Sunday, May 31, 2009
Barack Obama on his SCOTUS pick Sonia Sotomayor as way of explanation (?) of her statement that Latina women would make a better decision than white men because they are, well, Latina women.
Two things about this quote.
Duh. Of course if she would change it now she could because it has become a headache.
We have heard from just about everybody in the country about the quote, reporters, Republicans, Democrats. People who agree, people who disagree. Everybody but the judge herself.
We hear this type of statement a lot, "he/she/I would not say...now". This type of statement means nothing, see first point.
What we need to hear is a convincing explanation from the judge on what she was thinking when she said, how she feels about race, and how these feelings will effect her decisions on the bench.
I mean, this whole pick is about "feelings" right. Obama did say he was looking for someone empathetic. To be fair though, he never did say empathetic to whom.
Until we hear from her, we can only use her racist statement as a guide and form our opinions from there.
Source for quote
Friday, May 29, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.
We have a civil rights activist from the 60's saying this is more blatant than Mississippi 50 years ago, can you think of a more powerful statement?
Anybody remember the whining from the Dems about disenfranchising voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections? Never any actual incidences or proof, just accusations.
Pure and simple you have to call this what it is, legalized racism. Anyone think we will see this again? This group has 27 chapters nationwide, think they will hesitate to pull this shit in your town next?
Things started out okay last fall.
There was the promise of Change and Hope.
It was a new beginning.
My wife and I felt the promise of a new day.
Things would return to normal.
The birds were singing, there were still a few blooms on the flowers, and there was just a hint of a changing color in the trees.
The quiet continued through the long Winter.
Then came Spring with it's promise of life anew.
We are nearing the end though.
Only a few days left.
These are not the kids that will be tormenting us in the months to come.
They have changed.
The two peaceful looking boys are now, it troubles me to say it, TEENAGERS.
And the cute little girl with the sunglasses is a little 9 year old diva going on 16.
Pray for us.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The News of the World says Brian Sirjusingh was paid $1,600 by its reporters in exchange for access to the building.
Once inside, he showed them several vehicles used by members of the Royal Family.
One was even allowed to sit in a Bentley used to transport the Queen on state occasions.
Strict security measures are meant to be in force at the Palace.
Even members of the Royal Family including Prince Charles must show photo ID each time they enter a royal residence.
Surjusingh apparently boasted of how he underwent a year's special training to prepare him for his job.
He thought the reporters, who he had never met before, were wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen.
According to the News of the World, he spoke indiscreetly about the Queen's movements, giving away confidential security details.
A spokeswoman for the palace said: "Any security matter is taken very seriously and we will look into these allegations."
Overall, this was my favorite part.
He thought the reporters...were wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen.
No cause for concern there, just let them roam around the Palace.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
In the interest of fairness we do have to note that the Obama administration has said they are not interested in this tax. As with all Obama statements though, the truth is more in his actions than his words. Hiring a supporter of the tax to work as an adviser is not without concern. Also, having the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee defending the tax is noteworthy.
If this were to be enacted, it would finally put to rest the whole (false) notion of Obama not taxing the middle class. This would be the most regressive tax in history, irregardless of what they did with the income tax. Keep in mind that a large portion of people do not pay income tax. They will all pay the VAT tax.
I sometimes wonder if I have fallen down the rabbit hole. None of this makes sense to me.
The American auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy so the administration wants to increase regulations which will make cars more expensive so they will be harder to sell.
To ensure health care for all, the administration wants to tax people who have health insurance, likely reducing the number of people on private insurance.
The economy is in a decline and fuel prices have a direct and strong effect on it so Democrats want to increase regulations and taxes on fuel thus making it more expensive and causing the economy to take a bigger hit.
Unemployment is heading towards 10% so the Democrats want to increase regulations, taxes, and "green" requirements on corporations so they will hire fewer people.
Home sales are declining along with the prices and the solution is to pass the same "green" regulations on new houses, making them more expensive to build.
Now with the economy in decline and unemployment on the rise, there is a movement to punish people for buying goods and services.
Does this all make sense to everyone else and I'm the only dummy who doesn't get it?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Police have charged a woman who they say used a child car seat with a 2-month-old infant inside to hit a Wal-Mart employee.
Detective Monique Martin said in a news release Monday that Camilla Fields of Memphis, Tenn., was charged with felony child abuse and neglect and assault. Police did not know if she had an attorney.
A police report from the Wednesday incident says Fields was carrying the car seat when she was confronted by a security guard about shoplifting.
Police say Fields threw the seat and ran away, causing the baby to land face down on the pavement. A paramedic treated the baby until the child regained consciousness.
The child's mother, Stacey Cleaves, was also charged with false reporting and child neglect.
One of the first things you look at when assessing a head injury is whether the patient lost consciousness, this can be evidence of a significant injury. Also, this means that she really did throw the car seat, the baby took a pretty good hit.
You have to wonder what the Hell kind of society we have when a woman does something like this. There are so many issues here.
We will dispense with the obvious, shoplifting, I think we have already established that she is a dirt bag so shoplifting is no shock.
She took her newborn baby with her to do it. Most new moms are paranoid to even take their baby to the store when they are this age because they can get sick, this woman took her baby to commit a crime.
She used the baby as a weapon. Faced with a minor misdemeanor for shoplifting, she used her baby to get herself extricated in the hopes of getting away. The callousness here is stunning. It does have to be noted this was a split second decision but any other mother would fight to save her baby's life, it is ingrained in them. A mother will place herself in danger to protect her baby. This woman's first instinct was to use the baby as a means to an end.
Finally, she ran away. She used her child as a weapon and then as the child lie unconscious on the sidewalk, literally possibly dying, she ignored the peril the child was in and ran away to save herself.
This woman has been charged with a felony and hopefully will get a good long time behind bars. Call me skeptical though. While I can't speak for everyone, I assume most have seen too many times in which a mother gets away with a light sentence after a horrendous incident like this. I will carry it further and say I would not be shocked if she is eventually re-united with the child in an attempt to "keep the family together".
We live in a society in which the life of a child has been devalued due to one simple Supreme Court case. Too often judges, maybe even subconsciously, do not seem to punish crimes against children severe enough.
We have seen child molesters freed without prison time, people have visited incredible horrors on children and see short prison sentences, and in the name of keeping a child with it's mother, we have had case after case where a mother regains custody after the worst cases of abuse and neglect.
This is simply a case of reaping what we sow. We cannot say that the life of a child is forfeit at the whim of the mother and still maintain the level of respect for children that we should as a society. We cannot have laws, one of which our President signed as a State Senator, that says it is okay to let a child born alive after abortion lie and gasp for life as the medical providers let it die and still value life.
This woman of course is a deficient human being, devoid of the caring of a mother or even the most rudimentary empathy for her fellow man, so self absorbed that she cannot even protect her own child if it is inconvenient for her.
Look in the mirror though folks, we created her.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The parents from the Unified School District in Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, say these issues are best learned at home and most definitely are not age-appropriate for elementary school children.
The parents are also angry that they will not be allowed to keep their children out of the classes.
“I believe these children are far too young to be learning about what these issues mean,” said Alaina Stewart, who has three children who attend elementary school in Alameda. “These are adult issues and they are being thrust upon the children.”
But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.
"By not allowing kids to opt out," says David Kirwin, who has two children in the system, "the school district is violating a First Amendment right for those who have a religion that doesn't support homosexuality."
The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes.
The move toward the new curriculum began two years ago, when teachers noticed that even kindergarten students were using derogatory words about sexuality, such as “fag.”
“Students reported feeling bullied,” said Kirsten Vital, superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District. “This work is in response to teachers asking for tools to combat name-calling and bullying at school.”
I think the first thought that comes to mind is that they need to send Perez Hilton through the course, maybe he'll learn not to use the word "Bitch" towards other people.
I'm not wasting any time on schools pushing their own agenda, this is not even close to new.
The thing that surprises me is that the parents cannot opt their kids out of the class. In Michigan we have a state law that we can ask our kids set out curricula we find objectionable. That and the fact that it would be amusing to see them stop me from keeping my kid out.
Friday, May 22, 2009
There were no press conferences about how much we are spending on the wars.
There were no threats to withhold funding, thus defunding troops in a war zone.
Cindy Sheehan wasn't in the senate gallery illegally unfurling a banner from the balcony.
The Senate didn't demand the Ambassador for Iraq or the Generals to appear before Congress and testify on progress.
This excerpt sums up the process quite well.
A three-day Senate debate on the bill featured little of the angst over the situation in Afghanistan that permeated debate in the House last week on companion legislation.
Obama is sending more than 20,000 additional troops there and, for the first time next year, the annual cost of the war in Afghanistan is projected to exceed the cost of fighting in Iraq.
With support forces, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is expected to be about 68,000 by the end of the year -- more than double the size of the U.S. force at the end of 2008.
Among the few cautionary voices was Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.
"I want to give this administration ... the resources it needs to successfully end these wars," Boxer said. "I don't support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there."
Debate pretty much fizzled after Democrats retreated and moved to delete from the bill money to close Guantanamo, where about 240 terrorism suspects still are held. The companion House bill had already taken that step.
The underlying war funding measure has gotten relatively little attention, even though it would boost total approved spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars above $900 billion.
So, what is missing from this debate? A debate. All of a sudden the Democrats aren't interested in making a fuss about bringing the troops home. They're don't appear to be interested in releasing privileged information to embarrass the President.
Something has changed since the last time they did a funding bill last summer, I just can't put my finger on it.
Maybe they don't care about the troops in harms way as much as they said?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Turns out that these statements may not have been entirely accurate.
Report Shows Air Quality Improved During Bush Administration
As the Obama administration considers further steps to fight air pollution, a recent report from a Washington think tank shows that air quality in the United States has improved significantly over the last decade.
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research analyzed data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and concluded that levels of numerous gases linked with air pollution have fallen off since 2001.
Among the findings: Carbon monoxide decreased by 39 percent, ozone by 6 percent, and sulfur dioxide by 32 percent.
"Pick any category you want and pollution levels are generally lower than they were seven years ago," said Steven Hayward, the policy analyst who authored the report, titled "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," for the conservative think tank.
"(Environmental groups) said air pollution was out of control, but this was always more about politics than it was fact," Hayward said.
Environmental groups agree that tremendous progress has been made since the 1980s, when cities like Houston and Los Angeles were thick with smog and acid rain devastated lakes and forests across the U.S.
Don't worry though, Bush will get no credit for this.
But they add that the progress reflects "strong legislation," and they say the nation needs more of it.
"The reason we've had success over the last 40 years is because strong laws like the Clean Air Act work on pollution," said John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"But we have a long way to go. We've learned more. The science is better today than it was in 1980 or 1990. We now know we need stronger definitions of clean air to truly protect Americans.
"Over 150 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air," Walke said. "If we can pass effective laws, we can reduce the problem."
Now I'm not defending Bush, he can do that himself. The point here is that the left as usual is full of, well, hot air.
Finally, a thought on this
"Over 150 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air,"
These people almost certainly live in cities. Which party do city mayors generally belong to? I'll give a hint, it's not the Republican Party.
So most of the country had an improvement in air quality during the Bush administration with the exception of areas controlled locally by Democrats. Hmm.
The good news for the libs is that a lot of the public will never know about this because as usual the far left media did not seem to think the fact that our air is improving is news. A quick scan of the sites of ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN showed not mention of this. So, the leftist message is safe, the media has shielded mtham from the truth once again.
Source or article
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I don't think most people fully understand what these men and women do for us.
They work out in the rain, snow, heat, and wind. They don't get to duck under an awning or sit in their truck, they are out in the weather until what they are doing is done.
They go to a call when someone has been shot in the street, this is not nearly as sterile as they show on TV. These scenes are dangerous. They have people from the neighborhood standing around. The people are usually angry, keyed-up, often "medicated", and armed. The areas they have to go in are usually not good areas, to say the least.
They see gore and destruction that most of us can only imagine. I see a lot of stuff in the Emergency Room, some of it I won't even talk to people outside of work about. They wouldn't understand. Most of the stuff I see has been cleaned up before the patient gets to us though. The even worse stuff doesn't make it to us but they have to deal with it.
They check up on their patients later when they come in again to see how they did. They don't just drop them off and forget them.
They get calls in which it is an elderly person that just needs someone to talk to and they do it.
I had one case in which an elderly woman had fallen in her house and laid on the floor for over 24 hours. You can only imagine what kind of a mess a person is when they cannot get to the bathroom for that long. The crew washed her up and changed her clothes before they transported her to us.
This is only a small part of what they do and doesn't fully do them justice. These are good men and women. They are also all insane which does help. They are a blast to work with and make our job easier and more enjoyable in the Emergency Room.
Join me in saluting them this week, they deserve it.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Since then though I have been thinking about it. At what point does his constant Bidenisms stop being funny?
If the VP's secure bunker is where he said it was, and it must be noted that the administration has done nothing so far to dispel the notion, is it really that funny?
This bunker is not for Joe Biden, it is there for every VP that follows him. At least it was until he disclosed it's location. If one were to take a more sobering look at the incident, it approaches the level of treasonous. Once the laughing at his idiocy is over, we are left with the unavoidable realization that he has given away a National Security secret.
As usual, there is a lack of coverage by the far left media. A quick scan of the sites for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS show no mention of this what so ever.
There is no outrage from Congress. We have a Congress seated right now that up until January had not met an issue not worth holding a hearing on. Do you think they will investigate this breach of National Security?
There is no acknowledgement or expression of remorse from the White House. They are all over releasing details on any perceived misdeed by the Bush administration but now all of a sudden they have nothing to say?
Obviously none of the above, from the lack of response by the media, Congress, or White House surprises me, it was expected.
Further, no excuse that there has not been enough time for a response. If this had been Dick Chaney the Dems in Congress and the media would have been on it within the first 24 hours.
The problem with this lack of response, and therefore lack of consequences for Biden, is that he is free to continue carrying on business as usual.
I am starting to find his business as usual to be less and less funny every day.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
“One was Miss California,”
This was Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod on what the choices were for the Obama's new dog.
Now, I realize this is a stupid comment and in the scheme of things doesn't make a big difference in our lives. In a vacuum it would be irrelevant.
We don't live in a vacuum though. This is on the heels of his boss laughing at the suggestion that Rush Limbaugh is the equivalent of a murderous terrorist and should die a slow death from a horrible disease.
Taken in aggregate, these comments of the last week show once again that this administration is petty and classless and is not equipped to hold the position they currently occupy.
Biden was filling in for Obama at the Gridiron Dinner and he gave this story:
said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment."
"The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn't be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."
These quotes are actually from Eleanor Clift of Newsweek relating Biden's discussion in which he apparently gave away the location of the VP's secret bunker that Chaney used after 9/11.
To be fair this is not a direct quote from him but Cliff is about as far left as you can get, she wouldn't be fabricating a story to embarrass biden. That and the fact that she doesn't have to, he can do it all by himself.
My only hope is that Obama didn't give this moron the nuclear launch codes too.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Police brutality is something we need to diligently guard against.
With that said, I cannot condemn the officer for this. He was in a pressure situation and the man he chased down was a dangerous person.
The attorney for the police officer's association gave a reasonable defense of what happened.
An El Monte police officer was legally justified in kicking a car chase suspect in the head as he was lying on the ground at the end of a televised high-speed pursuit because it was a "distraction blow," a police union attorney said Friday.
Dieter Dammier, attorney for the El Monte Police Officers Assn., said the officer acted within his training and department policy when he delivered the kick.
Richard Rodriguez mixed reaction to a use of force"Unfortunately these things never look good on video. Sometimes officers have to use force when dealing with bad guys," Dammier said. "The officer initially came upon the suspect alone. The suspect hadn't been searched and was a parolee and a gang member."
"The individual officer saw some movement. He feared the parolee might have a weapon or be about to get up. So the officer did what is known as a distraction blow. It wasn't designed to hurt the man, just distract him."
El Monte officers, he said, "are trained to deliver a distraction blow to stop a [suspect] doing what they are planning on doing."
We do have to realize that this is an attorney for the police association, he is going to defend the officer no matter what. Also, the high fives hurt his case a little.
This is a man who chose t0 place himself in this position by driving in a dangerous manner though, reaching speeds of 80 miles an hour endangering innocent bystanders. He is a thug and spends his life menacing society. I'm not going to lose much sleep over him being mistreated.
The incident began Wednesday afternoon when gang officers recognized a man they believed was a gang member driving a Toyota. They were trying to determine if the car was stolen when the driver committed an unspecified traffic violation.
Richard Rodriguez sped off, blowing through stop signs and running red lights at speeds reaching 80 mph, department spokesman Lt. Ken Alva said.
While part of me thinks we need to guard against police brutality by punishing officers who act this way, another part of me thinks this man needed a good ass-whipping for acting like he did. Maybe the real crime here is not making sure there are no cameras around. What are your thoughts?
Source of video
Source of article
Friday, May 15, 2009
I have wondered if people were really buying this? If using the word investing fooled people and made them feel better about the Dems spending our money?
Turns out they don't, according to a Fox poll.
The Obama administration consistently uses the word "invest" or "investment" instead of government "spending." Even so, most Americans don't make the distinction as fully 78 percent say it means spending their tax dollars, not saving them.
So, 4 out of 5 people are smarter than the Dems give them credit for. Interestingly, 1 out 5 people are not. You draw your own conclusion on how they vote.
There are other numbers in the poll that are not real good news for the Obama administration.
In addition, 54 percent of voters think the Obama administration is proposing too much of an increase in government spending, while 6 percent say not enough. About a third -- 35 percent -- says the spending is "about right."
A majority of Democrats (61 percent) think the president's proposed spending is about right, while majorities of Republicans (85 percent) and independents (61 percent) think there is too much of an increase.
The flip side of government spending is budget cuts, and the poll finds 6 in 10 think President Obama is not cutting enough waste from government, including 84 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 38 percent of Democrats.
Look closely at these numbers.
First we discard the GOP numbers. The answers are probably equal parts reflective of how they feel and partisanship.
The real story is in the numbers from the independents and Obama's fellow Dems.
On spending, 61% of Democrats think Obama's spending is about right. Not a bad number but simple math shows that 4 in 10 Dems don't share this view, not a small number either. You have almost the same number of Dems that think he is not cutting enough waste.
While you can't read too much into these numbers, they could show his support among his own party is a little soft just barely 100 days into his first term.
The reason that this could be dangerous for Obama is the one reason he has the support he has is that his voters like him. The thing to be seen is if they like him enough to override misgivings about his ability to right our economy.
Most importantly, liking Obama may not drive those Dems to the polls in 2010 Congressional elections if they think the government is wasting their money. Or, worse, some Dems on the fence may vote for the GOP.
Then there are the numbers from the independents. There are real warning signs for the Dems in 2010 in this poll.
Among independents 61% think his spending is too high and 66% think he is not cutting enough from the budget.
This is obviously dangerous because independents decide elections.
The GOP needs to waken from it's slumber and get some leadership, which they appear to be doing finally.
With the Dems averaging approximately a scandal a week and Obama's economic policy being exposed for the scam it is, a rejuvenated GOP can do some real damage in 2010.
source for poll
Thursday, May 14, 2009
This is an article worth reading. Poor Nancy is getting in deeper and deeper on the CIA interrogation issue. The part that caught my eye though was this.
On Thursday, Pelosi protested that when she moved to the top spot in the Democratic caucus, her priorities necessarily changed and a letter of complaint was not her responsibility.
"My job was to change the majority in Congress and to change --- to fight to have a new president because what was happening was not consistent with our values, certainly not true and something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture," she said.
"But no letter could change the policy," Pelosi said. "It was clear we had to change the leadership of the Congress and the White House. That was my job."
So, she didn't have time to worry about national security, what with an election to concentrate on and all.
I would like to be outraged at this but I can't even pretend anymore. I think the only thing that stuns me is that she appears to believe this is a reasonable explanation.
The only thing that keeps the whole thing reassuring is that with this controversy, Pelosi changes her excuse everyday. So tomorrow will bring a whole new explanation.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Talk about hardball politics.
Rep. John Murtha's opponent in the 2008 election claims the Pennsylvania congressman's chief of staff has threatened to have him recalled to active duty and court-martialed for campaigning while in the military, which is in violation of military code.
Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who served with the Army, told FOXNews.com that Murtha's chief of staff, John Hugya, made the threat on two occasions -- first to his former commanding officer and then to his face in March.
"It's a terrible, terrible threat to make," said Russell, a Republican who lost to the Democratic powerhouse in November but plans to challenge him again in 2010. Asked if Murtha is trying to bully him out of a rematch, Russell said: "It was a direct intent to intimidate."
Russell was on active duty for a three-month period -- from April to July -- of his campaign for Congress last year. But he said he did not campaign during that period, as Hugya was suggesting, and so did not violate military code that prohibits doing so.
"I'm very comfortable with the fact that I didn't do anything wrong and there's nothing to court martial me for if they try to do it," he said. But he said Murtha's reputation as a powerbroker on Capitol Hill puts him on edge.
"When you have a threat to be made so brazenly and openly ... you've got to take it seriously," he said.
Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey wrote in an e-mail that his boss is "absolutely not" trying to intimidate Russell to get him out of the race.
"We take every challenge seriously, even challenges from people who have already been defeated by double-digits," he said, referencing Murtha's 16-point margin of victory last year.
But Murtha's office did not deny Russell's charge. Instead, the congressman and Russell offered conflicting accounts of the most recent encounter, in which Hugya broached the topic of Russell's active-duty stint at an NRA dinner in March.
Russell, who described the encounter as hostile, said he was working the tables at the event when Hugya threatened him, saying: "What are you gonna do when we have the new secretary of the Army seated and have your ass recalled to active duty for that s--- you pulled last summer?"
One of the supposed selling points for Murtha from his supporters is his great support of the military. Let's not forget either his maligning the Marines in the incident at Haditha.
I would like someone to step forward with any indication this man even respects the troops, let alone supports them.
To make this all more fun is the fact that Obama's Secretary of the Navy gave this SOB the Distinguished Public Service Award. To be fair though, by the standards of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party, this is support.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
House Majority Leader: Congressional Hearings Should Explore Pelosi's Interrogation Briefing
The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an Al-Qaeda leader.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.
While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.
House Democrats Block Republican Effort to Force Ethics Inquiries of Several Lawmakers
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday stopped a Republican plan to force a campaign finance inquiry that likely would have investigated several influential Democrats. It was the eighth time since late February that the Republican move was halted.
One of the biggest recipients has been the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
The vote was 215-182 to stop consideration of a GOP resolution to initiate a House ethics committee inquiry. It called for an investigation into campaign contributions to House lawmakers by recipients of pet project money and their lobbyists.
Poor Nancy, every time she tries to drain the swamp, she either catches a reflection of herself or she uncovers one of her friends. Drain a little, there's Charley Rangel wallowing in the mud. A little more and Jane Harmon's helping get spies off. The water gets a little shallower and there's John Murtha and his nephew.
The people at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue better hope they don't drain the Senate swamp too much.
Monday, May 11, 2009
I think though that we are having the wrong conversation.
What we should be talking about is the fact that the President of the United States was sitting front and center laughing at her wish that Rush Limbaugh die a horrible and lingering death.
The comments Sykes made, while repulsive, are the remarks of a B-list comedian. She's an idiot, who cares what she thinks?
The President should be a different matter.
Shouldn't we at least expect our President to possess a little class? Shouldn't we expect him to take offense at such a horrendous joke? Shouldn't we expect him to show a little shock or dismay at such a crass statement? At the very least shouldn't we be able to expect him to come out later and say the comments were uncalled for and do not represent the views of his administration?
The answer to all of these questions is, of course, yes. And naturally we do expect these things of our President.
The dismaying part is that Obama showed himself wanting last night.
So, I ask the question again. Just what kind of a person do we have in the White House?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Barack Obama on his choice for a Supreme Court Justice.
How the laws effect our lives?
I'm sorry but I thought a SCOTUS justice was supposed to interpret the US Constitution based on sound legal reasoning and past case law, not if it is nice or not.
I would think empathy would be the last trait we would look for. To me it seems they really should be closer to cold and uncaring, calmly and unemotionally during their job.
What Obama is looking for is a Social Worker, not a judge. Of course, when your building a Nanny State, maybe a Social Worker on the bench is what is needed. I don't know.
What Rules The World
Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace,
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Infancy's the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mother's first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Woman, how divine your mission
Here upon our natal sod!
Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky—
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
I have an incredible mother but it was not until my wife and I had children and I watched her raising them that I fully understood the expression "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world".
I think as a child, you take your mother for granted. Sad but true. You love her but, she's mom.
As an adult, you learn to appreciate what mothers really do for us. They are our conscience. They are our humanity.
Fathers are important and our society suffers from a shortage of them. Mother's though are who we are as a person and as a people.
The hand that rocks the cradle truly does rule the world.
Happy Mother's Day to all of my friends that rule the world. The children you are nurturing now will lead us later.
Most importantly, be nice to them, they will be taking care of us when we are in the nursing home.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.
Nancy Pelosi has released yet another clarification of what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. As more and more information has come out contradicting her, she has had to release regular updates on her story. This latest statement is unlikely to be the last because it has already been shown that it is unlikely the whole truth.
If too much more information comes out, she may eventually be forced to tell the truth.
The fun part of this is that her excuse now is that that she took advice from the very legal experts she wants to prosecute. Further, she wants to prosecute Bush and his officials for taking the advice of the same people she took legal advice from.
Being a Democrat must be confusing with all of the contradictions they have to deal with on a daily basis.
What I propose is that if we are going to seek prosecutions of people involved in this, we need to start with the people in Congress that allowed it to happen without exercising their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.
Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Valif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.
Deciding to prosecute Congressional members should put a stop to this incredibly ironically named "Truth Commission".
Thursday, May 7, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama proposed on Thursday nearly doubling funds to enforce U.S. tax laws next year, with an aim of more than quadrupling funding for tax compliance to $2.1 billion within five years.
The budget plan seeks $12.1 billion for the Internal Revenue Service, responsible for collecting and enforcing individual and corporate tax laws, for fiscal 2010, which begins October 1. That amounts to a roughly 5.2 percent increase over the IRS budget for 2009, which was $11.5 billion.
The budget proposal, which must be approved by Congress, includes a $890 million request to boost tax enforcement, including in the international arena, an increase of $400 million from 2009.
This must have the entire Obama cabinet waking up at night in a cold sweat.
On a related note, check out his video at my friend Stormin's blog if you want to see something that will really piss you off. Especially watch the short video at the bottom, and catch the woman from MSNBC praising Obama for attempting to keep the GOP from protecting tax cheats. The hypocrisy is incredible.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
HONOLULU -- Hawaii's state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to celebrate "Islam Day" -- over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn't want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.
The Senate's two Republicans argued that a minority of Islamic extremists have killed many innocents in terrorist attacks.
"I recall radical Islamists around the world cheering the horrors of 9/11. That is the day all civilized people of all religions should remember," said Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings to the applause of more than 100 people gathered in the Senate to oppose a separate issue -- same-sex civil unions.
The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote. It had previously passed the House and now goes to Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.
The bill seeks to recognize "the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions" that Islam and the Islamic world have made. It does not call for any spending or organized celebration of Islam Day.
"We are a state of tolerance. We understand that people have different beliefs," said Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat. "We may not all agree on every single item and issue out there, but to say and highlight the negativity of the Islamic people is an insult to the majority" of believers "who are good law-abiding citizens of the world."
But Republican Sen. Sam Slom argued that the United States has become too sympathetic toward Islamic extremists.
"I don't think there's any country in the history of the world that has been more tolerant than the United States of America, and because of that tolerance, we've looked the other way a lot of times, and many thousands of our citizens have been killed by terrorists," said Slom, a Republican.
The lone Democrat voting against the bill opposed it on church-state separation fears.
Do you like this last line?
Everybody catch that this holiday will be in September? Why doesn't the Hawaiian Legislator take a field trip to NYC so they can just piss on the WTC site? Sorry but this makes me want to vomit.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.
"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Ms Smith told GMTV.
"Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.
"We are publishing the names of 16 of those that we have excluded since October. We are telling people who they are and why it is we don't want them in this country."
She said the number of people excluded from Britain had risen from an average of two a month to five a month since October.
The list of the 16 "least wanted" includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.
"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.
(note: for an interesting read, go to the link and check out the comments section for what the British people think about this whole policy, Chuck)
Now to be up front, I'm not a fan of Michael Savage. I don't have a good reason, I just don't like him. With this in mind, I could care less if he is welcomed in the UK or not.
Further some of these people on the list I can agree with and actually give the UK credit for keeping them out. We should be following their lead.
What is ironic about the whole episode is that this is a country that has all but given itself over to their Muslim immigrants. They have gone as far as starting to incorporate sharia law into their legal practices.
So a country that is doing this is afraid of Michael Savage and is banning him?
There are times when I really do want to get off of this planet. Beam me up Scotty.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Merriam -Webster Online dictionary
The Obama administration came into the White House promising a new policy of transparency and openness in government. They've struggled a bit with this.
The ongoing saga of the Air Force One photo op/scare over New York City is yet another example.
PHANTOM AIR FARCE PICTURES
The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.
"We have no plans to release them," an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.
The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.
"The photos . . . are classified -- that's ridiculous," Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.
The photos have not technically been "classified," a White House aide said, but they are being kept from public view.
New Yorkers said they could not understand how a president who shares intimate snapshots from the White House could justify keeping these secret.
"So we're not gonna see the fruits of this cruel joke?" said Frank Antonelli, 39, one of the Wall Street traders spooked by last week's flyover.
"I'm not surprised. Obama . . . wouldn't further all the bad publicity by putting out those pictures."
Let's bring ourselves up to date. This administration:
Released secret CIA memos that threatened our national security.
Are releasing photos of prisoner abuse to be used as a terrorist recruiting tool.
But they won't:
Release secret CIA memos that may show the interrogation techniques worked.
Release the names of which Congressional members knew about these techniques and when they knew about them.
Release photographs of an incident that everyone knows about, was paid for by tax payer money, and are not classified.
Yeah, that seems transparent.
My favorite part of the story is this:
"We have no plans to release them," an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.
Translation: go to Hell America.
Monday, May 4, 2009
I have met some great people along the way. These are all people that do an incredibly hard job in some terrible conditions and horrible weather and often get grief from the people they serve. They still go to work everyday and do things the general public does not know about. I am a pretty jaded person after doing this for as many years as I have and even I am sometimes touched with some of the acts these men and women perform with no thanks.
This brings me to the point of my story. We have National Police Week, National Nurses Week, National EMS Week, but no day or week honoring firefighters. This is a travesty. I know they do their job anyways, none of us do what we do for the recognition. This though makes it even more of a disgrace that they don't get the recognition they deserve.
Remember these images?
These men and women risk their lives for us, they deserve a little formal recognition.
Today is International Firefighters Day. We need to get our Congress and President to finally pass an act setting aside a day or week to honor these good people. Groups have been trying for years, it's past time.
Please go to this site and sign the petition. The petition is being sent to Congress to spur action.
Credits for pics
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would give Sen. Arlen Specter a run for his money if he challenges the party-switching senator in the 2010 Senate race, according to a new poll out Monday.
The Quinnipiac University poll showed Ridge with 43 percent to Specter's 46 percent in a hypothetical general election match-up. Ridge is far from a declared candidate, but speculation built over the weekend that the former homeland security secretary is considering making a bid to be the Republican nominee -- after Specter switched from Republican to Democrat last week.
The new poll also found that Ridge would lead 47-to-37 percent among independents if he enters the race. If the GOP nominee is Toomey, the poll showed independents backing Specter by 45-to-36 percent.
All of the political pundits we're saying last week that Specter's switch all but assured he would win re-election. Keep in mind these numbers are before any campaigning. There is also the very real possibility that the Dem label may not be so hot next year the way the economy is going. I also believe that in the long run, switching could hurt his credibility.
It would do my heart good to see him burned on his disloyalty.
Although we will miss these little gems from him.
Specter Claims Kemp Would Be Alive if Congress Better Funded Medical Research
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Arlen Specter suggests that one of the reasons he left the GOP was because it did not share his interest in funding medical research.
In other words, Jack Kemp died because the GOP didn't fund cancer research. This is the genius the Dems are thrilled to get.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Barack Obama on his first 100 days.
Let's look at this progress he is proud of:
Labor Department: Jobless Rates Rise in Nation's Metro Areas
Unemployment rates rose in all of the nation's largest metropolitan areas for the third straight month in March, the Labor Department announced on Wednesday.
Unemployment Up Again In Chicago In March
But Many Cities Fare Much Worse
House Passes $3.4 Trillion Budget, Boosting Obama's Agenda
With the economy in recession and the bailout of the financial sector costing hundreds of billions of dollars, deficits would rocket to $1.7 trillion for the ongoing budget year, dipping to a still-astonishing $1.2 trillion in 2010. The national debt would rise from today's $11.2 trillion level to $17 trillion at the end of 2014.
Economy Shrinks 6.1% in First Quarter
Obama Orders Review of New York Flight as Cost Put at $328,835
April 28 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama ordered a review of a publicity-photo shoot with one of the planes that serves as Air Force One that cost taxpayers $328,835 and caused a furor in New York City.
Phoenix leads nation in home price declines in February
A new report shows home prices across the country continued to drop in February, and Phoenix has the unfortunate designation of loss leader.
Phoenix home prices fell 35 percent from February 2008 to February 2009, according to the new S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index. That’s the largest decline of any of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. In addition, Phoenix home prices are down 51 percent from their peak.
Now I realize he inherited a mess from the Democratic controlled Congress but I don't think I would be talking about progress just yet.
I'll just leave you with Obama's assessment of his first 100 days.
“we’ve begun the work of remaking America.”
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Papua New Guinea man made a four-day trip to Cairns, Australia carrying a 6-year-old girl so badly injured her intestines were exposed.
Forty-year-old farmer Lambai Pisau was called to his niece's Papua New Guinea village school on the border of Indonesia last Thursday afternoon after she fell out of a classroom window and landed on a sharp hibiscus tree.
The fall pierced young Dulcie Nakai's abdomen, exposing her intestines.
Pisau took his niece to their remote Papau New Guinea village's first aid post by canoe only to find the medical officer away for the night distributing donated mosquito nets.
He treated his niece as best he could using a bandage and Tylenol before the pair endured a five-hour ambulance ride to the Papua New Guinea town of Morehead last Friday.
From Morehead, the two travelled eight hours in a motorized dinghy, which constantly broke down, before spending the night in a bush hut at the mouth of a crocodile-infested river.
On Sunday, it was another four hours in the dinghy to get to Boigu Island in the Torres Strait.
A medical team on the island had a helicopter transfer to Thursday Island where the pair was met by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and flown to Cairns, arriving early Monday morning.
Surgeons at Cairns Base Hospital successfully conducted life-saving surgery on Dulcie and she is now resting comfortably
Obviously having the bowels exposed is a very precarious position to be in medically. What this man did was incredible. Having the girl survive is not only a testament to her uncle and the medical team but is really nothing short of a miracle.
Friday, May 1, 2009
At first glance, with Democrats a hair away from a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, one would expect President Obama to have no trouble hand-picking a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
But in an ironic twist, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable.
That's because the Judiciary Committee, where Specter was the ranking minority member, requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote.
"I think, in narrow terms, it could present a procedural problem at the committee level, unless the Democrats are going to change the rules of the committee midstream," William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell University, told FOXNews.com.
"Most people presume in a controversial nomination that Arlen Specter would have been the one most likely to vote with Democrats, since he prides himself on being independent of Republicans. But now that he moves over to the Democratic side, the president and Democrats lost their most likely minority vote."
Obama is going to appoint a liberal justice and while I don't like it, it is his prerogative. Like it or not it is how our system is set up and we have to support it, good or bad. The real issue is how liberal the appointee is. If this holds, this could keep Obama honest and keep him from appointing a extreme left liberal which he would have given the chance.
On a more personal note, if it does come to pass that this disloyal scum costs his new friends their shot at remaking the court, I may never stop laughing.
This is small and petty I know. Don't worry though, I'm learning to live with it.