Some time in the newt few weeks I will be launching a new and different site. It will be concerned with the reading and discussion of the great books. There are many lists of the great books. There are links to a few of them. here, here, here and here. This link is to a site where it is easy to download ebooks of many of the greats. I mean by great books the works of such writers as Homer, Sophocles, Plato, Cicero, Cervantes, Milton, Dickens, Joyce and the like. These books are characterized by their participation in the long standing discussion of important ideas such as freedom, government, man. God, law, truth and beauty. These are the writers and books that have laid out the most influential insights about these ideas.
I encourage input on how to best go about the discussion of these books. And also in put as to which books to choose. I have a loose plan to begin with but I'm anxious to modify it in any way that will encourage more discussion and more participation.
I am just now finishing Dostoevsky's Demons and will start the whole thing off with a post about it. I then plan to reread John Milton's Areopagitica and write an analysis of that classic defense of freedom of the press. After that I'd like to do something with a couple of the stories from James Joyce's Dubliners. After that I'd like to do Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. But we'll see what happens with the initial offerings and decide how to procede.
I plan to cross post my larger posts here and see if that has any effect on insomnia in cyber-space.
Here are two relevant videos.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama Gives China Deed to America
Obama has given China the right to take over America as collateral for more loans. A couple of questions. Does this really fall within a rational legal definition of eminent domain? Shouldn't this major a step be subjected to vigorous public discussion? How very little does Obams trust or respect his fellow citizens since he makes this gigantic a decision without our advise or consent? This action makes his distain for democratic principles and for American citizens painfully obvious.
On the positive side. I'm definitely not an economist so this is just my baseless intuitive feeling. Funding that that obscenely large stimulus bill with debt rather just printing money would have to be less inflationary. But I'm pretty sure this is only relative since the unbelievable large amounts entering the economy will probably put us on the verge of hyper-inflation. But I don't know enough about the details of the bill yet (though I'm pretty sure I've read more of it than my senators). But I suspect we might be spared some damage from the bill just due to the earmark, pork barrel and out right give aways that is the nature of its poor design. I sense that large amounts of the hundreds of billions will be going to private companies and super rich individuals who might not release very much of the money into general circulation thereby blunting inflationary pressures. Bad news: little will be done by the stimulus to improve employment and economic growth; good news: inflation might not be as bad as originally feared but large groups of very wealthy companies and people will be in the debt of thee Democrat party.
Below is the story about the sale of America in toto from LiveLeak.
February 26, 2009
FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continu More..ed purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!
The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.
This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.
Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.
This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.
I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.
More details as they become available. . . . . spread the word ASAP.
On the positive side. I'm definitely not an economist so this is just my baseless intuitive feeling. Funding that that obscenely large stimulus bill with debt rather just printing money would have to be less inflationary. But I'm pretty sure this is only relative since the unbelievable large amounts entering the economy will probably put us on the verge of hyper-inflation. But I don't know enough about the details of the bill yet (though I'm pretty sure I've read more of it than my senators). But I suspect we might be spared some damage from the bill just due to the earmark, pork barrel and out right give aways that is the nature of its poor design. I sense that large amounts of the hundreds of billions will be going to private companies and super rich individuals who might not release very much of the money into general circulation thereby blunting inflationary pressures. Bad news: little will be done by the stimulus to improve employment and economic growth; good news: inflation might not be as bad as originally feared but large groups of very wealthy companies and people will be in the debt of thee Democrat party.
Below is the story about the sale of America in toto from LiveLeak.
February 26, 2009
FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continu More..ed purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!
The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.
This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.
Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.
This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.
I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.
More details as they become available. . . . . spread the word ASAP.
Bush Budget Deficit
I think I understand the Bush budget deficit better now. The main barrier to the budget being balanced was the unwillingness of fat cat Democrats to pay their fair share of taxes. And, since the federal bureaucracy is top heavy with Democrats, this whole class of social thieves felt sure they could get away with only payingf the amount of tax they felt like paying. As we clearly see from the Obama cabinet and adviser vetting and senate approval process. Most all Democrats who have any history of having had power ignore taxes for years on end. And these cheats obviously have no shame about their anti-social behavior. And when they finally get pushed into paying they inexplicably are spared the penalties and interest compounded daily that the IRS collects from the under class (that's you and me).
Their leader and example in these crimes is Charlie Rangel. Rangel is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is chairman of the committee that writes tax law but he is notorious for unreported income and underpaying taxes: something that could even end an honest person up in jail. But I don't think we have to fear much honesty from this crook. The jerk apparently has five different residences that he claims as his primary residence. This is the kind of thing that could get normal people in all kinds of trouble but it's just business as usual for Charlie and his Democrat cronies. And the House's so-called Ethics Committee has no problems with a Democrat committee chairman breaking the law.
So how many of these cheats are out there? Is the number in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? And how much have they cheated their fellow citizens out of? It becomes especially rich when next to their unending crime spree you place the vision of them giving holier than thou lectures about how law abiding citizens should live and who should pay which and how much taxes.
Basically we have the life styles of the rich criminal hypocrites brought to you at the expense of honest, hard working Americans. It's disgusting and creepy. And someday the media might report it in fitting detail and depth. Or maybe the dysfunctional media will leave it all for historians to explain.
Their leader and example in these crimes is Charlie Rangel. Rangel is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is chairman of the committee that writes tax law but he is notorious for unreported income and underpaying taxes: something that could even end an honest person up in jail. But I don't think we have to fear much honesty from this crook. The jerk apparently has five different residences that he claims as his primary residence. This is the kind of thing that could get normal people in all kinds of trouble but it's just business as usual for Charlie and his Democrat cronies. And the House's so-called Ethics Committee has no problems with a Democrat committee chairman breaking the law.
So how many of these cheats are out there? Is the number in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? And how much have they cheated their fellow citizens out of? It becomes especially rich when next to their unending crime spree you place the vision of them giving holier than thou lectures about how law abiding citizens should live and who should pay which and how much taxes.
Basically we have the life styles of the rich criminal hypocrites brought to you at the expense of honest, hard working Americans. It's disgusting and creepy. And someday the media might report it in fitting detail and depth. Or maybe the dysfunctional media will leave it all for historians to explain.
Friday, February 27, 2009
'Fairness' Gives Way To Censorship
Ever notice how very few lefties are interested in rational discussion of issues? Ever notice how few liberals are even capable of rational discussion of issues? Ever notice that they will make fun of their opponents or endlessly repeat the same lies? Their response to Palin was to make endless jokes hunting and Eskimos, repeat the lie that she had banned books or that she had said that she could see Russia from her house. The same lies and jeers over and over again with nary a one of them having an original thought to contribute: like they all read the same newsletter in place of reason or originality. They shun reasoned discourse and just want an endless repetition of the same silly jokes and the same silly lies. The article I've quoted from below describes the latest assault on the possibility of them ever having to listen to anything from outside their echo chamber. Ever notice how angry and more irrational they become when hearing anything that doesn't fit their shallowand twisted world view?
And they have attached a pretty word to this travesty: 'diversity,' A pretty word and something that has its place. But I like 'democracy.' They are trotting out diversity to stifle the free speech and openness of democratic sunlight. The more government control of speech there is the less sunlight there can be. And democracy dies without sunlight as surely as humans will die without air.
The reminder is a couple of excerpts from a post by Seton Motley on NewsBusters.
the Left means to destroy Conservative and Christian talk radio by other means.
Because another rider was added via a party-line 57-41 vote. Written by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, S.160's Purpose is "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."
the Left means to destroy Conservative and Christian talk radio by other means.
Because another rider was added via a party-line 57-41 vote. Written by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, S.160's Purpose is "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."
One tremendous problem with this amendment, with the Censorship Doctrine itself and in fact with virtually every aspect of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s broadcast licensing requirements is that they are all completely nebulous. President Barack Obama's FCC can interpret these regulations in any direction it wishes, which more than likely bodes poorly for free speech on the radio.
And the worst part of the Durbin Amendment is the possibility that Obama's FCC may now be empowered to prematurely pull the broadcast licenses of radio stations they deem as failing to meet these new "Fairness" Doctrine-esque guidelines. Several lawyers who do this for a living see this rider's wording as amorphous enough to allow for this interpretation.
This would be absolutely devastating to talk radio. Stations currently carrying Conservative and Christian talk would be perpetually under the FCC gun - never knowing when the regulatory hammer would fall and crush their businesses. They would feel tremendous pressure to change formats so as to be able to stay on the air.
And no one would be able to justify the tremendous expense of getting into talk radio if their lifeline - their broadcast license - could be pulled capriciously at any time.
These licenses would then be awarded to more "diverse" owners who show a greater desire in meeting the Obama FCC's definition of the "local" and "public interest." You know, ACORN activists and MoveOn.org hosts who couldn't cut the mustard on National Public or Pacifica Radio.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Durbin Amendment solves the Left's "Fairness" Doctrine dilemma. It gets them what they want - radio free of Conservative and Christian talk - without the political baggage of carrying the "Fairness" Doctrine name.
For them, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet if it serves to silence the opposition.
And they have attached a pretty word to this travesty: 'diversity,' A pretty word and something that has its place. But I like 'democracy.' They are trotting out diversity to stifle the free speech and openness of democratic sunlight. The more government control of speech there is the less sunlight there can be. And democracy dies without sunlight as surely as humans will die without air.
The reminder is a couple of excerpts from a post by Seton Motley on NewsBusters.
the Left means to destroy Conservative and Christian talk radio by other means.
Because another rider was added via a party-line 57-41 vote. Written by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, S.160's Purpose is "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."
the Left means to destroy Conservative and Christian talk radio by other means.
Because another rider was added via a party-line 57-41 vote. Written by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, S.160's Purpose is "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."
One tremendous problem with this amendment, with the Censorship Doctrine itself and in fact with virtually every aspect of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s broadcast licensing requirements is that they are all completely nebulous. President Barack Obama's FCC can interpret these regulations in any direction it wishes, which more than likely bodes poorly for free speech on the radio.
And the worst part of the Durbin Amendment is the possibility that Obama's FCC may now be empowered to prematurely pull the broadcast licenses of radio stations they deem as failing to meet these new "Fairness" Doctrine-esque guidelines. Several lawyers who do this for a living see this rider's wording as amorphous enough to allow for this interpretation.
This would be absolutely devastating to talk radio. Stations currently carrying Conservative and Christian talk would be perpetually under the FCC gun - never knowing when the regulatory hammer would fall and crush their businesses. They would feel tremendous pressure to change formats so as to be able to stay on the air.
And no one would be able to justify the tremendous expense of getting into talk radio if their lifeline - their broadcast license - could be pulled capriciously at any time.
These licenses would then be awarded to more "diverse" owners who show a greater desire in meeting the Obama FCC's definition of the "local" and "public interest." You know, ACORN activists and MoveOn.org hosts who couldn't cut the mustard on National Public or Pacifica Radio.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Durbin Amendment solves the Left's "Fairness" Doctrine dilemma. It gets them what they want - radio free of Conservative and Christian talk - without the political baggage of carrying the "Fairness" Doctrine name.
For them, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet if it serves to silence the opposition.
Obama, The Paul Revere of Panic and Pessimism
This is much of an article written by Dick Morris at The Hill:
President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.
Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.
There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth. It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world — showing the way back to confidence.
Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.
Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.
And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.
So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.
But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.
.
President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.
Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.
There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth. It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world — showing the way back to confidence.
Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.
Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.
And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.
So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.
But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.
.
Obama Sends A Parade of Cheats and Liars Before Congress and MSM Increases Praise and Worship
Working Subtitle: The buck no longer stops with the president or maybe journalists and reporters, with heads bowed in worship, just can't see the big fat tax dodging, ethics ignoring buck
This little quote is from Stop the ACLU, "In the filed(sic) of labor, Obama has sought out as his new chief of labor, one Hilda Solis. Solis has been found to have violated ethics rules by lobbying for a union friendly labor bill while she was both a member of Congress AND a member of the very unions that would benefit from the legislation." I vaguely remember reading about Solis' nomination going down in flames. But there were so many Obama nominees that were so ethically sub parr all at once that it became a blur.
I bring up the incident at this late date to talk about a couple of related issues.
While in Congress this woman was speaking and voting on questions that she should have recused herself from since it was legislation that would be to her personal benefit. The important point is that congress has lost the will to enforce any ethical standards on itself. And the only reasonable way of dealing with this breach of trust is to vote them all out. I'd prefer it if we voted the Democrats out first but I'm really comfortable with any approach that gets rid of lots and lots of them and puts some fear into the rest of them. They just need to be frightened enough to behave ethically and responsibility (which might never happen with the incumbents).
Also of note is that there was such a parade of the ethically incompetent as Obama made his many nominations that any other president who generated such a record would have quickly become a laughing stock and a bit of a pariah. But Obama has continued to be treated as if his decisions are of value and maybe it all just kind of happened to him. The dinosaur media's memory has become super selective. Rather than picking up on an obvious pattern they remain in a perpetual state of adulation and worship. They daily prove that they are as incompetent, rotten and useless as congress. Serious conservatives must stop answering biased questions from the likes of Blitzer and Lauer and relentlessly demand that they explain why they have forsaken their responsibilities as journalists. They should be endlessly asked, "Why did you totally miss the parade of tax and other cheats that Obama could not get past congress? Why are you only capable of harsh judgment against Republicans? Do you hate America? Why this pattern of ignoring assaults on ethical behavior in public offials while mindlessly praising them for meaningless, ethereal and nonexistent virtue like 'bringing hope'?"
A useful rule of thumb: if they are in Washington and are talking, they are lying.
If they are on network news and their mouths are moving, they're lying.
This was not seen as newsworthy by the dinosaur media. This is stuff that was barely noted in passing and then ignored by the many mouthy commentators that the dinosaur media use, not so much for commentary, but because they're more cost effective than actual news gathering.
This little quote is from Stop the ACLU, "In the filed(sic) of labor, Obama has sought out as his new chief of labor, one Hilda Solis. Solis has been found to have violated ethics rules by lobbying for a union friendly labor bill while she was both a member of Congress AND a member of the very unions that would benefit from the legislation." I vaguely remember reading about Solis' nomination going down in flames. But there were so many Obama nominees that were so ethically sub parr all at once that it became a blur.
I bring up the incident at this late date to talk about a couple of related issues.
While in Congress this woman was speaking and voting on questions that she should have recused herself from since it was legislation that would be to her personal benefit. The important point is that congress has lost the will to enforce any ethical standards on itself. And the only reasonable way of dealing with this breach of trust is to vote them all out. I'd prefer it if we voted the Democrats out first but I'm really comfortable with any approach that gets rid of lots and lots of them and puts some fear into the rest of them. They just need to be frightened enough to behave ethically and responsibility (which might never happen with the incumbents).
Also of note is that there was such a parade of the ethically incompetent as Obama made his many nominations that any other president who generated such a record would have quickly become a laughing stock and a bit of a pariah. But Obama has continued to be treated as if his decisions are of value and maybe it all just kind of happened to him. The dinosaur media's memory has become super selective. Rather than picking up on an obvious pattern they remain in a perpetual state of adulation and worship. They daily prove that they are as incompetent, rotten and useless as congress. Serious conservatives must stop answering biased questions from the likes of Blitzer and Lauer and relentlessly demand that they explain why they have forsaken their responsibilities as journalists. They should be endlessly asked, "Why did you totally miss the parade of tax and other cheats that Obama could not get past congress? Why are you only capable of harsh judgment against Republicans? Do you hate America? Why this pattern of ignoring assaults on ethical behavior in public offials while mindlessly praising them for meaningless, ethereal and nonexistent virtue like 'bringing hope'?"
A useful rule of thumb: if they are in Washington and are talking, they are lying.
If they are on network news and their mouths are moving, they're lying.
This was not seen as newsworthy by the dinosaur media. This is stuff that was barely noted in passing and then ignored by the many mouthy commentators that the dinosaur media use, not so much for commentary, but because they're more cost effective than actual news gathering.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Angry That Agents Obey The Law
The post below is from Reflections From A Murky Pond. It is copied and pasted complete.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was angered by the fact that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents this week conducted their first work-site raid since President Barack Obama took office.
She angry because arresting illegal immigrants violated her and President Obama’s policies regarding immigration.
Sean Smith, a spokesman at Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., said that Napolitano is demanding answers. Napolitano herself said, “I want to get to the bottom of this” and is planning on conducting an investigation of the February 24th raid.
Strange, the last time I looked into it enforcing US immigration policies and arresting and deporting illegal immigrants was the sworn duty of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Of course I erroneously believed that it was the sworn duty of the Homeland Security Secretary to support them in those efforts.
So… the person in charge of US Homeland Security and therefor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regards arresting 28 illegal immigrants at Yamato Engine Specialists factory in Bellingham, Wa. as a violation of the policies of the new federal government? This is not something that any American should feel the least bit comfortable about.
Sadly it seems that National Council of La Raza - the political arm of MEChA - has more to be happy about than just their recent $473,000 “not-an-earmark” in the Stimulus Act. They’ve apparently got the sympathy of the Homeland Security Secretary as well.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was angered by the fact that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents this week conducted their first work-site raid since President Barack Obama took office.
She angry because arresting illegal immigrants violated her and President Obama’s policies regarding immigration.
Sean Smith, a spokesman at Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., said that Napolitano is demanding answers. Napolitano herself said, “I want to get to the bottom of this” and is planning on conducting an investigation of the February 24th raid.
Strange, the last time I looked into it enforcing US immigration policies and arresting and deporting illegal immigrants was the sworn duty of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Of course I erroneously believed that it was the sworn duty of the Homeland Security Secretary to support them in those efforts.
So… the person in charge of US Homeland Security and therefor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regards arresting 28 illegal immigrants at Yamato Engine Specialists factory in Bellingham, Wa. as a violation of the policies of the new federal government? This is not something that any American should feel the least bit comfortable about.
Sadly it seems that National Council of La Raza - the political arm of MEChA - has more to be happy about than just their recent $473,000 “not-an-earmark” in the Stimulus Act. They’ve apparently got the sympathy of the Homeland Security Secretary as well.
Jussi Bjorling: Nessum Dorma
You can have Pavorotti and Placido Domingo. Give me the melancholy Dane every time.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
International poll: Muslims support strict Sharia, Islamic supremacism
This is post from Jihad Watch that I have copied and pasted complete.
They differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the goals.
Here is a pdf of the full report. See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."
And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."
"Muslim Publics Oppose Al Qaeda's Terrorism, But Agree With Its Goal of Driving U.S. Forces Out" a press release (thanks to Jeffrey Imm for all links and info):
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. People in majority-Muslim countries express mixed feelings about al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that use violence, however, perhaps due to a combination of support for al Qaeda's goals and disapproval of its terrorist methods.
Large majorities support allowing Islamist groups to organize parties and participate in democratic elections. In some majority-Muslim countries, Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are forbidden from participating in elections....
The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. It was conducted July through September, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/- 3 to 4 percent.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective....
Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda's attacks on Americans....
They differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the goals.
Here is a pdf of the full report. See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."
And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."
"Muslim Publics Oppose Al Qaeda's Terrorism, But Agree With Its Goal of Driving U.S. Forces Out" a press release (thanks to Jeffrey Imm for all links and info):
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. People in majority-Muslim countries express mixed feelings about al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that use violence, however, perhaps due to a combination of support for al Qaeda's goals and disapproval of its terrorist methods.
Large majorities support allowing Islamist groups to organize parties and participate in democratic elections. In some majority-Muslim countries, Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are forbidden from participating in elections....
The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. It was conducted July through September, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/- 3 to 4 percent.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective....
Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda's attacks on Americans....
Bobbie J. on Today This AM
Republicans get argumentation and criticism. A Democrat would a tongue bath from Meredith.
Muslim Autonomous Zones
This is pasted ansd copied complete from Knucklehead Idjit Galoot.
From Daniel Pipes, an interesting speculation on the future of Western Civilization and Islam’s anti-civilization.
In “Europe’s Stark Options,” I considered the future of the Muslim-European encounter and conclude there are three possible futures, “harmonious integration, the expulsion of Muslims, or an Islamic takeover.” I then dismissed the first as unrealistic and stated that it is too early to predict which of the latter two unattractive possibilities will come to pass.
A reader, Chris Slater of Upper Hutt, New Zealand, writes me to predict a fourth outcome as most likely: “larger existing Muslim areas will re-create themselves into independent national entities” and “by the middle of the twenty-first century nearly all western European countries will be riven by the creation of Islamic city states within their borders. For the sake of brevity they will be referred to as ‘microstates,’ that is, autonomous conurbations defined by the Islamic beliefs of their citizens.”
Read the whole piece here.
I prefer the expulsion option, as there is no peaceful coexistence with an Islamic state, whether micro or macro. It’s sort of like tolerating a little bit of cancer.
These microstates will enjoy a “monopoly on legitimate violence,” impose their own autonomous legal order, and form alliances among themselves. They will feature such Shar‘i customs as polygyny, no-interest finance, huddud punishments, Islamic ways of dress, family “honor” codes, bans on criticism of Islam, and so on. Arabic and the dominant immigrant vernacular will enjoy more currency than the host country’s language. Street names will be changed, statues removed, churches and synagogues converted to mosques.
Imagine such a thing happening in the U.S., say in Dearbornistan.
Snaggletoothie back. --- I think the minimum standard for the toleration of these zones must be the creation of comparable Christian, Jewish and secular autonomous zones in Muslim countries.
From Daniel Pipes, an interesting speculation on the future of Western Civilization and Islam’s anti-civilization.
In “Europe’s Stark Options,” I considered the future of the Muslim-European encounter and conclude there are three possible futures, “harmonious integration, the expulsion of Muslims, or an Islamic takeover.” I then dismissed the first as unrealistic and stated that it is too early to predict which of the latter two unattractive possibilities will come to pass.
A reader, Chris Slater of Upper Hutt, New Zealand, writes me to predict a fourth outcome as most likely: “larger existing Muslim areas will re-create themselves into independent national entities” and “by the middle of the twenty-first century nearly all western European countries will be riven by the creation of Islamic city states within their borders. For the sake of brevity they will be referred to as ‘microstates,’ that is, autonomous conurbations defined by the Islamic beliefs of their citizens.”
Read the whole piece here.
I prefer the expulsion option, as there is no peaceful coexistence with an Islamic state, whether micro or macro. It’s sort of like tolerating a little bit of cancer.
These microstates will enjoy a “monopoly on legitimate violence,” impose their own autonomous legal order, and form alliances among themselves. They will feature such Shar‘i customs as polygyny, no-interest finance, huddud punishments, Islamic ways of dress, family “honor” codes, bans on criticism of Islam, and so on. Arabic and the dominant immigrant vernacular will enjoy more currency than the host country’s language. Street names will be changed, statues removed, churches and synagogues converted to mosques.
Imagine such a thing happening in the U.S., say in Dearbornistan.
Snaggletoothie back. --- I think the minimum standard for the toleration of these zones must be the creation of comparable Christian, Jewish and secular autonomous zones in Muslim countries.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Union Thugs Agree Their Violent Threats Only Gain Real Power With EFCA
Joe da goon says, "Only a Democrat congress can totally validate me carrying a lead pipe."
ht/Stop the ACLU
ht/Stop the ACLU
Jindal
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I like this guy. The speech could have been better but it'll do. He covered most of the important points. I liked the little story about Sheriff Lee and Katrina rescue. If Obama had a story like that it would get front page coverage for a week. (I suspect Obama has spent much, much more time and energy covering up his past than on opening up.)
"Republicans have lost your trust and rightly so." You guys do have a lot of work to do. And, unfortunately, Obama could drasticly lower expectations.
These people in the government are so smart competent…
Pasted and copied complete from Boudica BPI Weblog
"… then why are they willing to give Citibank $40 billion for up to 40% of the company when it is only worth $13-14 billion and assume $40 billion in “toxic” loans? Those running Citibank are no better. We must wake up and see that the “smartest” may be the “dumbest” both in government and private industry. Or perhaps just the greediest in both as long as it isn’t their money but someone elses. This administration in a few weeks has made Bush look like a piker. Wake up people. Education does not common sense make."
"… then why are they willing to give Citibank $40 billion for up to 40% of the company when it is only worth $13-14 billion and assume $40 billion in “toxic” loans? Those running Citibank are no better. We must wake up and see that the “smartest” may be the “dumbest” both in government and private industry. Or perhaps just the greediest in both as long as it isn’t their money but someone elses. This administration in a few weeks has made Bush look like a piker. Wake up people. Education does not common sense make."
Politics Over Stimulus Bill
This an excellent and concise post I've copied and pasted complete from Betsy's Place.
Robert Samuelson argues that politics and the desire of Democrats to spend money on their policy choices overruled the need to craft a stimulus package that would get the money into the system now and not some time in the future.
Yet, the stimulus package offers only modest relief. Using funds from the stimulus, states might offset 40 percent of their looming deficits, says the CBPP's Nicholas Johnson. The effect on localities would probably be less. Congress might have done more by providing large, temporary block grants to states and localities and letting them decide how to spend the money. Instead, the stimulus provides most funds through specific programs. There's $90 billion more for Medicaid, $12 billion for special education, $2.8 billion for various policing programs. More power is being centralized in Washington.
No one knows the economic effects of all this; estimates vary. But Obama's political strategy stunts the impact from what it might have been. By using the stimulus for unrelated policy goals, spending will be delayed and diluted. There's another downside: "Temporary" spending increases for specific programs, as opposed to block grants, will be harder to undo, worsening the long-term budget outlook.
Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not blamed for engineering a colossal waste.
Whatever state the economy is in come the next election, the Democrats will argue that it would have been much worse if their plan hadn't been passed. The real questions is how it would have been if a better plan had been passed instead. We'll never know, but the comparison isn't this plan versus nothing, but this plan versus a more tightly targeted stimulus package, but the Democrats will pretend that the only other option was doing nothing.
Robert Samuelson argues that politics and the desire of Democrats to spend money on their policy choices overruled the need to craft a stimulus package that would get the money into the system now and not some time in the future.
Yet, the stimulus package offers only modest relief. Using funds from the stimulus, states might offset 40 percent of their looming deficits, says the CBPP's Nicholas Johnson. The effect on localities would probably be less. Congress might have done more by providing large, temporary block grants to states and localities and letting them decide how to spend the money. Instead, the stimulus provides most funds through specific programs. There's $90 billion more for Medicaid, $12 billion for special education, $2.8 billion for various policing programs. More power is being centralized in Washington.
No one knows the economic effects of all this; estimates vary. But Obama's political strategy stunts the impact from what it might have been. By using the stimulus for unrelated policy goals, spending will be delayed and diluted. There's another downside: "Temporary" spending increases for specific programs, as opposed to block grants, will be harder to undo, worsening the long-term budget outlook.
Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not blamed for engineering a colossal waste.
Whatever state the economy is in come the next election, the Democrats will argue that it would have been much worse if their plan hadn't been passed. The real questions is how it would have been if a better plan had been passed instead. We'll never know, but the comparison isn't this plan versus nothing, but this plan versus a more tightly targeted stimulus package, but the Democrats will pretend that the only other option was doing nothing.
NYC Fools Like To Talk Consensus But Hate Input
"I'M TAKING CONTROL OF THE ROOM."===========================
That silly video from the NYU cafeteria sit-in reminded of this of this clip from last year. Another bunch of NYC political types spouting PC blather and looking dumber the longer they talk.
"What's generally very difficult is actually communicating to MoveOn."
Maybe MoveOn needs a consensus boy.
If the skinny blonde chick isn't on coke, she needs a neuro consult before she seizes.
That silly video from the NYU cafeteria sit-in reminded of this of this clip from last year. Another bunch of NYC political types spouting PC blather and looking dumber the longer they talk.
"What's generally very difficult is actually communicating to MoveOn."
Maybe MoveOn needs a consensus boy.
If the skinny blonde chick isn't on coke, she needs a neuro consult before she seizes.
Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed!
Showing the direct relationship between the repressive, corporate water drinking security guards and the Lady of the Lake.
NYU Strikers Speak Feel Good Slogans to Power
Warning: don't watch this clip if you don't like to see new age twits making fools of themselves.
Consensus boy never even asked anyone else's opinion.
ht/Ace of Spades HQ
Consensus boy never even asked anyone else's opinion.
ht/Ace of Spades HQ
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Second Amendment
I'm surprised that this collection of thieves with the soulless stares even let her testify.
Hat Tip/Jane Q. Republican
Who's Your Daddy?
This comes from the site mean ‘ol meanie. The graphic on the right shows that since the election of Barack Obama the Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost 43% of its value. Something about businessmen not trusting Obama to have power over the economy (or, as someone said, the unicorns ate the Dow).
The graphic on the left shows that the DJIA increased 340% in value during the time the Republicans controlled congress .
ht/doubleplusundead
Matt Lauer Dragged Kicking and Screaming to Admission about Gov. Palin
This clip is from NewsBusters. In the transcript of an interview with John Zeigler in the article Matt Lauer grudgingly admits that Sarah Palin is not an idiot. They also have an interview Nora O'Donnell did with Zeigler. A true Obamist, O'Donnell thinks that if she tells us she's fair that we'll take her word for it.
John Zeigler has made a documentary about the unbelievably unfair treatment of Gov. Palin by the dinosaur media. Here's a link to his site.
John Zeigler has made a documentary about the unbelievably unfair treatment of Gov. Palin by the dinosaur media. Here's a link to his site.
Slight Correction in Global Warming Data
Alex Morales at Bloomberg says, "A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
"The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
"“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’"
A 'glitch' the size of California is a pretty healthy glitch. That might even threaten the validity of your conclusions. Of course. if you had locked in your conclusions before collecting data, you might be impervious to the data.
Hat Tip/Stop the ACLU
"The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
"“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’"
A 'glitch' the size of California is a pretty healthy glitch. That might even threaten the validity of your conclusions. Of course. if you had locked in your conclusions before collecting data, you might be impervious to the data.
Hat Tip/Stop the ACLU
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Are Evangelical Atheists the Most Obnoxious of Believers?
I got this great quote at Ace of Spades HQ and am going to share it. Ace finds evangelical atheists obnoxious. And he offered this quote from Dinesh D'Souza to help define what a bizarre bunch they are.
"Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.
"I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.
"If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.""
"Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.
"I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.
"If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.""
The Donkey Follies
NewsBusters has a story about some of Bill Moyer's nefarious activities while an aide to LBJ. Seems there are accusations that he misused the FBI to seek out evidence of homosexuality in political opponents. And such charges have been made about him before. The fact that the dinosaur media are a part of the Democrat party has thus far saved him from any disgrace. (But, who knows, maybe he has FBI files on some members of the media?).
Which gives rise to the observation that it is strange what has been going on the past few months. We elect a Democrat president and then this endless parade of disgraced Democrats begins filing past. Rangel's four rent control apartments (each a primary residence); and him paying whichever taxes he feels like whenever he happens to be in the mood. Waters, Frank, Dodd and others destroying the banking system, Rahm Emanuel too afraid to speak on the record, Patterson's many stumbles, a Blagopalooza that remains unexamined by the press. I've long since quit trying to remember all the mayors, city councilmen and state legislators that the Name That Party headline has endlessly been pulled out for. Then you've got Richardson, Dashle, Geithner and now Moyers. And I probably left out a bunch.
Makes me wonder if taking it easy on them in '10 wouldn't give them enough rope to really, really hang themselves. There might not be a significant number of them out of jail after two more years in power And the Republicans could then settle down to the business of cleaning up their mess.
Ode
THE spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav'ns, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
Th'unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's pow'r display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the ev'ning shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the list'ning earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence, all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball?
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amidst their radiant orbs be found?
In Reason's ear, they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
Forever singing as they shine:
"The hand that made us is divine!"
Joseph Addison
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav'ns, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
Th'unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's pow'r display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the ev'ning shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the list'ning earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence, all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball?
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amidst their radiant orbs be found?
In Reason's ear, they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
Forever singing as they shine:
"The hand that made us is divine!"
Joseph Addison
More 'Religion of Peace' Irony
Is the dinosaur media waiting for the proclamation of the Swedish Caliphate before they report any of this?
ht/Boudica BPI Weblog
Obama Did Not Inherit the Bad economy
This is a post from Flopping Aces:
"'Now, my administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.'
"It might be technically true that his Presidential Administration inherited it, but he himself did not. No, he created it. Before being elected President Barack Obama was a Senator in a party that controlled both houses of Congress with a lame duck President. From 2006-present, the economy has faltered increasingly. However, the big crash happened while he was a senator at a time when Congress ruled the land (ie a lame duck Presidency). Yes, President Bush still had some power, but the majority of power was with the Democratic Party-controlled Congress; with Senator Obama’s Congress. Add to that the fact that President Bush was unusually catering to Pres-elect Obama after the November election, and not only did Bush consult with Obama, but at Obama’s urging he authorized the bailouts for insurance company AIG, for car corporations, and for the $700billion TARP fiasco. Obama himself URGED the first $700billion, the deficit “his administration” inherited was created by a budget that he and his party created in Congress just prior to his election as President.
"No, Obama did not inherit the bad economy. He created it, and shame on him for misrepresenting its origin by sly wording rather than honest and genuine admission of mistakes. Bush had enough mistakes to take responsibility for, and the time for scapegoating passed when millions of Democrats (filled with the spirit of hope, change, and bi-partisan unity) booed the figurehead of 46% of the nation as his helicopter left the Inauguration.
"Obama and the Democrats created the bad economy, it happened on their watch-because of their budgeting, their bailout demands, and their poor choices. Time to man up Mr President."
Much of the present bearishness of the markets is the result of businesses' uncertainty about just what in the Hell Obama is going to do and anxiety about Obama's fitness for the job. Obama's endless talk about the dire nature of the situation has not helped stock prices. His endless Cassandra-like talk and the near certainty that the federal government will impose expensive mandates on employers has pretty much killed the job market.
One has to wonder if Obama does not want to destroy the economy since he has yet to do anything that would help it and he has done plenty to cause harm.
"'Now, my administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.'
"It might be technically true that his Presidential Administration inherited it, but he himself did not. No, he created it. Before being elected President Barack Obama was a Senator in a party that controlled both houses of Congress with a lame duck President. From 2006-present, the economy has faltered increasingly. However, the big crash happened while he was a senator at a time when Congress ruled the land (ie a lame duck Presidency). Yes, President Bush still had some power, but the majority of power was with the Democratic Party-controlled Congress; with Senator Obama’s Congress. Add to that the fact that President Bush was unusually catering to Pres-elect Obama after the November election, and not only did Bush consult with Obama, but at Obama’s urging he authorized the bailouts for insurance company AIG, for car corporations, and for the $700billion TARP fiasco. Obama himself URGED the first $700billion, the deficit “his administration” inherited was created by a budget that he and his party created in Congress just prior to his election as President.
"No, Obama did not inherit the bad economy. He created it, and shame on him for misrepresenting its origin by sly wording rather than honest and genuine admission of mistakes. Bush had enough mistakes to take responsibility for, and the time for scapegoating passed when millions of Democrats (filled with the spirit of hope, change, and bi-partisan unity) booed the figurehead of 46% of the nation as his helicopter left the Inauguration.
"Obama and the Democrats created the bad economy, it happened on their watch-because of their budgeting, their bailout demands, and their poor choices. Time to man up Mr President."
Much of the present bearishness of the markets is the result of businesses' uncertainty about just what in the Hell Obama is going to do and anxiety about Obama's fitness for the job. Obama's endless talk about the dire nature of the situation has not helped stock prices. His endless Cassandra-like talk and the near certainty that the federal government will impose expensive mandates on employers has pretty much killed the job market.
One has to wonder if Obama does not want to destroy the economy since he has yet to do anything that would help it and he has done plenty to cause harm.
A Dream Fulfilled
I have always hoped for and dreamed of a greater, stronger America in which political cartoonists can only use the word 'chimp' if there is a Republican president.
Republican Govenors Wrong No Matter What
In this showpiece of illogic Maddow seems to find all Republican governors always wrong. Could it just be because they're Republicans? She sneers and looks down her nose at Pawlenty because he had disagreements with the stimulus bill and yet will probably take the money. He points out that he is in favor of a stimulus bill but does not agree with everything in this bill. That causes more derision from Maddow. This leads to the conclusion that her position is that anyone touching any of that money must agree with every word, jot and tittle of the bill to not be judged a hypocritical clown by Maddow. Now that is the real absurdity to be found in this video. She expresses disdain for those who take the money followed by she and Frank Rich attacking the slimeballs who will not take the money. Her damned if you do and damned if you don't position shows she has no interest in anything constructive: she just wants a partisan knife fight. And she does most of the knifing while the victim is off camera and yet seems surprised that not many Republicans will come on her show. How many offers to be knifed in the back get a warm reception?
And how does one judge Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer who voted for the bill without even knowing what is in it? How could one even say Di and Babs agreed with it since they were (and probably still are) ignorant of what it is? Maybe Maddow will make fun of them on an upcoming show?
ht/NewsBusters
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Annie Fischer: Beethoven Piano Sonata #32 in C minor, op. 111
First movement
Second and final movement
Second and final movement
Jussi Bjorling: Song of India
Here's the great Danish tenor before he drank himself to death. Thankfully he's been immortalized on recordings.
Under My Bus: Amnesty International 'Shocked' By Hillary
I've copied and pasted this story complete except for the pictures from Jammie Wearing Fool.
You believed us, suckers
The latest to be served up on the platter are the useful idiots from Amnesty International, who never utter a peep while there's a Democrat in the White House. Bought, paid for and heck, they'll park cars if you ask.
Or so we thought. Now here they are, a month to the day of the Dawning of the Age of Obama, and thump, thump, is that the bus running over them already?
Suckers!
Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China.
Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet.
"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing.
Everything's a crisis, apparently.
T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks.
How naive are these people? They're disappointed?
What exactly did they expect? Don't they realize mythical climate change is much more important than human rights?
"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," he said.
"But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China," he said.
I hope he realizes he's on his own. Expect little help from this administration.
You believed us, suckers
The latest to be served up on the platter are the useful idiots from Amnesty International, who never utter a peep while there's a Democrat in the White House. Bought, paid for and heck, they'll park cars if you ask.
Or so we thought. Now here they are, a month to the day of the Dawning of the Age of Obama, and thump, thump, is that the bus running over them already?
Suckers!
Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China.
Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet.
"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing.
Everything's a crisis, apparently.
T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks.
How naive are these people? They're disappointed?
What exactly did they expect? Don't they realize mythical climate change is much more important than human rights?
"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," he said.
"But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China," he said.
I hope he realizes he's on his own. Expect little help from this administration.
The Dying Christian to His Soul
Vital spark of heav'nly flame!
Quit, O quit this mortal frame:
Trembling, hoping, ling'ring, flying,
O the pain, the bliss of dying!
Cease, fond Nature, cease thy strife,
And let me languish into life.
Hark! they whisper; angels say,
Sister Spirit, come away!
What is this absorbs me quite?
Steals my senses, shuts my sight,
Drowns my spirit, draws my breath?
Tell me, my soul, can this be death?
The world recedes; it disappears!
Heav'n opens my eyes! my ears
With sounds seraphic ring!
Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly!
O Grave! where is thy victory?
O Death! where is thy sting?
by Alexander Pope
Quit, O quit this mortal frame:
Trembling, hoping, ling'ring, flying,
O the pain, the bliss of dying!
Cease, fond Nature, cease thy strife,
And let me languish into life.
Hark! they whisper; angels say,
Sister Spirit, come away!
What is this absorbs me quite?
Steals my senses, shuts my sight,
Drowns my spirit, draws my breath?
Tell me, my soul, can this be death?
The world recedes; it disappears!
Heav'n opens my eyes! my ears
With sounds seraphic ring!
Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly!
O Grave! where is thy victory?
O Death! where is thy sting?
by Alexander Pope
Holocaust Being Removed From British Education
Note especially Gabriel's short description of how Lebanon was once a majority Christian country. Her book gives a sad account of how a violent (and genocidal) onslaught from Muslims changed that. America must keep an eye on Michigan, CAIR and every madrasa and mosque. Treating Islam in the courts as just another religion in the marketplace of ideas is dangerous and possibly fatal. Much more than a religion, Islam is a political ideology determined to conquer by stealth and violence. Many will say mechanically, "The violent Muslims are a small minority and most just want to get along and are for peace." That would be meaningful only if at least a noticeable minority of Muslims spoke up against the violence. Where is there proof of this desire for peace when their silence makes them complicit in the violence?
ht/Boudica BPI Weblog
Comforting News From The White House
The dailymash sets minds and hearts at rest with this news:
"AMERICA breathed a sigh of relief last night after the White House confirmed that President Obama is not a chimpanzee.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"The spokesman added: "I've discussed this issue with the president and he stressed that the cartoon animal looked nothing like him and was clearly a reference to the now deceased New England chimp.
""He also stressed that as he is president people really don't need to be quite so mental about this sort of thing any more.""
"AMERICA breathed a sigh of relief last night after the White House confirmed that President Obama is not a chimpanzee.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"The spokesman added: "I've discussed this issue with the president and he stressed that the cartoon animal looked nothing like him and was clearly a reference to the now deceased New England chimp.
""He also stressed that as he is president people really don't need to be quite so mental about this sort of thing any more.""
Mark Steyn
Atlas Shrugs today quoted from a column by Mark Steyn. This sentence is noteworthy: "We can’t have chaps walking around saying Muslims are violent because they’ll go bananas and smash the place up."
Dennis Miller and Leno Discuss Obama
Miller is skeptical when the man urging sacrifice on him unable to quit smoking.
Hat Tip/Breitbart TV
Transparency Update: The Unvetted President
Some things the public has a right to know that will never be available or are still kept out of the public record:
1. OccidentalCollege records — Not released
2. ColumbiaCollege records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Record of baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’
1. OccidentalCollege records — Not released
2. ColumbiaCollege records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Record of baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’
Friday, February 20, 2009
Steve Crowder Reads from the Koran
It is against Sharia law for a nonMuslim to teach Islam. This guy could be in trouble if the California or the Massachusetts supreme court suddenly realizes that the US Constitution proclaims Sharia (and with a constitutional law teacher as president, it might be hopeless). How does Sharia stand on the whole ex post facto thingy?
HatTip/five feet of fury
Carpenters: I Won't Last A Day Without You
Those were the days. TV was full of variety shows with all kinds of music. And often it was the Carpenters. There's a warmth and intimacy to Karen's voice that made me feel less lonely. So The Carpenters were always a bright spot when they came up on the radio: for a couple of minutes life would be less difficult.
That Stimulus Bill Isn't All Bad News
This is from the site Business Insider.com:
"Billionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.
"And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer."
Good thing congress rushed passage of that bill or Paul Allen might have had to go an extra day without the extra billion. And that sure would have left his other billions lonely.
I just have to ask which congresspersons are getting the million dollar pay offs? Might Rahm Emanuel clean up on this deal? Could Geithner waltz into a six or seven figure job because of Allen's windfall? Just asking the obvious.
Be sure to follow the link and see Allen's two yachts. It looks like each of them sleep forty.
"Billionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.
"And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer."
Good thing congress rushed passage of that bill or Paul Allen might have had to go an extra day without the extra billion. And that sure would have left his other billions lonely.
I just have to ask which congresspersons are getting the million dollar pay offs? Might Rahm Emanuel clean up on this deal? Could Geithner waltz into a six or seven figure job because of Allen's windfall? Just asking the obvious.
Be sure to follow the link and see Allen's two yachts. It looks like each of them sleep forty.
That Chimp Cartoon: I Had Hoped I Could Just Ignore It
Jules Crittenden linked to a HuffPo story about how the chimp cartoon is causing embarrassment, shame and unhappiness in the staff at the NY Post. That might be true but who knows. Huffpo quotes two Post staffers. And one of the two is an anonymous source. And out of this tissue they construct a story whose main character is the HuffPooish guilt laden PC drama that is the blight of their lives. So at this point I only know something about HuffPo and one, possibly two people who work at the NY Post. So much capital out lay, so little information.
The cartoon is not even funny. I would never have given it a moments thought if it hadn't been for the martyr drama spun by Reverend Al, HuffPo and who ever else. The cartoon has nothing to do with Barack Obama. And the mental gymnastics that have been employed to make that connection have been either sad or ludicrous.
The POTUS chimp nexus is interesting. So many people give loud approval to anyone who will 'speak truth to power' and call Bush a chimp. The moral courage in spite of great danger to life and career involved in that very old joke is admirable. Oh, yes, the intellectual and moral reach required for that has been mastered by only 93% of most third grade classes (the rest are reading books or otherwise improving themselves).
Now maybe we could turn public discourse to something that matters or is reality based. Or a cartoon that is funny.
The cartoon is not even funny. I would never have given it a moments thought if it hadn't been for the martyr drama spun by Reverend Al, HuffPo and who ever else. The cartoon has nothing to do with Barack Obama. And the mental gymnastics that have been employed to make that connection have been either sad or ludicrous.
The POTUS chimp nexus is interesting. So many people give loud approval to anyone who will 'speak truth to power' and call Bush a chimp. The moral courage in spite of great danger to life and career involved in that very old joke is admirable. Oh, yes, the intellectual and moral reach required for that has been mastered by only 93% of most third grade classes (the rest are reading books or otherwise improving themselves).
Now maybe we could turn public discourse to something that matters or is reality based. Or a cartoon that is funny.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama Still Not Vetted But If He Ever Wants An Important Job . . . .
This video is a couple of months old. I can remember the first time I saw it: I have not been able to take a word that comes out of Barnicles' mouth serious since. John Harwood from the NYT acts like some basic principles of Journalism 101 that Scarborough mentions are new and unusual.
I don't enjoy being continually negative but the times are out of whack and these guys are pushing it further. I feel a responsibility to keep this information out there lest I slacken and start harboring a shadow of a belief that the 2008 election was normal.
I'm not saying McCain should necessarily have won. But the media shirked its responsibility until Hell wouldn't have it anymore. And Obama raised millions of dollars, possibly hundreds of millions illegally. And glitches in the system and the rank prejudice of the media have kept this from being investigated or becoming public knowledge.
HatTip/Daily Puma
The Banality of Libs With Keyboards
I don't usually supply links to dKos. Here's one because the banal and self-righteous moral superiority of the amoral can be mildly amusing. You have to click on 'View Comments' to begin the parade of the inane.
Pretzel Logic And Cheap Shots
I can see why Michelle Malkin passed on the New Yorker's offer to write about her in return for access: would they have tried to transform her into some kind of dragon lady?
In Hertzberg's characterization Obama's 'bipartinship' is a cheap trick to torpedo his opponents. Not so much a campaign promise as a lie used to set up a pinning move.
ht/NewsBusters
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Linda Ronstadt: Blue Bayou
I saw Linda Ronstsdt perform at Cerritos College. It was earlier in her career than when this was shot. It was almost at the beginning and she looked like Zooey Deschanel when she was new. The warm-up act was Dan Hicks who had earlier been leader of Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks, which was a kind of novelty group that did music along the lines of Leon Redbone and Doctor John. The crowd seemed to be all Linda R. fans. I was the only one that I knew who was also a Dan Hicks fan. The audience did not enjoy Hicks and booed him more and more until he became very angry at them. Finally he stopped and said loudly, "F____ you! I only came here to feel Linda's titties!" And then he walked off stage to cat calls and cheers.
Fairness Doctrine Update: The Stealth Version
This is copied and pasted complete from The American Spectator.
In All Fairness
By The Prowler on 2.16.09 @ 6:09AM
DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.
But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.
Labels: MR
posted by midnight rider at 3:29:00 PM
Hat Tip/Infidel Bloggers Alliance
In All Fairness
By The Prowler on 2.16.09 @ 6:09AM
DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.
But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.
Labels: MR
posted by midnight rider at 3:29:00 PM
Hat Tip/Infidel Bloggers Alliance
A New Big Lie
Patterico's Pontifications is a site that always repays the time spent on an at least once daily visit. He's smart and writes well. He knows Los Angeles and he always writes clearly, to the point and about pertinent stories. The story below needed to be told, bears repeating and is copied and pasted complete from Patterico.
Deporting Illegal Aliens: Inherently Wrong? We’re Starting to Treat It That Way . . .
Is catching and deporting illegal aliens an inherently bad thing?
You’d think the answer is obvious: of course not. Yet, when you think about it, that is the question raised by two recent news articles.
First, there has been a verdict in the case of that Arizona rancher who held illegal aliens at gunpoint on his property. As I told you in detail here, his ranch has been vandalized by trespassing illegal aliens for years. He has turned over 10,000 over to ICE. Some of the illegals he detained sued him — and guess what? They won:
A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.
Lord. This is where, five years ago, I would have engaged in a verbose tirade. Now, the tirades have been beaten out of me. This is too outrageous for words, and I have none adequate to the occasion.
Second, we have an interesting article on ICE fugitive alien raids forwarded by commenter “Hax Vobiscum.” The complaint, recently discussed on this blog, is that teams devoted to arresting fugitive aliens have been targeting illegals who aren’t fugitive aliens. As I told you in two posts (here and here) about an L.A. Times article on the issue, a recent report didn’t bear out the contention that the teams were actually targeting non-fugitive aliens. Rather, the report suggested that the teams were arresting increasing numbers of fugitive aliens (including those with criminal records) every year, together with even more non-fugitive aliens encountered during the raids.
But the new Washington Post article raises the first real evidence that teams may actually have been targeting illegal aliens who aren’t criminals. Read the whole article and watch the accompanying video, and you’ll see the evidence is far from conclusive. Some agents have one story, and others have a different story. The article centers on an incident that began when ICE agents rolled into a 7-11 parking lot and had illegals running up to offer day labor services — that much is corroborated by the video. Even the focus of the sob story — a fellow stopping for a coffee break while his son was being treated at a nearby hospital — refuses to say whether he is illegal, on the advice of his lawyers.
As regular readers know, I support targeting illegal aliens who have committed crimes other than entering the country illegally. Deporting those illegals should be our top priority. But if you’re an ICE agent and illegals come running up to your car to offer illegal day labor, I don’t think you’re obliged to ignore that. On the contrary, I think you’re obliged to act.
You could pick apart the specifics of the particular scenario and the videotape endlessly, but the bottom line is this: prioritizing the deportation of criminals should be ICE’s top priority. But there is nothing inherently wrong with deporting illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have committed crimes unrelated to their immigration status.
Let’s stop criticizing ICE for doing its job. But let’s continue encouraging ICE to prioritize deporting the criminals first.
Deporting Illegal Aliens: Inherently Wrong? We’re Starting to Treat It That Way . . .
Is catching and deporting illegal aliens an inherently bad thing?
You’d think the answer is obvious: of course not. Yet, when you think about it, that is the question raised by two recent news articles.
First, there has been a verdict in the case of that Arizona rancher who held illegal aliens at gunpoint on his property. As I told you in detail here, his ranch has been vandalized by trespassing illegal aliens for years. He has turned over 10,000 over to ICE. Some of the illegals he detained sued him — and guess what? They won:
A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.
Lord. This is where, five years ago, I would have engaged in a verbose tirade. Now, the tirades have been beaten out of me. This is too outrageous for words, and I have none adequate to the occasion.
Second, we have an interesting article on ICE fugitive alien raids forwarded by commenter “Hax Vobiscum.” The complaint, recently discussed on this blog, is that teams devoted to arresting fugitive aliens have been targeting illegals who aren’t fugitive aliens. As I told you in two posts (here and here) about an L.A. Times article on the issue, a recent report didn’t bear out the contention that the teams were actually targeting non-fugitive aliens. Rather, the report suggested that the teams were arresting increasing numbers of fugitive aliens (including those with criminal records) every year, together with even more non-fugitive aliens encountered during the raids.
But the new Washington Post article raises the first real evidence that teams may actually have been targeting illegal aliens who aren’t criminals. Read the whole article and watch the accompanying video, and you’ll see the evidence is far from conclusive. Some agents have one story, and others have a different story. The article centers on an incident that began when ICE agents rolled into a 7-11 parking lot and had illegals running up to offer day labor services — that much is corroborated by the video. Even the focus of the sob story — a fellow stopping for a coffee break while his son was being treated at a nearby hospital — refuses to say whether he is illegal, on the advice of his lawyers.
As regular readers know, I support targeting illegal aliens who have committed crimes other than entering the country illegally. Deporting those illegals should be our top priority. But if you’re an ICE agent and illegals come running up to your car to offer illegal day labor, I don’t think you’re obliged to ignore that. On the contrary, I think you’re obliged to act.
You could pick apart the specifics of the particular scenario and the videotape endlessly, but the bottom line is this: prioritizing the deportation of criminals should be ICE’s top priority. But there is nothing inherently wrong with deporting illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have committed crimes unrelated to their immigration status.
Let’s stop criticizing ICE for doing its job. But let’s continue encouraging ICE to prioritize deporting the criminals first.
Pastor Might Get Two Years For Standing With A Sign In Front Of Abortion Clinic
This is a large section of an article copied and pasted from the site Religion and Morality.
* PARKER, Scripps Howard News Service
A travesty of justice has occurred in Oakland, California. But realities surrounding this local issue point to how the economic crisis in our nation is symptomatic of and flows from a deeper fundamental moral crisis.
A black pastor awaits sentencing, which could amount to two years in prison and $4,000 in fines, for standing outside an inner city abortion clinic holding a sign saying "Jesus Loves You & Your Baby, Let Us Help You," and offering pro-life literature.
Walter Hoye, founder and chairman of the Issues4Life Foundation, was found guilty of "unlawful approach" under the "Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance" enacted in Oakland in 2008.
Under the ordinance, it is prohibited, within 100 feet of the entrance to a "reproductive health facility," to approach within eight feet of a client "for the purpose of counseling, harassing, or interfering" with that person.
"Harassing" means holding up a sign, passing out literature or offering counseling.
The "reproductive health care facility" in question is Family Planning Specialists in Oakland. Looking over their Web site, it's clear that there is only one kind of reproductive health care they provide. Abortions.
According to testimony of the facility's executive director, they perform about one hundred abortions per week. Assuming an average of $600 per abortion (from the fee schedule on the website), that's about $3 million a year in revenue. Not bad for an inner city neighborhood business.
Pastor Hoye's conviction is strange in that no "victim" testified against him -- there was only testimony from those with an interest in the clinic -- employees and volunteers, no specific incident was cited, videotape showed Hoye standing peacefully holding his sign and materials, and the convicting jury was given no instructions regarding the definition of "approach."
* PARKER, Scripps Howard News Service
A travesty of justice has occurred in Oakland, California. But realities surrounding this local issue point to how the economic crisis in our nation is symptomatic of and flows from a deeper fundamental moral crisis.
A black pastor awaits sentencing, which could amount to two years in prison and $4,000 in fines, for standing outside an inner city abortion clinic holding a sign saying "Jesus Loves You & Your Baby, Let Us Help You," and offering pro-life literature.
Walter Hoye, founder and chairman of the Issues4Life Foundation, was found guilty of "unlawful approach" under the "Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance" enacted in Oakland in 2008.
Under the ordinance, it is prohibited, within 100 feet of the entrance to a "reproductive health facility," to approach within eight feet of a client "for the purpose of counseling, harassing, or interfering" with that person.
"Harassing" means holding up a sign, passing out literature or offering counseling.
The "reproductive health care facility" in question is Family Planning Specialists in Oakland. Looking over their Web site, it's clear that there is only one kind of reproductive health care they provide. Abortions.
According to testimony of the facility's executive director, they perform about one hundred abortions per week. Assuming an average of $600 per abortion (from the fee schedule on the website), that's about $3 million a year in revenue. Not bad for an inner city neighborhood business.
Pastor Hoye's conviction is strange in that no "victim" testified against him -- there was only testimony from those with an interest in the clinic -- employees and volunteers, no specific incident was cited, videotape showed Hoye standing peacefully holding his sign and materials, and the convicting jury was given no instructions regarding the definition of "approach."
Here’s Something You Don’t See Everyday
The Senate Ethics committee might be investigating the ethics of a senator. I have this from a story at Politico. Based on their actions in the past thirty years this is nearly unprecedented and represents a sea change in the committee’s behavior. At this point it is only a ‘maybe’ so this might just be an attempt to disappear the embarrassing story of just how that seat was filled.
I used to think that the purpose of the Ethics Committee was to investigate ethical lapses of senators. But I have come to doubt that since there are so, so many lapses and next to no investigations. Chris Dodd’s sweetheart deal with a mortgage company he regulates from the Banking Committee is of no interest to the Ethics Committee. Harry Reid’s very questionable and highly profitable land dealings are blithely ignored by the misnamed Ethics Committee. Diane Feinstein was chairperson of a subcommittee that gave contracts worth a billion plus to her own husband and I think all she got from the Ethics Committee was a high five. Debbie Stabenow’s hectoring about bringing accountability to talk radio is treated as business as usual even though her schemes would shower money on her husband.
So, I guess the real question is: why have they decided to even talk about Burris’ piddly misdemeanors (or felonies or whatever)? Are they disgusted with him because there was no misappropriation of public funds to self and family? Are they irritated that he has amended his statements rather than sticking with his lies like the rest of the club? I’m pretty sure it’s not a racial thing. But when something as abnormal and extraordinary as the Senate Ethics Committee examining a senator’s ethics appears out of the blue and the cause is unclear, one starts grasping at straws.
I used to think that the purpose of the Ethics Committee was to investigate ethical lapses of senators. But I have come to doubt that since there are so, so many lapses and next to no investigations. Chris Dodd’s sweetheart deal with a mortgage company he regulates from the Banking Committee is of no interest to the Ethics Committee. Harry Reid’s very questionable and highly profitable land dealings are blithely ignored by the misnamed Ethics Committee. Diane Feinstein was chairperson of a subcommittee that gave contracts worth a billion plus to her own husband and I think all she got from the Ethics Committee was a high five. Debbie Stabenow’s hectoring about bringing accountability to talk radio is treated as business as usual even though her schemes would shower money on her husband.
So, I guess the real question is: why have they decided to even talk about Burris’ piddly misdemeanors (or felonies or whatever)? Are they disgusted with him because there was no misappropriation of public funds to self and family? Are they irritated that he has amended his statements rather than sticking with his lies like the rest of the club? I’m pretty sure it’s not a racial thing. But when something as abnormal and extraordinary as the Senate Ethics Committee examining a senator’s ethics appears out of the blue and the cause is unclear, one starts grasping at straws.
The Most Ethical State Senator Will Be Given A Discounted Price On The US Senate Seat
This is by Alessandro Machi copied and pasted complete from the Daily Puma. (The headline is my own creation.)
Ethics rule number 1,
For maximum flexibility, don't reveal list of ethics.
Ethics Rule number 2,
Refer to rule number one.
Ethics Rule number 3,
Are you still here?
Ethics Rule number 4,
It is not ethical to waste the presidents time with non-pertinent
ethics questions.
Ethics Rule number 5,
If you don't have another question, please allow someone else a chance.
Ethics Rule number 6,
Just Go Away, Please.
Ethics Rule number 7,
Just Go Away.
Ethics Rule number 8
Just Go.
Ethics Rule number 9
So, have you found a new press plane to travel on?
Ethics Rule number 10
The ethics list doubles as a bib for your wagyu steak.
Ethics rule number 1,
For maximum flexibility, don't reveal list of ethics.
Ethics Rule number 2,
Refer to rule number one.
Ethics Rule number 3,
Are you still here?
Ethics Rule number 4,
It is not ethical to waste the presidents time with non-pertinent
ethics questions.
Ethics Rule number 5,
If you don't have another question, please allow someone else a chance.
Ethics Rule number 6,
Just Go Away, Please.
Ethics Rule number 7,
Just Go Away.
Ethics Rule number 8
Just Go.
Ethics Rule number 9
So, have you found a new press plane to travel on?
Ethics Rule number 10
The ethics list doubles as a bib for your wagyu steak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
