents to police.

Brown is facing several charges, including endangering the welfare of children. Brown's attorney Patrick McDaniel did not immediately return a call for comment.

Calloway faces charges of attempted rape. It was not immediately clear if he has an attorney.

2009-04-03T08:15:00.010-05:00

Welcome to the world of the "moderate" Taliban
Revisiting the Swat region of Pakistan
TimesOnline

President Zardari of Pakistan insists that the truce was made with “moderates” in the region and his officials have even held it up as a model for other parts of Pakistan’s troubled northwest, which borders Afghanistan.

The deal was agreed with Sufi Mohammed, the leader of an outlawed Islamic movement who was recently released after six years in jail for leading thousands of his supporters to Afghanistan to fight American forces in 2001.

He is the father-in-law of Mullah Fazlullah, the 33-year-old cleric who leads the Pakistani Taleban in Swat and is known for propagating his strict interpretation of Islam through pirate FM radio broadcasts.

Pakistani officials argue that many residents of the Swat Valley, which only became part of Pakistan in 1969, have long demanded Sharia law because of the weakness of the secular state judicial system.

2009-04-03T08:01:00.006-05:00

President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk

TimesOnline

President Karzai of Afghanistan provoked international outrage yesterday with draconian Taleban-era restrictions on women and laws that explicitly sanction marital rape.
A leaked copy of the laws obtained by The Times details new strictures for Afghanistan’s Shia minority. Women are banned from leaving the home without permission. A wife has the absolute duty to provide sexual services to her husband, and child marriage is legalised.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, became aware of it only when it was raised by her Finnish counterpart at the Afghanistan conference in The Hague on Wednesday. She is said to have raised the issue with him but without the full text President Karzai was spared her opprobrium.

2009-04-02T22:05:00.005-05:00

Do you know what I would say to the people who protested at the G-20 in London? I would ask them if they learned anything from the recent US election. Were they not inspired by the talk of "hope" and "change?" I guess Obama's message was lost on people too far from America to get the full content of his true message.

You bring down a country from within. You get elected to public office, boldly telling people you plan to turn their democracy into a socialist nightmare and there you have it! Sixty to Seventy five days later you can take your plan global and implement your plans across the world.

2009-04-02T21:41:00.005-05:00

Neil Cavuto is the man. He won't back down when a guest refuses to answer his questions, he follows up and keeps trying until it's obvious they just refuse to be honest. Exhibit A:

"Don't use profanity on the air, please" ???? What is this guy Amish? I gotta give him props, though, for not deviating a millimeter from his assigned talking points.

"We pay you, Congressman. Act like it." Oh, snap.

2009-04-02T17:10:00.006-05:00

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. full story

2009-04-02T15:54:00.002-05:00

Dems Failure to Fast Track Cap-And-Trade a Terrific Omen

Marc Sheppard, American Thinker

Yesterday, a genuine bi-partisan coalition (twenty-six Democrats and forty-one Republicans) denied cap-and-trade legislation a filibuster-and-amendment-proof path through the Senate. The move effectively prevents overzealous Senators the likes of Boxer and Waxman from turning their paranoid green dreams of citizen-control into law by circumventing Senate procedures.

2009-04-02T14:47:00.005-05:00

I heard this story on NPR on my drive to work this morning. I call it "Taking the fun out of driving."

Driver Technique Matters With Plug-In Hybrids

"Oh-oh. You see that heavy foot right there? You just got the gas motor to come on at 20 miles an hour," she says.
That's a total no-no if you want to get the most miles per gallon. You want to rely on the battery and keep the gas motor off. At 20 mph, there's no reason for it to kick in — unless you have a heavy foot, which, apparently, I do.
"There's no need to just kind of punch it. It'll go," Fahenstock says. "You're really not going to get to your destination any sooner. Why do you need to accelerate so quickly?"

2009-04-02T14:23:00.006-05:00

Census Bureau: We’ll Work with ‘Community Organizations’ to Count All Illegal Aliens in 2010

Thursday, April 02, 2009By Nicholas Ballasy

(CNSNews.com) - The acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Thomas Mesenbourg, told CNSNews.com that the bureau intends to work with community organizations to make sure every illegal alien in the United States is counted in the 2010 Census.

This means that a state harboring more illegal aliens can gain more House seats as long as the Census Bureau finds the illegal aliens and counts them. This also means that the illegal alien population resident in the United States during a census year has the potential to alter the regional and philosophical balance of power in Congress.

2009-04-02T12:47:00.003-05:00

Gordon Brown's Man-Crush on Obama
by Ryan Tate

2009-04-02T12:17:00.003-05:00

House Republican Budget Would Confront Hard Choices and Rein in Budget Deficits
by Brian M. Riedl

Answering President Obama's challenge for critics to present alternatives, the House Republicans have offered a responsible budget blueprint that:

Borrows $3.6 trillion less than the President's budget;
Would create $23,000 less debt per household than the President's budget;
Keeps federal spending just above 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)—the same level as before the recession;
Avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the overly complex tax code;
Includes a temporary moratorium on earmarks; and
Begins reforming the unsustainable costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.[1]

Confronting the Hard Choices on Spending and Deficits
President Obama has spoken about making the "tough choices," yet his budget is an exercise in ducking them. Rather than bring spending in line with tax revenues, President Obama would push spending to its highest peacetime level in American history.[2] As a result, his budget would dump a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.

Rather than merely talk about "tough choices," the House Republican budget actually makes them. It would keep federal spending at just over 20 percent of GDP, which is roughly the spending level before the recession. Instead of creating expensive new programs that taxpayers cannot afford, this budget:

Freezes non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending at its current level for five years—which should be affordable for domestic programs whose budgets have significantly expanded since 2001;
Reforms entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are currently growing at 8 percent annually;
Takes back stimulus spending that would be spent in 2010 and beyond, when the recession is expected to be over; and
Places a moratorium on earmarks until the system can be cleaned up.

None of this will be easy. Freezing programs and reforming entitlements are not popular ideas in Washington. But to avert the permanent $1 trillion budget deficits that President Obama has proposed, lawmakers must make these kinds of tough decisions.

To their credit, Democrats in the House and Senate slightly trimmed some of the President's proposals from their budget resolutions. They reduce a few billion dollars off the President's discretionary spending total and exclude his request for another round of financial bailouts. However, these minor changes do not provide significant savings against the massive spending and deficits in the President's budget.

And although the House and Senate budgets exclude the future costs of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and creating a permanent Making Work Pay credit, it is assumed that Congress will enact those policies down the road anyway. Congress is also expected to follow the President's lead in passing expensive climate and health legislation. Overall, the House and Senate budgets are only marginally less irresponsible than the President's blueprint.

Addressing Long-Term Entitlements
In the absence of reform, the costs of paying Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits to 77 million retiring baby boomers will overwhelm the federal budget. Lawmakers would have to either permanently raise taxes by the current equivalent of $12,000 per household or eliminate all other federal programs just to pay these added costs. And every year of delay, the baby boomers move closer to retirement and the cost of reform increases by over $1 trillion.[3]

President Obama's budget offers no solution to this urgent problem. In fact, his proposal of expanding government-run health care programs would worsen the problem by adding even more government costs. Also, these budgets irresponsibly ignore the long-term implications of their proposals. The President's budget ignores all costs beyond its 10-year window, and the House and Senate budgets cover only five years.

The House Republican budget not only uses a full 10-year budget window, but it also addresses the $43 trillion, 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare. Specifically, it would slowly transition Medicare into a premium support program for individuals who are currently below age 55. This would provide seniors with a health plan similar to the one that Members of Congress and federal employees currently enjoy—one based on consumer choice and competition. The House GOP budget would also allow future adjustments to Social Security benefits for upper-income seniors and provide states with more Medicaid flexibility by converting its acute services budget into a set state allotment.

Regardless of whether one agrees with these proposals, everyone should credit the House Republicans for at least offering a blueprint to deal with long-term entitlements. Rather than ignore the budget implications of their policies beyond 2014 (which the congressional Democrats' budgets do) and 2019 (which the President‘s budget does), the House Republicans' budget ensures that future generations will not be buried in debt by today's lawmakers.

Reforming Taxes
President Obama has proposed to raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The House and Senate budgets would likely raise taxes by similar amounts.[4] And even these large tax hikes would not be enough to finance the President's long wish list of new spending initiatives.

Over 10 years, President Obama would raise taxes by an average $300,000 apiece for the 3.2 million individuals and small businesses with the highest incomes. With the economy already in recession, this is downright reckless; President Herbert Hoover's tax increases, after all, helped turn a recession into the Great Depression. And delaying these tax increases until 2011 will not stop forward-looking businesses from immediately scaling back any investment and hiring plans in anticipation of the painful tax bite.

Everyone else's taxes would rise, too. Despite his promise that "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,"[5] the President has proposed an (at least) $646 billion cap-and-trade energy tax. This tax would immediately be passed onto all consumers at a cost that could average anywhere from $650 to $2,000 per household annually.

The House Republican alternative rejects all tax increases. It would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as the AMT patch. It would also finally reform the complex income tax code by allowing individuals the choice of opting into a simplified tax system with a 10 percent marginal tax rate on incomes below $100,000 and a 25 percent marginal tax rate on incomes above $100,000. It would also encourage economic growth by reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and suspending capital gains taxes through 2010.
These tax proposals would increase incentives to work, save, invest, and be productive. They also reject the President's dangerous move of proposing tax increases during a recession. And by simplifying the tax code, the House Republican budget would reduce the ability of lobbyists and interest groups to game the tax code, and it would help busy Americans complete their tax forms in a matter of minutes.[6]

Even with all those benefits, the House GOP budget proposal would bring in revenues averaging just below 18 percent of GDP, which is near the historical average and just 1 percent of GDP less than the President's painful tax proposals. When combined with its spending restraints, the House GOP proposal provides more tax relief and lower budget deficits than the President and congressional Democrats would. This is a win-win for taxpayers.

A Better Vision
The House Republican blueprint provides a strong contrast to President Obama's plan to saddle Americans with historic tax increases, runaway spending, and a doubling of the national debt. It would rein in spending, simplify taxes, and lessen the debt burden on American families. This plan also confronts the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It should be taken seriously by anyone concerned with rising government spending and debt.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]The Path to American Prosperity Act, H.R. 85, 111th Cong., 1st Sess.
[2]See Brian M. Riedl, "The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2249, March 16, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm.
[3]Brian M. Riedl, "A Guide to Fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2114, March 11, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2114.cfm.
[4]If Congress drops the proposed Making Work Pay tax credit and the proposed tax increase limiting itemized deductions, the total tax increase would come to approximately $1.3 trillion.
[5]Barack Obama, "Address to Joint Session of Congress," the White House, February 24, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress (April 1, 2009).[6] For more on the economic effects of the tax provisions in the Republican alternative budget, see Karen Campbell, "Economic Analysis of the House Republican Budget Alternative (H.R. 85): 'Report on the Path to American Prosperity,'" Heritage Foundation White Paper, April 1, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wp040109a.cfm.

2009-04-02T09:56:00.002-05:00

Businesses Speak out on Damage Caused by Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act fromEarthTimes

"Thanks to the flaws in this new law, millions of perfectly safe products are in the process of being destroyed, costing U.S. businesses billions of dollars in the midst of one of the worst economic crises in history," said Rick Woldenberg, head of the Alliance for Children's Product Safety, a coalition of small business owners, manufacturers, crafters and entrepreneurs. "Even charitable organizations and thrift stores are being forced to pull inventory from their shelves at a time when American families need them more than ever."

2009-04-02T07:33:00.002-05:00

Why Is Rick Wagoner Fired and Nancy Pelosi Still Working?
by Ann Coulter

Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.

It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.

To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work." full article at HumanEvents.com

2009-04-01T11:13:00.004-05:00

Why Everyone Should Listen to Rush

Andrew Klavan: Take the Limbaugh Challenge

2009-04-01T08:16:00.002-05:00

Does anybody in the Obama administration pay their taxes??

HHS nominee tells senators she's corrected tax returns for 3 years, paid $7,000 in back taxes

Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors" — the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee. The Kansas governor explained the changes to senators in a letter dated Tuesday that the administration released. She said they involved charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses. StarTribune.com

2009-04-01T07:54:00.004-05:00

A Rookie President
By Thomas Sowell

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.
There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

2009-03-31T09:49:00.005-05:00

Did I mention I found a station where I can get Laura Ingraham's show now? Well I can...

I love Laura Ingraham. I love her show, she's funny and clever and smart and her show is terrific. She just needs to learn how to do a decent interview. She has on guests of differing views, which is great, and they should be commended for being willing to represent their viewpoint on a conservative talk show, but she always ends up interrupting them and going off on some sort of Catholic rant. It turns off listeners who aren't Catholic and actually want to hear an interview.

I think that's probably why her TV show didn't last. I was embarassed by her inability to let her guests talk.

Look at this moron. Nice shirt, idiot.

2009-03-27T10:52:00.006-05:00

Stupid Things Environmentalists Say

Since there is no end to the stupid things that environmentalists say, this list is a work in progress.

a few examples:

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." Carl Amery, German writer and environmental activist.

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

2009-03-27T10:12:00.003-05:00

Notre Dame Obama Commencement Speech Stirs Catholic Opposition

By Michael A. Fletcher
More than 87,000 names have been added to an online petition launched by a conservative Catholic group calling for the University of Notre Dame to rescind its invitation to President Obama to speak at its May 17 commencement ceremony. full story from The Washington Post

2009-03-27T09:44:00.009-05:00

As the Great Depression persisted, even Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939, he confessed,

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

Yet the American people still believe 70 years later that the New Deal government programs ended the Great Depression. In fact, they caused it it to be deeper and much longer than it would have been.

Obama and his supporters are going down the same road only much farther and deeper and starting from a much worse national debt in 2008 than the U.S. had in 1932.

Myths of the Great Depression

2009-03-27T09:32:00.007-05:00

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant

Short Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000

In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.

2009-03-27T08:48:00.002-05:00

Internet security at work update: live streaming internet stations now unblocked.

In the Motherhood

2009-03-27T06:04:00.013-05:00

Last night was the much-anticipated (by me, at least) premier of In the Motherhood.

Starring Cheryl Hines from one of the best shows ever made Curb Your Enthusiasm, Megan Mullaly from Will and Grace (I wasn't a regular viewer, but the episodes I saw, she was hilarious) and that chick from Best Week Ever. It also had Horatio Sanz, who has lost a bunch of weight and looks great.

I got the impression from the commercials that this would be about funny stuff from the lives of moms, not how desperate these woman are to avoid their kids. It wasn't even funny depictions of mom stereotypes, it was damn-near offensive.

In one scene, we find Cheryl Hines expressing concern over an upcoming date waving her hand over her nether region saying "No one has seen this in a very long time." The woman has an infant. Someone's been there recently.

Maybe it's because I'm a mom now, but nothing about this show appealed to me. I get it. Moms are boring. Being a mom is boring. According to this review in the LA Times,

"Parenting often boils down to a series of repetitive tasks and maddening dialogue, much of which has to do with such fascinating topics as bedtime, personal hygiene, sibling-on-sibling violence and the nutritional value of Cheetos."

I have to disagree. Have they never watched Wife Swap? Real families are far from boring. It's the formulaic TV family that's tired and predictable.

On a lighter note...

2009-03-26T21:24:00.003-05:00

Where croissants come from:

2009-03-26T15:35:00.006-05:00

I rock! I outsmarted IS and found a station that wasn't blocked so I could hear Rush!

And I found this cool new guy Jerry Doyle on KDWN out of Las Vegas. He just had an interview with Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific. It was fascinating.

He's talking to Charles Murray right now about his WSJ article:

Europe Syndrome
The trouble with taking the trouble out of everything.

2009-03-26T11:27:00.007-05:00

Wow. I guess I jinxed myself by posting about listening to live streaming talk radio on the internet at work because, guess what, the link is now blocked. This sucks balls.

2009-03-26T09:39:00.003-05:00

Geithner 'open' to China proposal

Politico story:

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

2009-03-25T17:02:00.005-05:00

According to Newt Gingrich:

The Joke’s On Us: Goldman Sachs Never Needed a Bailout

The latest revelation is perhaps the worst yet.

Remember how the Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke bailout of AIG was initially sold to the American people? We were told that failing to prop up the firm with taxpayer dollars would let loose a cascading failure of the entire banking system.

It turns out that this was never exactly true.

That’s right. Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar announced last week that his firm never needed the taxpayers’ help after all. Goldman Sachs, it turns out, wouldn’t have failed if AIG had been allowed to fail.

The reason Viniar made the announcement was to divert the public’s attention from allegations that Goldman profited handsomely from the bailout of AIG.

But in trying to tamp down one scandal, Viniar has revealed another: The ground on which Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke sold the $170 billion AIG bailout was -- at least partially -- a lie.

The Top Four Beneficiaries of the AIG Bailout? Goldman Sachs and Three Foreign Banks.

So if we didn’t avert a banking crisis with the AIG bailout, what exactly have the taxpayers gotten for their $170 billion? Well, nothing so far. But here’s the list of the top four beneficiaries of the AIG bailout:

1. Goldman Sachs: $12.9 billion
2. Société Générale (France) $11.9 billion
3. Deutsche Bank (Germany) $11.8 billion
4. Barclays (United Kingdom) $8.5 billion

This is the real scandal of the AIG bailout.

Add the other TARP funds Goldman Sachs received to the AIG pass-through money and you get an astounding total of $23 billion from the taxpayers.

All for a company that now says it never needed help to begin with.

2009-03-25T14:15:00.016-05:00

I work four ten-hour days a week. In an office. With morons. If it wasn't for ListVerse and talk radio, I'd go nuts.

I found a website with live streaming talk radio so I listen to a variety of shows all day.

A little Chris Plante on WMAL in Washington, DC

An hour of Len Tillem on KGO in San Francisco

"So, why are you callin' a lawyah?"

I love Laura Ingraham and Mike Gallagher, but they're on channels blocked by IS.

My favorite three hours of my workday and the best three hours in radio: 11-2 pm cst

I'm also a big fan of the Savage Nation, with the incomparable Michael Savage. He is so funny and irreverent. For some reason, he doesn't like other talk show hosts, but whatever.

I also really enjoy NPR.

2009-03-25T12:42:00.004-05:00

The spectacle of the very same people responsible for one of the nation's great financial calamities angling to be given even more control to fix the problem would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

from Investor's Business Daily

2009-03-25T12:03:00.005-05:00

Why is this guy not in JAIL?

(BOLINGBROOK, Ill.) -- Drew Peterson and his child crept around their subdivision in the middle of the night, cutting down ribbons meant to honor his murdered third wife and missing fourth wife, said his disgusted next-door neighbor.

2009-03-25T09:28:00.004-05:00

The Mainspring of Human Progress

I love this book. I found it at a thrift store and had no idea what it was about. Turns out it's pretty cool. You can read the whole thing online at the above link.

2009-03-25T08:38:00.005-05:00

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

By Thomas Ferraro

Washington (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

2009-03-24T13:21:00.008-05:00

I saw a short news story about the Swat region of Pakistan on Special Report last night. They're now under Sharia law and the story showed some guys being publicly flogged. That was pretty terrible, but I found a story online just now that made me cry. Look at this face. That could be my daughter. Your daughter.

Pashawar (AsiaNews) – Sharia courts have begun to administer justice in the Swat Valley. With Sharia in place in Malakand area, women are no longer allowed to go out unaccompanied or speak in public. They must also cover their heads. Girls’ schools, essentially run by missionaries, could close for good, especially after recent bomb attacks. Although no one was injured in the blasts, about a thousands girls are now unable to go to class, about 95 per cent of whom are Muslim.

2009-03-23T09:13:00.007-05:00

I just finished reading The Dark Tower series. To say it was awesome would be an understatement.

I don't know what to read next. I started this book a while ago

and it's great. It reaffirms my faith in myself as a parent. I trust my instincts and everything seems to work out okay. The fact that my daughter laughs and smiles more than she whines and cries tells me she's happy and we're doing okay as parents. She's a healthy eater she's a quick learner and she loves to dance. My god does she love to dance.

This book is also on my nightstand.

It's very informative and helpful for those days when I want to be informed and/or helped.

As are these, also on my nightstand

And the most recent copy of Imprimis.

I really like my life. It's far from perfect and I'd rather live in my own house than in an apartment, but I wouldn't trade lives with anyone. I've got a great husband and a perfect kid and life is only going to get better.

2009-03-21T21:15:00.008-05:00

I had a stressful morning. Most Saturday mornings are a bit stressful. My mom came over. She comes over most Saturdays to visit her granddaughter. I don't like my mom. I invite her over out of a sense of obligation and guilt. The dynamic of our relationship is stressful and painful and I hate it. There is absolutely no mother-daughter bond between us. I could care less if I ever saw her again. In fact, I would prefer not to. We've been stuck in this cycle for years and I hate it. I pity her. She's neurotic and lonely.

I live my life with the conscious intent of being the mother I never had.

2009-03-19T20:52:00.008-05:00

So as you can probably tell by my pathetic little blog, I'm new to blogging. I had high hopes and unrealistic expectations for myself and this blog when I created it. It's just that I have so very many interests and so very much to say but I don't have the time or patience to do it right. At least, I haven't yet, but I will, dammit!

It's been all politics so far, but I plan to branch out to some of my other interests, such as spirituality, literature, history, music, whatever tickles my fancybone at any given moment. I need to work on my focus.

2009-03-19T15:49:00.006-05:00

I've actually given myself a stress headache from looking at TheReligionofPeace.com non-stop for as long as I could stand it. I already feared militant Islam. I didn't think I could feel any stronger about the war on terror, but alas, I was wrong. That shit should be required reading at schools across America.

I'm losing my mind listening to talk radio and reading about the slow disintegration of our wonderful country. The world's last bastion of freedom, last hope of liberty. But for how long?