RT @redostoneage: Henceforth the nuts who believe Rep Weiner’s ever changing #weinergate narrative shall be known as #Girthers. (Link.)
He refuses to answer the question:
All he has to do is say "no." He doesn't.
Geez, all Rep. Chris Lee did was send a shirtless photo to a chick, and he resigned. Weiner allegedly sent a photo of his erect package to a college student, and refuses to say "no," he didn't do it. Which, is probably wise since a ton of evidence points to the fact that he most likely did.
Jason "Trust Fund" Scott back on April 6: KLOPPENBURG WINS!! The people of Wisconsin have spoken!
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today: Kloppenburg concedes election to Prosser.
Couldn't have happened to bigger blathering idiot.
H/t to Soccer Dad for this:
Two phrases in the first three paragraphs is all you need to read of this News Journal article, because otherwise there's really no point. Making note of the bold text, those phrases are "In her mind, LaQuita Hamilton sees a map of Harrison Street in Wilmington that's segmented by skin color," and "It's crazy. We shouldn't feel like we have to segregate ourselves."
See if you can detect just what it is here:
Just in case you'd like a transcript, here 'ya go:
Smith: But the Trustees also said a couple of Fridays ago that this thing (Medicare) could be insolvent in the next decade. Doesn’t something really dramatic have to happen, and as the Congressman suggested, Republicans have a plan, do the Democrats have a plan?
Wasserman Schultz: Like I said, the Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the healthcare insurance market, we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.
Soooo, your plan is again ...?
No, it's not because they let the cast of "The Jersey Shore" film their fourth season there; it's because of this:
Italian government officials have accused the country's top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people.
Earthquakes are, of course, nearly impossible to predict, seismologists say. In fact, according to the website for the USGS, no major quake has ever been predicted successfully.
Sheesh. How awesomely pathetic is this? Our local TV station weathermen would all have criminal records if they lived in Italy!
Remember -- the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) head honcho Jason Scott wrote this back in 2006:
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Reasonable people. REASONABLE PEOPLE.
Just keep this little nugget in mind ANY time "Trust Fund" Scott or any of his moonbat minions refer to other idiots (like Birthers) as brain dead buffoons (or any other such colorful term) ... or even mock a real reasonable disagreement.
Sounds to me like it could turn out like "Spider-Man 3," meaning way too much going on:
[Latino Review] correctly predicted back in March of this year that Loki would be a villain in the team movie, a point proven in the Joss Whedon-directed after-credits scene of Thor. At that same time, they posited that Loki would be the impetus bringing in the rumored Skrulls to the mix. Now, they have another major villain they assure readers will be in the film. See who after the jump, with the obligatory “potential spoilers ahead.”
THANOS, the mad Titan and avatar of Death, says Latino Review, is the next villain to join the mix.
But how would Thanos fit into a story that is presumably already crammed? If you have Loki, the Cosmic Cube, then you bring in Skrulls, and Thanos; all of a sudden you have a 100% Alien movie (remember Asgardians are aliens in this world).
Thanos has a history of major scuffles with Earth's Mightiest Heroes; however, using him as a villain is all you'd need to make a blockbuster film. Remember that "Spidey 3" screwed up by using the Sandman, Green Goblin (2), and Venom which made the film extremely cluttered. (Personally, I would have preferred a fleshed out all-Venom story.) At the end of "Thor," it's obvious that the God of Mischief will play a role in "Avengers;" I was thinking, like Latino Review, that it'd be he who somehow summons the Skrulls to Earth. Then again, I'd read that "The Avengers" would be pretty much following the storyline from the first series of The Ultimates by Mark Millar and Brian Hitch. This would mean that the Skrulls would have to have been screwing around with Earth since Captain America's time; indeed, that is a major plotline of The Ultimates. I still could see Loki mucking around in such matters in an "Avengers" story; however, adding Thanos would be going over the top -- especially since he's pretty much on the same power level with Loki.
Ace has all the juicy details, so to speak, most especially the media's disinterest in the story.
I thought Jeff Conway by far did the best acting job in the only musical (film) I've ever enjoyed -- "Grease." To wit, I always astonish my girlfriend (who's a huge fan of musicals, including "Grease") by reciting obscure lines from the film whenever it's on the tube.
Two of my fave Kenickie lines:
(To girlfriend Rizzo): "Oh, sure! Fine! Eureka! How 'bout I finish with ya, huh?"
(To girlfriend Rizzo while in back seat of car making out): "My 25-cent insurance policy!" (Pulls out a condom.) "It broke!" (Rizzo asks how it could break.) "I bought it when I was in the seventh grade!"
Michael Heyman, son of a Holocaust survivor, is severely misguided:
Mr. Netanyahu is adept in his efforts to manipulate America’s foreign policy to be the same as the Israeli policy and oppose anything more than a token Palestinian state. It was disingenuous for him to leave unsaid that the president’s words were a reaffirmation of the U.S. position for the past 20 years – to carve out a Palestinian homeland from territory Israel appropriated in the Six-Day War. “Arab Spring” set in motion a thirst for democracy that came in like a tidal wave and spread throughout the Arab world. Any country that resists the inevitable will be swept away.
If America is going to be a leader of the emerging democracies, President Obama will have to show that America treats Israelis and Palestinians as equals – and he needs to do it sooner rather than later.
Two things. One, aside from perhaps the events in Tunisia, the evidence that there is a "democracy-loving" Arab Spring is simply foolish. What we've witnessed in Egypt, for example, may lead that country backward as the radical Muslim Brotherhood may be poised to win elections there, and the populace may be inclined to rescind the 30+ year old peace treaty with Israel. Two, to state that the US should treat the Palestinians and Israelis "equally" is akin to saying that the US should treat the Taliban and, say, the Italians equally. The comparison is ludicrous. How can you treat "equally" a population that, [hugely] by and large wants to decimate and eradicate an entire race of people?
But Heyman deserves respect as a descendant of a survivor of the previous attempt to eradicate the Jewish population. He deserves respect, even though I vehemently disagree with him, much like any American serviceman deserves respect ... even though I may disagree with him. I just pray that Heyman's misguided idealism wakes up before another major tragedy befalls his people.
Maybe because the Cap movie is coming out and they've decided on yet another cheap gimmick to make cash? Except that this one, especially given Cap's creators' recent "creative" history, is totally hypocritical:
It turns out that there's a little bit of Captain America in all of us.
Timed to the upcoming July 22 release of the Captain America: The First Avenger movie — starring Chris Evans as the star-spangled superhero —Marvel Comics is releasing a series of variant covers for its July superhero titles with an "I Am Captain America" theme.
The covers, done by a bunch of notable comic-book artists, all depict real-world American heroes — with a dash of Cap thrown in, such as a shield or that very recognizable "A."
Joe Quesada, Marvel's chief creative officer, came up with the "I Am Captain America" concept, according to the publisher's editor in chief, Axel Alonso. Quesada also drew a stunning version of a firefighter in the heat of the moment that adorns the variant cover for Wolverine issue 12.
Yeah, that's really touching (and one wonders how a little league baseball pitcher and a girl ice skater are exactly "heroes," but it seems they merely have to do with the story of the books whose covers they grace), but one should be mighty skeptical, especially after all the politically correct crap Marvel has injected into Cap's pages over the last few years. Y'know, like this. Or this. Or this. Or especially this.
And I'm willing to bet that those variant covers ain't gonna be found anywhere overseas -- can't "offend" anybody!
Elsewhere, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who ripped Republicans saying "If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side we would be driving foreign cars. They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes," was discovered to own ... a Japanese car.
And don't forget to check out the non-Council winners as well!
... strikes again with the over-the-top ridiculous hyperbole. This time he calls President Obama's decision to kill Osama bin Laden "the boldest decision … any president has undertaken on a single event in modern history.”
More accurately, it should be described as "the biggest no-brainer any president has undertaken on a single event in modern history."
If idiot Biden was a Republican, he'd be the biggest fodder for Leno and co., among others, in television history.
Even when a liberal president makes verbal gaffes -- the same type of incident that would have the very same MSM laughing and howling in mockery were it a conservative Republican -- it somehow demonstrates his "intelligence":
It's not that Obama can't speak clearly. It's that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can't keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN…
This very same Los Angeles Times columnist wrote this about Sarah Palin:
Palin lacks the intellectual, analytical and rhetorical skills to have a competent discussion about policy or much else. She is handicapped not only by a lack of education, experience and curiosity about the world (wearing a Star of David in Israel doesn't count), but by a speaking style that often collapses under the weight of disjointed, undiagrammable sentences.
As Newsbusters' Lachlan Markay notes (to whom the h/t for this part of the post goes), "Got it? Palin is so uneducated that she can't speak clearly, while Obama is so supremely educated that he can't speak clearly."
Elsewhere, there they are again -- news articles that say ridiculously high gas prices are a good thing. Lynn Mucken of MSN Money writes (with my comments in italics),
What if gas hit $5 a gallon? Here are some benefits (and we're serious about most of them):
- Fewer people would die on the road. (Of course, this might be offset with bike injuries, people getting hit by cars due to jaywalking b/c of more people hoofing it in general, and more cardiovascular ailments as a result of not using a vehicle.)
- Demand for high-mileage cars could grow. (Except that, as EVERYTHING goes up in price as a result of high gas prices, who the hell has money to buy a new freakin' car??)
- Shorter security lines. (Except that, who the hell has the cash to fly as airline tickets cost an arm and a leg due to high gas prices??)
- Less pollution. (Cool -- we can all breathe that fresh air while we're walking/biking to work!)
- Less congestion. (Won't matter as no one will be driving anyway!)
- High prices lead to lower prices. (Gee, why didn't *I* think of that? And why didn't George W. Bush when prices were high under his tenure? I wonder how people like Mucken would even *treat* such a comment by the former president?)
- More exercise. (Yeah, I like being all sweaty and exhausted upon arriving arriving to work ...)
- End of wars. (Oh yeah, skyrocketing prices over the major source of power on the planet which drives economies will lead to less conflict ... !)
- Local businesses could profit. (Indeed. Gotta support those corner mom and pop shops over "nasty" corporate giants like Wal-Mart. First thing on folks' minds when energy costs are through the roof ...)
- It's all about democracy. (Let's take this cry about democracy even further: LET US DO OUR OWN DAMN DRILLING WHEREVER WE CAN AND WANT!)
Presented without comment, as it certainly needs none:
... Obama has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in America, I wonder what the haters will come up with next. Maybe because the president has Irish blood from his mother’s side of his family the haters will accuse him of belonging to the IRA. Nothing would surprise me as to the lengths the Obama haters will go to discredit the president.
President Obama has done a great job of cleaning up the mess left by the Bush administration, but of course the haters will never give Mr. Obama credit for anything positive, they even attempted to give credit to Mr. Bush for the killing of Osama bin Laden. It is time for all Americans to come together and give President Obama the respect he deserves.
Wait, I do have one comment: BWAHAHAHAHA!!
NBC's dopey Andrea Mitchell says that Obama and the First Lady won't bow to the Queen (of England) because "it's not proper":
Huh. A major network's major reporter somehow doesn't recall the following:
(h/t to CBC.)
Let me be the first to congratulate Ed Schultz on his exciting new future with Current TV. (Link.)
Check out the Philly Daily News article titled "Can't certain men control themselves?" which discusses politicians' proclivity for infidelity. Here's the first paragraph:
Newt Gingrich has entered the 2012 presidential race dogged by concerns about a long-standing affair that ended his second marriage (and ultimately gave rise to his third). Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has admitted fathering a child outside his marriage with the family's longtime housekeeper. And Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a prominent French politician and married father of four whose consensual extramarital affairs were well-known, is accused of attempting to rape a maid in a New York City hotel room.
Newt. Ah-nuld. That's it. They're the only [American] pol examples in the entire article! No John Edwards, arguably much more of a scoundrel than Ah-nuld and especially Gingrich. No Elliot Spitzer. No Jesse Jackson. No Bill Clinton. In other words, no Democrats.
No fairness. No surprise.
The ridiculous Marc Lamont Hill, like way too many other faux "progressives," believes that African-Americans are supposed to be some sort of monolithic "uni-mind," with little to no diversity of opinion:
From a political perspective, black Americans shouldn't expect President Obama - or any other black politician - to deal with black issues because of his race. We should expect him to deal with black voters because we are citizens, because we have particular needs and because we voted for him in higher proportion than any other demographic group in history. Not because he looks like us.
(Side note: That's from a political perspective. From a personal perspective, I believe that there's a special place in hell for black politicians who don't support black interests.)
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which black people are considered untouchable and unmentionable by politicians. This is why Obama went to such extravagant lengths to avoid discussing race during his campaign. He understood that to talk about race was to make him a "black candidate" rather than a candidate who happened to be black. This is equally true in our local political scene, where any form of "race talk" makes white voters uncomfortable, undermining a candidate's chances of being successful.
The "side note" is really all you need to know about Hill -- that if a black politician doesn't support a so-called "black interest" (according to Hill's definition, of course, since there is no "standard" definition of "black interest"), that politician should be condemned to Hell! Consider: if a black pol is against affirmative action on grounds that it actually stigmatizes African-Americans more than it benefits them, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against racial quotas in education and/or the workplace, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against automatic business set-asides for minority-owned companies, should that pol go to Hell? Most likely, yes, according to Hill. (Again, I don't know precisely what Hill personally considers a "black interest," but being the good liberal that he is, it's a fairly good bet that he would dub the examples above as such.)
Hill scatters some other examples of group interests in his article: "gay" interests and "Jewish" interests, to name two. But again, what are these interests exactly? Being in favor of gay "marriage?" Does this mean that any homosexuals who aren't in favor of gay "marriage" aren't "authentically gay?" What's a "Jewish" interest? Support of Israel? Does this mean that Jews who are not in favor of a specified Jewish state and/or believe that the founding of Israel wasn't done ethically or legally aren't "authentically Jewish?" And, let's take it further: What are "Latino" interests? Do all Hispanics believe that illegal immigrants deserve amnesty? In-state college tuition? No fence along the Mexican border?
That's the problem with believing in group-think: It does not allow for many -- if any variations of belief or thought. Yet, this is precisely what so-called "progressives" fervently believe in -- that groups of Americans, in particular, "historically oppressed" groups, are supposed to (all) believe in certain things merely because of what the group is. Conservatives, in general and on the other hand, detest viewing the American populace through the prism of race, gender and class. Not to mention, can anyone imagine a [white] politician campaigning on defending white interests? Such is unthinkable. Weren't we taught, after all, especially during the Civil Rights era, that thinking in terms of race was a execrable notion?
Which brings me to the next issue: Hill was on O'Reilly's show a couple nights ago where he made no distinction between a [black] politician supporting a "middle-class interest," or a "senior citizen interest," and the aforementioned "black interest." (He mentions, barely, the former in his article, by the way.) But the distinction here should be obvious: Middle-class and senior citizen Americans are made up of ALL races and ethnicities. Though they are a interest "group" by political standards, no one seriously claims that all middle-class people should believe the same things, or that all senior citizens likewise should. And, as O'Reilly correctly pointed out, perhaps the biggest "interests" that these groups routinely desire are things that they deserve -- ie, contributed to, like more of their own money (aka less taxes), and Social Security and Medicare.
Believing that groups of people should think alike and that they have specific, monolithic "interests" only serves to, in the long term, to tear this country asunder. And sometimes I honestly think that that is exactly what faux "progressives" wish to do.
And check out the non-Council nominations here!
So I saw this:
China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”, a media report claimed today.
The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week's China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying. China also advised the USa to “respect Pakistan's sovereignty and solidarity”, the report said.
and then I saw this:
David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American who has pleaded guilty to doing scouting work prior to the terror carnage in India's financial capital, testified in the U.S. federal court trial of his alleged accomplice,Tahawwur Rana, The Washington Post reported.
I'm a bit leery of the first source in that it seems loose on the details. I've not heard this anywhere else so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. It is however, not unlikely that we're going to come to this sort of impasse with China at some point. They're extending themselves globally. They're pouring money into Africa and South America. They're even building resorts in the Carribean. This is not coincidental and we ignore it at our peril. They're launching their first carrier shortly and that's the start of their blue water ambition.
that if I voted for Bush we'd have a President so stupid he didn't know what year it was and THEY WERE RIGHT! (with apologies to Instapundit)
From CNN: Former U.S. congresswoman McKinney speaks on state TV in Libya. Hmm, no mention there ...
A former U.S. congresswoman slammed U.S. policy on Libyan state TV late Saturday and stressed the "last thing we need to do is spend money on death, destruction and war."
The station is fiercely loyal to Moammar Gadhafi and her interview was spliced with what appeared to be rallies in support of the embattled Libyan leader.
"I think that it's very important that people understand what is happening here. And it's important that people all over the world see the truth. And that is why I am here ... to understand the truth," former Rep. Cynthia McKinney said during a live interview.
Oh, thaaaaaat's right -- McKinney was a Democrat! Who knew? I'm sure CNN did, but they obviously thought it didn't matter. Surprise, that.
The Baltimore Ravens' Ray Lewis has a warning for the NFL owners:
Lewis told ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio that he thinks there’s a segment of the population that will be at risk of turning to criminal activity if there’s no football to watch on Sundays in the fall.
“Do this research if we don’t have a season — watch how much evil, which we call crime, watch how much crime picks up, if you take away our game,” Lewis said. “There’s too many people that live through us, people live through us. Yeah, walk in the streets, the way I walk the streets, and I’m not talking about the people you see all the time.”
Asked to explain why crime would increase without NFL games, Lewis said: “There’s nothing else to do, Sal.”
The question now is whether "Meet the Press's" David Gregory will have Lewis on to ask him if these comments are "racist" and "code language" ...
Wacky, postmodern educationist mumbo jumbo about black actors using "whiteface" (h/t to Tongue Tied). All I know is that, by far the funniest thing I ever saw about this subject was back when Eddie Murphy was on "Saturday Night Live":
"I watched LOTS of 'Dynasty' ..."
Perhaps you remember this from the Colossus archives:
My "blogfather" John Rosenberg picks up on a verrrrry interesting point in The Messiah's mid-east speech from Thursday -- one that is easily missed, and was missed back in 2009 when he said the same thing:
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Take a gander at the following map -- the diagonal lines denote the territory Israel won in the 1967 Six Day War:
Can anyone fill us in on precisely how a sovereign Palestine can achieve contiguous status from the Golan Heights, through the West Bank on to Gaza ... without drastically affecting not only Israel's extant territory but more importantly its security?
Many people have been (are) comparing Obama to the pathetic Jimmy Carter. And they're right more than they know: Former Carter secretary of state Cyrus Vance says that if Carter had won re-election in 1980, he "planned to sell out Israel."
Great vid (h/t to Buckhorn Road) exposing the laughable "values" that are "progressive":
Yep, you heard all that right -- "I believe in free speech ... but let me sign this petition anyway."
Check out this nonsense, courtesy of the Democratic Governors Association:
Stop Vote Suppression!
Now that they control a majority of statehouses across the nation, Republicans are attempting a bold power grab to disenfranchise voters and repeat the Florida election debacle of 2000.
Right now, states with Republican governors or new GOP majorities are ramming through bills designed to make it harder for people to vote.
They'll stop at nothing to steal the Presidency.
We have to act now to stop these bills from becoming law. The Democratic Governors Association is the only organization devoted solely to electing Democratic governors who will veto any and all attempts to limit voter rights. Use the form at the right to stand with the DGA and demand that Republicans stop their politically-motivated attempts to suppress votes.
What exactly are these "voter suppression" methods, pray tell? Does the DGA actually mean to claim that various voter ID bills are an attempt at "suppression?" That the very same thing needed to buy alcohol, and to use a check to pay for something, among many other things, is an attempt by the GOP to "steal" the presidency?? How freakin' pathetic is that? It's the only thing I can think of that the DGA could possibly be referring to. Interesting that this ad makes no mention of precisely what the dastardly GOP is actually up to, eh?
As always, "progressives" just rely on your stupidity.
It's a shame, really, but watch as Obama gets schooled by Bibi Netanyahu on his silly Mid-East speech from yesterday:
Yours truly had a good week ...
And check out the non-Council winners here!
No, there's no liberal mainstream media bias. None at all. That's why NBC's "Meet the Press" host David Gregory could not name a single "prominent view" within Israel who supported yesterday's speech by President Obama after proclaiming just that:
DAVID GREGORY, “MEET THE PRESS” HOST: I just want to make a point here. Joe, I disagree with you. This is not just the view of the White House in terms of what they think Israel ought to accept. This also reflects prominent views within Israel that this speech was actually good news for the Israeli government for some of the points that have already been laid out here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Obviously, we talked about earlier, on the minds of a lot of people inside the White House and the state department is the U.N. vote coming up this fall, David, and this is seen as leverage obviously for that. We’ve talked about that. But you said this is also seen as good news for some in Israel. What major Israeli public figures have come out supporting the President's speech?
GREGORY: Well, I (stammers), I don't think there have been major public figures that have, but some of the commentary that’s coming out of (stammers) the commentary in the press there and others who are looking at the situation are, are recognizing that some of these factors diplomatically are actually positive for Netanyahu.
Uh ... whaaaat??
Check out the video:
The time to accept the 1967 borders was in 1967. (Link.)
Interestingly, Netanyahu's response to Obama speech calls for Obama to endorse the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter. Game on. (Link.)
Ah-nuld not only hooking up with, but siring a child with, a total hag. Elliot Spitzer going after hookers. The Rev. Jesse Jackson having a child out of wedlock. Former veep and presidential candidate John Edwards did the same -- while his wife was dying of cancer -- and now he's miffed at his concubine about it all:
Furious John Edwards has allegedly vented his anger at mistress Rielle Hunter over the steamy sex video they made during his White House run. In an amazing outburst, the shamed politician reportedly exploded after a judge ruled portions of his testimony under oath would be made public. An insider said: "John took his anger and frustrations out on Rielle."
"He screamed at Rielle, calling her an idiot for not destroying the tape, and yelling that she made a fool of him for talking him into making it," a source told the National Enquirer. Rielle was in tears, and tried to apologize, but John didn't care.
To call this pathetic piece of scum a "total loser" would be a grave disservice to losers everywhere.
Recently I said: Even democrats concede economic reality in a crisis: "Taxes matter. Regulations matter. Capital flight is a reality. Not just from state to state but from country to country."
According to The Wealth Report from The WSJ:
If there is one overwhelming investment trend among the American rich, it is capital flight.
Rather than investing in the U.S., they are putting more and more of their money abroad.
A new survey by the Institute for Private Investors of families with $30 million or more of investible assets showed that the families have one third of their assets overseas. One in five wealthy families has more than half their investments overseas. Most of them are buying overseas stocks, while they also are buying into hedge funds and private equity with exposure abroad.
Additionally, wealthy investors are moving away from the U.S. dollar. The IPI study showed that one quarter of respondents are managing currencies or hedging currency risk.
Spectrem Group, of Chicago, shows a similar outmigration of money from the rich. More than 60% of investors with $25 million or more are investing overseas, Spectrem found.
You can’t blame them, of course. Capital follows growth, and the strongest economic growth is in the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations and other emerging markets. Some may talk about the broken “social contract” of the American rich, who are taxed at low rates on capital gains and dividends in order to encourage them to invest in the U.S. and create jobs.
Yet the rich don’t sign any social contracts when they get rich. And so far, the flight of wealthy investors hasn’t stopped the U.S. stock market from roaring back to life after the recession. In fact, wealthy investors are at the forefront of the current tech bubble.
Since the wealthy control an ever larger share of the country’s wealth and investments, their aversion to the U.S. could create a vicious cycle–the wealthy don’t reinvest in the U.S., so the U.S. suffers from underinvestment and slower job creation, which slows economic growth and drives the wealthy to invest even more overseas.
Earth to Democrats: Capital flight is real. Capital follows growth. This is easier now than ever before. Consfiscatory tax rates and draconian regulation encourage capital flight. Unless or until you figure this out, you're going to turn the whole country into California or worse, Greece.
This is the woman with whom Ah-nuld cheated on Maria Shriver? This???
Someone help me figure this out ...
... Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both gotten ObamaCare waivers for interests in their district and state respectively:
To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that among HHS’s most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, “38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” That’s right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosi’s crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard.
If that’s not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state—received a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If you’re keeping score, Reid was Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the law’s requirements, while the rest of America suffers.
Why did Nevada get a waiver? The Sun reports that HHS found that some of the law’s implementation requirements “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.”
I've an idea: How about an exemption for the freakin' United States of America??
Congrats to the Associated Press and writer John Christoffersen for this winning biased headline: Yale suspends Bushes' fraternity for sexist chants. And then there's the first paragraph:
A prestigious Yale fraternity that counts both Bush presidents among its alumni is being banned from recruiting and holding activities on campus for five years after pledges were ordered to chant obscenities against women.
Hube forwards me this response from a Newsbusters tipster: "I suppose AP would be just as critical of Obama if current members of the Harvard Law Review were observed making sexist comments."
Oh yeah -- I'm sure they'd be right ON that!
This is good for a laugh:
The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” [White House spokesman Matt] Lehrich wrote.
Oh really, Mr. Lehrich? Does that mean you'll bar folks from the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, etc. which are clearly biased in your favor?
Maybe when global cooling hits Hades.
RELATED: Far-left cartoonist Ted Rall complains that lefty publications refuse to run his criticisms of Obama.
And check out the non-Council nominations here!
My youngest sister passed away last Thursday, quite suddenly. She was only in her early 40s. Initially, over the first subsequent days, I used writing (as I often do) as therapy; however, today was her funeral, and my desire for "therapeutic measures" has, well, plummeted quite a bit.
Just a quick FYI.
SALEM, Ore. - Salem Police stopped an Amtrak train on Sunday afternoon after reports a woman threatened other passengers when they complained she was speaking too loudly on her cell phone.
Lakeysha Beard of Tigard was charged with disorderly conduct after police said she got into a “verbal altercation” with passengers on the train. The other passengers complained she refused to put down her cell phone, even after train staff made repeated announcements for passengers to not use cell phones, according to police.
When a passenger confronted her about her loud talking, police said Beard got aggressive. She had reportedly been talking non-stop on the phone since getting on the train in Oakland, Calif.
Beard was taken into custody until a family member could come and pick her up.
Since it's virtually inevitable that Beard will get an attorney, cry "racism" and hope for a big payday, my suggestion is she contact Delaware's own Juana Fuentes-Bowles, who's an "expert" at finding "racism" in such situations as these.
Two current Phillies -- Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley -- have two of the longest hitting streaks in baseball history after the "unbeatable" 56 game mark set by the Yankee Clipper, Joe DiMaggio.
Rollins is fourth after DiMaggio at 38 games; Utley is tied for sixth with 35. Pete Rose is second with 44 games, and Paul Molitor is third at 39.
The Palestinians are the first people 2b offered a state 7 times, reject it 7 times & set preconditions for discussing an 8th offer. (Link.)
Edward John Craig highlights the Pittsburgh Steelers' Hines Ward criticizing teammate Rashard Mendenhall's loony belief in 9/11 Trutherism. Craig -- and Ward -- are, of course, spot on. But then Craig writes this:
I was not only disappointed but surprised when I saw Mendenhall’s meanderings. I considered him a smart, well-spoken young man — certainly compared with most NFL players.
Hey, I'm the biggest critic of PC (political correctness) that I know, but I also know that referring to an African-American as "well-spoken" is along the lines of saying "I have lots of black friends." In other words, it's not the smartest -- nor most polite -- thing to utter.
Came across a rather ridiculous -- meaning biased -- article at Live Science where they list the supposed "Top 12 Warrior Moms in History." Yep, history. And whose photo is the very first one we see? Michelle Obama. I kid you not. Let's take a gander at what makes her a "warrior":
12. Michelle Obama, leader of the fight against fat
One of the famous stories from President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign is that his wife would only let him run for president if he quit smoking. That demand would foreshadow Michelle Obama's interest in health and her first lady focus on ending childhood obesity.
The Obamas are the first family since the Clintons to have children in the White House, and Michelle Obama is known for protecting her daughters from publicity. Meanwhile, she's focused on her "Let's Move!" campaign, planting the first vegetable garden at the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt's era and bringing Beyoncé on board with a music video encouraging kids to get their hearts pumping.
Are. You. Kidding. Me? I like that -- "The Obamas are the first family since the Clintons to have children in the White House" ... is writer Stephanie Pappas also a master of hyperbole as well as biased? Gee, a whole one president sits between the Clintons and Obamas (George W. Bush, in case, as Pappas obviously assumes, you're an idiot), so gosh! It sure is refreshing to see children in the WH again! Yeesh. But now the more serious matter: Mrs. Obama is a "warrior mom" because she travels around in luxury lecturing on the dastardly ills of ... fat? Pardon me while I guffaw profusely.
And then there's that other big "warrior," Erin Brockovich. The trouble with choosing her is that Pappas' only actual research must be along the same lines as that which made her choose Michelle Obama; in this case her exclusive source must be the film about Brockovich starring Julia Roberts. The problem with this is that Brockovich's tale is largely a yarn about how to extort cash from a big company based on junk science.
And WTF is the deal with including Jiang Qing, aka "Madame Mao??" I mean, look at what Pappas includes in her bio:
She played a small role in politics from the 1940s on, first as her husband's secretary, and then as head of the film section of the Communist Party's propaganda department. A pivotal figure in China's destructive Cultural Revoltion, [sic] Jiang made -- and punished -- many political enemies during the 1960s.
In the power transition after Mao died, Jiang was arrested along with the rest of the Gang of Four. She was sentenced to death but granted life imprisonment instead. As late as 1991, right before Jiang took her own life, Chinese newspapers reported that she was unapologetic in her support of radical revolutionary policies.
While Jiang certainly is a much more authentic "warrior" than either Brockovich or Obama, why include someone like her whose only contributions are decidedly -- even exclusively -- negative? Especially when there's someone who was [preposterously] excluded like Margaret Thatcher? How can you omit someone with the nickname "The Iron Lady?" It's a travesty, so say the least. Hell, even Hillary Clinton would have been a much better (logical) choice for the list as she is our current Secretary of State.
And how 'bout
Ayaan Hirsi Ali? (My error: Ali does not have children, so she couldn't be a warrior mom. -- Hube) Golda Meir? Corazon Aquino? Benazir Bhutto? Does Pappas even know who these women are?
I highly doubt it.
OK, the key is making sure you actually read how it works. Because, otherwise, isn't the whole purpose of Viagra ... to induce a, y'know? And don't 'ya have to have a, y'know, to even get a condom on??
Headline at The Hill.com: GOP suicide bombers.
How 'bout that "new civil tone," huh?
Insty had a brief blurb up linking to a Guardian (UK) article which asks "Why don't we love our intellectuals?" In response, Insty also linked to articles by Christopher Hitchens and the inimitable James Taranto. The question is a good one; conventional wisdom, such that it is, posits that conservatives are the "anti-intellctual" crowd ... you'll see this conceit uttered frequently by folks like the usual suspects, and by those "big brains" in the mainstream media. As partial evidence, it's conservatives who are frequently made fun of and derided. George W. Bush was a total buffoon -- even though he had better college grades than Al Gore; Dan Quayle was a walking, talking gaffe machine -- but our current veep actually makes Quayle look like a professional motivational speaker; Ronald Reagan was a "lovable dunce;" Sarah Palin is [insert demeaning comment]," etc. etc. etc.
Take Hitchens' article next: He dissects the "intellectual" that is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is sort of a radical leftist academic pop-culture icon (he got a nice gratuitous shout out in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting," for instance), who somehow has managed to evolve into this deeply heavy political and cultural thinker even though his area of expertise is ... linguistics. He is greatly admired by a former big-time Delaware blogger many of you probably know, Dana Garrett. Let me state right up front that I love Dana to death -- he's an incredibly nice and personable fellow, who actually listens to conservative arguments and concedes good points when they're made ... a very rare trait for a progressive. (Notice that I did not put quotations around the word "progressive" this time like I normally do, for Dana is a true progressive.) Chomsky was one of the [many] items Dana and I argued about back in the day. It's easy to understand why the noted linguist is endeared by progressives: the virtually constant tendency to side with the "underdog," taking up the cause of the historically oppressed, fighting for minorities and the poor, etc. The problem is that Chomsky and his acolytes will overlook virtually every negative aspect about the causes they take up. Why? To be consistent? Because maintaining a contrarian view is of utmost importance? This leads to what historian Paul Johnson (noted in the Guardian article) stated about people like Chomsky -- they are "moral cretins." Hitchens' article dissects much of this aspect, and is pretty much in line with how I feel about him. In this case, 'ol Noam chimed in on the death of Osama bin Laden where he questioned the al Qaeda leader's actual responsibility for 9/11, said bin Laden was no worse than George W. Bush, and claimed that, by our commando raid on bin Laden's compound, we thus "would justify a contingency whereby 'Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.'" Chomsky also complained that bin Laden's killing was a "planned assassination," and that he "should have been accorded all the rights of criminal suspects."
It should come as little surprise, then, that bin Laden was apparently a fan of the MIT professor:
The New York Times, reporting on the intelligence haul from Osama bin Laden's house, paints a picture of the mass murderer's politics: In 2007, he complained that Democratic control of Congress had not ended the war in Iraq, a fact he attributed to the pernicious influence of "big corporations." In other messages he commented on the writings of Noam Chomsky, the leftist professor at M.I.T., and praised former President Jimmy Carter's book supporting Palestinian rights.
In a brief side-note here, one of my favorite bloggers early on my blogging "career," Benjamin Kerstein, in his [old] blog Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite dedicates virtually every post to shredding the "logic" that is the blog's namesake. It's a must read for those interested in dissecting the meanderings of Chomsky-thought, where Kerstein's prose is both terse and quite delightfully sarcastic. (Currently, Kerstein has a new blog and has written for various online publications.)
So, are you still wondering why so many people do not revere our [so-called] intellectuals?
Chomsky and others of his ilk also dabble all the time in moral equivalence. International law (like the professor noted above) is of paramount import -- unless, of course, some oppressed group is undertaking actions to support their "cause" -- much like the Palestinians against Israel. Closer to home, our old friend Perry and New Zealand's "Phoenician in a Time of Romans" (the moniker really says it all) over at Common Sense Political Thought predictably take up the Palestinian mantle whenever the subject is broached, and they're supposedly intelligent individuals. They'll scream about Israel violating UN Security Council Resolution 242 time and time again, for instance, but, of course, the constant threat of Palestinian (and other) terrorism -- that breach of international law -- is conveniently overlooked. Heck, if you're such a proponent of UN resolutions, what about the very one that created the state of Israel and a state of Palestine in the first place? If you demand "legality" so vociferously, what about that action by the world body? Which group crapped all over that plan, and began a war of annihilation to subvert it? Hint: It was not the Jews. And check out Chomsky and Vietnam. I mean, c'mon -- can anyone other than a hardcore far-leftist take such drivel even remotely seriously??
Supposed non-intellectuals can somehow -- just "somehow" -- manage to realize that, for example, Israel has absolutely NO obligation to return land gained in a defensive war of survival until and unless it gets guarantees from the other parties involved that they will refrain from terrorist activity, agree that Israel has a right to exist, and sign a peace treaty. Gee, after all, take a look at what happened when Egypt did just that in 1979: it got back the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured after the 1967 Six Day War. Regarding Vietnam, somehow non-intellectuals can accept that, yes, perhaps the US should not have even been there in the first place; however, somehow an authoritarian communist regime making use of a terrorist effort (Viet Cong) to infiltrate a neighboring government, not to mention next door's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia murdering millions is ... justified?
In the educational realm, so-called "intellectuals" are all over the place (and I am excluding higher education here for the nonce). Let's just examine what has happened, and what is currently on, here in the First State. With all that Race to the Top cash that it won a couple years ago, here's what the high-powered "intellectuals" have come up with and have proposed to evaluate individual non-core subject area teachers: They'll be evaluated on their schools' test scores in core subject areas. That's right -- if you're a "specialist" -- an art teacher, phys. ed. teacher, foreign language teacher, or chorus teacher -- over half of your performance evaluation will be based on a certain number of students' state test scores in core subjects (like math and English) ... students that you "touch" (and yes, that is the exact terminology that these "intellectuals" came up with!) on a daily basis. [Supposedly] Very smart people actually came up with this. Of course, it doesn't take someone with a very high IQ to then ponder, "How does that measure the teaching performance of a chorus teacher?" Or someone with a normal IQ might wonder, "If the chorus teacher is being evaluated on students' English and math scores, why does she waste her time working on singing? Doesn't it make sense that she tutor the subjects on which she's being assessed?" This is the best idea the state higher-ups could come up with!
Let's not forget the experience with judicial-enforced desegregation in northern Delaware. It was "intellectuals" who told us that all black children needed to succeed in school was to be sitting next to a white kid. And then that "super" intellect known as federal Judge Murray Schwartz rejected the state legislature's proposal of a voluntary busing plan -- y'know, putting the decision in the hands of the people -- and instead implemented the infamous "9-3 Plan": city students would attend suburban schools for nine years, and suburban students would attend city schools for three. (Schwartz, by the way, ended up sending his own children to private schools during the deseg imbroglio. Go figure, eh?) After nearly a quarter century, busing failed to increase student achievement, and now we see [minority] calls for ... a return to a city school district. A city school district in Wilmington, just like the one that existed before 1978, the year the federal desegregation order was implemented. But -- we were told (by supposed intellectuals) that minority children needed to be with white kids! That a predominately minority district should not exist! And people actually wonder why we don't revere our "intellectuals?"
How many of you have ever managed to sit through a typical school district-level inservice? Intellectual "educationists" -- usually Ed.Ds from within the district or professional "experts" -- package and repackage ideas and theories over and over again but with different colorful names or acronyms, and we're supposed to "oooh!" and "ahhh!" them as if they're the latest and greatest scientific discovery. Of course, many of these same folks are responsible for "great" ideas like Whole Language Instruction, which the (year 2000) United States Reading Panel concluded has led to reduced reading abilities in children. And whattya know -- there's 'ol Noam Chomsky's moniker linked to Whole Language Instruction! But, at least, this is his area of expertise, but a particular focus area that ultimately proved not very well conceived.
In another example, one of my favorite edu-bloggers, Michael E. Lopez, notes how "intellectuals" did a study which concluded the following:
School safety depends far less on the poverty and crime surrounding the campus than on the academic achievement of its students and their relationships with adults in the building, according to a new study of Chicago public schools. The report, released Tuesday by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, finds that while schools in high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods tend to be less safe than other schools, students’ level of academic achievement actually plays a bigger role in school safety than a school’s neighborhood. Furthermore, even in high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods, the quality of relationships among adults and students at a school can turn one school into a safe haven while another languishes as a center of violence.
As Lopez notes, though, this is hardly "some sort of X-causes-Y phenomenon":
The “root cause” of school-wide (and even neighborhood-wide) suckage — safety, academics, attitudes towards authority, graduation and literacy rates, etc. — if some root cause there be, is actually likely to be extremely hard to identify because it’s probably something missing rather than something present.
Still, it’s an interesting read. I was especially caught by this sentence:
After a trio of 7th graders “borrowed” a parent’s car for a joyride over the weekend, Ms. Hightower was able to retrieve the keys quietly and have the students meet with a community police officer—without threatening them with an official arrest.
This to me suggests that you not only need an involved, attentive faculty and administration, but it helps if you have a dollop of common sense, too. Children are not going to feel safe if they’re living in a thoughtless zero-tolerance prison system.
The problem with this is, when you do get someone in charge of such a school in such an environment -- someone like Joe Clark, the subject of the film "Lean on Me" -- the so-called intellectuals flip out. For proof, just check out this Time magazine cover from 1988. "Is Getting Tough the Answer?" the cover asks. "School Principal Joe Clark says yes -- and critics are up in arms" is the response. If you know the story of Clark, you know he was brought in to [hopefully] turn around the chaotic Eastside High School. He was a non-nonsense, no excuses kind of guy, with students and teachers alike. He "expurgated" (to use his words from the film) numerous chronic discipline-problem students, students who had repeated grades many times and "weren't going to graduate anyway" (again, his words from the film) as a beginning in restoring the necessary order and discipline a school requires if education is to even take place. But make no mistake -- Clark loved his students. He was the first to arrive at school, and the last to leave everyday. He told students to come see him in his office anytime about anything. In other words, he became like unto a father figure for many of the school's kids.
But to his critics, Clark was a loud-mouthed, egotistical authoritarian whose worst "crime" was expelling the perpetual troublemakers. The so-called intellectuals believe in the absolute "right" of students to get an education -- no matter what. And that "no matter what" includes countless -- innumerable, even -- discipline infractions, including countless violent offenses. It doesn't matter that these miscreants' behavior and attitude can disrupt not only individual classrooms but the entire building. The schools must "save" these kids -- even if it's at the cost of educating students who want to learn, and despite the fact that the vast majority of such kids can't be saved. And the "best" part of this whole debate is that those who are most vociferous about denigrating a man like Joe Clark either have never taught or have been out of the classroom for years (usually now in a comfy office at the central district office). But hey -- they've read theories on this stuff, don'tcha know!
In the arena of contemporary world politics, we've witnessed how our "intellectuals" have reacted to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Our president, long hailed as an "intellectual" by other "intellectuals" and so-called intellectuals in our media, campaigned on so many things that he has long since abandoned that it is hard to keep track. Among these are promising to close Guantánamo Bay prison, ceasing rendition of captured terror suspects, and promising civilian trials for terrorists. The instances of our intellectual class lecturing us common folk during the Bush years about the evils of all those things (and more) and endless. The biggest lecture, perhaps, was about the debauchery of waterboarding, and how it is not only depraved, but ultimately useless. But then lo and behold: It's revealed that the trail to Osama bin Laden was at least partially obtained thanks to the use of ... waterboarding the three al Qaeda bigwigs we captured in the early 2000s. B-b-b-b-but ... I thought such a practice was useless! And that's not the end of it: our "intellectual" class is also pulling out all the stops to justify shooting an unarmed, non-threatening man (bin Laden), while at the same time continuing either to claim that the waterboarding during the Bush years "didn't really work," or that there's "a legal and moral difference" between putting a bullet in a man's skull and subjecting him to simulated drowning (the former being legal and more moral, if you can fathom that; just take a quick look here for an example).
Is it any wonder why such "intellectuals" label President Obama an "intellectual?" Anyone who simultaneously claim that shooting an unarmed someone in the forehead is "legal" and "morally justified," but that waterboarding is not; claims that waterboarding was no factor in locating bin Laden despite all the evidence to the contrary; lauds the Navy SEAL team that offed bin Laden while at the same time bringing other SEALs up on charges for punching a captured terrorist; uses information obtained through waterboarding to locate and kill bin Laden while at the same time continuing to investigate these very same practices utilized by the CIA under the previous administration ... THAT, folks -- THAT takes some "brains."
But us "average folk" have very little difficulty seeing it for what it really is.
(Cross-posted at Truth Before Dishonor.)
And be sure to check out the non-Council winners here.
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors:
Try honesty you Right-Winged Jack-Booted Reich THUGS. You unpatriotic pieces of crap can go to hell. Get Cancer and enjoy your interactions with the "Greatest Medical System in the World", I'm a nurse asswipe. I know better. You should hope you are NOT my patient.
(Gosh, your captcha question must be tough for your regular Neanderthal
MSNBC's Martin Bashir to former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: "Do you want Obama killed?"
And the non-Council nominations are here!
We are continually told that taxes either don't matter or they somehow grow the economy. This is nonsense on stilts and even the most hardened of Democrats know it. Rather, they use this "logic" as a fig leaf for their desire to take money from others to reward their cronies and spent it as they see fit.
Even Illinois which is Democrat down to dogcatcher is facing reality. Motorola is threatening to leave the state. The taxes are too high and the cost of doing business has made staying untenable. So what did Illinois do? They offered $100MM in tax breaks. One Hundred Million Dollars not to leave.
They have been forced to face the reality that they can only bleed so much from corporations before they leave. Motorola is not a small outfit and moving is going to be expensive. That said, I don't think they're bluffing. They've run the numbers and staying long term isn't prudent.
Similarly, Sears the icon of Illinois is pulling up stakes. Think of what it says that the company with the most iconic tower in the midwest is thinking of leaving Illinois. How bad is the business climate? So bad, they're considering New Jersey. They are also considering Texas which is unsurprising to anyone who's been paying attention.
Taxes matter. Regulations matter. Capital flight is a reality. Not just from state to state but from country to country. Democrats ignore this reality over and over. Some of them are so brazen as to say "let them go". That is beyond foolish. Delaware has the jobs it does by making a favorable business climate. Low corporate taxes, solid Court of Chancery and streamlined regulatory environment. Trying to bleed corporations for pet projects is unwise. Better to draw more businesses and ask less of them than to drain those who are here.
When we were a manufacturing economy much of what they now believe was true. You could bleed companies like Ford. They had millions and millions of sunk costs in their factories and moving was nearly impossible. Those days are gone and are not coming back. New York City learned this the hard way which is why Jersey City looks the way it does now. Why do I work in Virginia instead of DC? Virginia got smart. They lured businesses away from the District with tax incentives and smarter regulation. They don't call them the Beltway Bandits for nothing.
As a service economy we are seeing less and less need for physical footprint and more and more virtualization. Why rent office space at $110 per square foot in NYC when you can move your people down to DE where you're paying half that. Add to that cheaper labor and taxes and not moving becomes a hard case to make. In my industry in particular, (IT consulting) more and more of us are working from home and travelling in only for specific meetings or events. One member of my team lives in Alabama and has not been to the office in literally years.
The wise politician in DE is going to be the one that encourages the hosting of IT service companies (and the like) in Delaware. If workers like me stayed at home to work on a project in another state and I'm paid from a DE corporation guess who's getting that tax revenue? Unlike now where I filed in VA and DE gets nothing either from me or my employer.
9/11 Truther and former Obama administration official Van Jones calls Donald Trump "racist" for his “race-baiting & birtherism."
UPDATE: Nutjob Jones oughta talk to hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons about Trump. Simmons says "you can say a lot of things about Trump, but he absolutely is not a racist."
UPDATE: Heh -- he's a follower of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright!
Translation of an al Qaeda statement on the offing of Osama bin Laden:
Even when the Americans managed to kill Osama, they managed to do ONLY that by disgrace and betrayal. Men and heroes only should be confronted in the battlefields but at the end, that’s God’s fate.
WTF?? Says the scum who hijack airliners, plant clandestine explosive devices, bomb embassies, bomb trains, bomb subways, bomb buses, and murder/mutilate women for not being completely subordinate to their barbarian will?
Yeah ... that's "tough," alright.
(h/t to Campaign Spot.)
I've been graciously invited by my pal John Hitchcock from one of my fave blogs, Common Sense Political Thought, to do some blogging at his own blog, Truth Before Dishonor. Stop on by to check out the great stuff there!
Elizabeth Ito of Wilmington says it was WRONG -- WRONG, DAMMIT! -- that the US killed Osama bin Laden:
The killing of bin Laden on the orders of President Obama is both murder and an outrage. Why? Because I believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And not even the President has the right to declare someone guilty and order his execution – no matter how many heinous acts he is suspected of committing. How do we know Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Because our government said he was? I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. Either you believe in the concept that all human beings have a right to face their accusers in a court of law, to hear the evidence against them, and to defend themselves in a fair and open trial – or you don’t.
You can’t have it both ways.
You gotta love people like Ito, 9/11 Trutherism aside. For one, they believe wholeheartedly in the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra ... except that when the exact opposite applies with our own IRS, you never hear a peep from these "progressives." (Because, after all, that's a power that "progressives" MUST have, so y'know, we can overlook the legal premise here ...) Next, as most people with common sense realize, when you're in a war the laws of jurisprudence are altered. People do not read Miranda rights, for example, to potential POWs on the battlefield -- they kill their opponents.
Thank God people like Ito are way out on the fringe.
From the University of Wisconsin, y'know, in the state where that nasty GOP governor Walker (or, in the parlance of our old friend and self-described champion of civil discourse[!!] Perry, "Governor Dictator Conspirator Walker") was much maligned by unions, and backers of unions (particularly the teachers unions), we see this:
A recording released by the Republican Party of Wisconsin exposes Professor Stephen Richards [UW-Oshkosh] using class time to actively campaign for the recall of State Senator Randy Hopper, encouraging his students to sign recall petitions offered by circulators present in his classroom.
In the tape, recorded during a criminal justice class, Richards can be heard encouraging a female student to sign the recall petition even though she thinks she lives outside the district, and instructing students to sign using their campus address instead of their parents' home address. He also tells students to look for petition circulators all around campus and "in the bars."
Surprising? Hardly. One, he's a college professor (just recall a couple classic movie instances regarding this tidbit: one, from "Cocktail," and the other from "Back to School" ... see also this one at around the 1:23 mark) and two, he's an ex-con. Oh, and three -- he's got a ridiculous rug on his head.
A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for “endorsing a crime” after she stated she was “glad” that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces…Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann…alleges that the chancellor’s statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday.
“I am a law-abiding citizen and as a judge, sworn to justice and law,” the 54-year-old told the paper, adding that Merkel’s words were “tacky and undignified.”
In his two-page document, Uthmann, a judge for 21 years, cites section 140 of the German Criminal Code, which forbids the “rewarding and approving” of crimes. In this case, Merkel endorsed a “homicide,” Uthmann claimed. The violation is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine.
The phrase "words fail me" isn't an adequate response. Elsewhere, the United Nations is up to their usual do-nothing bureaucratic insanity by demanding more facts on OBL's killing. Yeah, let's get right on that. Oh, and in the UK -- which has done such a "remarkable" job in assimilating its Muslim immigrants -- hundreds of protesters staged a mock funeral for bin Laden.
And remember, if bin Laden didn't represent "true Islam," then why all this?
That great political thinker that is Sheryl Crow:
The first thing I thought was, I felt the same way everyone else did, mixed emotions about the fact that we killed someone. ... We know that killing is not right. In this particular instance, we have such an association with this person for having dealt us such a heinous blow. So, you know, mixed emotions of finally justice has been served and, secondly, we've just killed somebody…
It's just fascinating that we have a black man, who has Muslim ties with his father, even though he's a Christian, it's amazing how far our country has come, that that's the man who took down Osama bin Laden. It makes you feel very patriotic.
I do think that if it were any other president, I might feel different about it. But, he's one of the most conscious people I've ever met, and I've met four presidents now. He walks the walk.
Via Ace: Obama is questioned by a sister of a 9/11 victim about whether Eric Holder will still investigate harsh interrogations done by the CIA against al Qaeda suspects:
Burlingame asked him about that, and said "I know you can't tell him what to do" (which isn't really true), and Obama said "That's right."
Then she asked, even if he couldn't order him to drop the prosecution of the interrogators who got bin Ladin, if he would at least offer Holder his opinion that there should be no prosecutions, he answered: "No, I won't."
Uh huh. Says Ace: "Huh. Big Damn Hero, huh? She went on to note that, last May, a Dallas US Attorney sought to indict CAIR officials (for terrorist ties and terrorist funding, of course), and Holder quashed those indictments."
Let the twisting, turning and hypocrisy rock on ...
Idiot Phil McDonald Sr. of Dover thinks it "speaks volumes" of George W. Bush for not joining Barack Obama at Ground Zero today:
Since the comeback of Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon and his Southern strategy, the Republican Party has taken a backward flip-flop in the political mud, and to the detriment of America. And, what happened to that "hater?" The ditherer, President Obama, cleans up ignoramus George W. Bush's mess.
And yet "W" refuses to accept President Obama's invitation to stand with him and honor Ground Zero in New York City in the wake of Osama bin Laden's capture and death.
This same George W. Bush, who stated rather emphatically that he leads from the gut, now refuses the hand of friendship from our president, a "thinker" who makes decisions based on reasoned intelligence.
Y'know, I first heard about Bush's "thanks, no thanks" to Obama via ABC's Jake Tapper on Twitter. I thought it was rather lame of Bush too, based on the required small amount of info Twitter allows per individual post. However, Tapper later added to his first Tweet saying that the former president is retired now, and prefers to remain out of the spotlight (which is something his 2000 challenger and predecessor certainly have not done, eh?). While I still think it would have been a nice gesture for Bush to have gone to GZ in a show of American unity, I certainly can understand his view on the matter.
Now, as to McDonald's idiocy, perhaps in his next letter to the WNJ perhaps he can ponder, in exclaiming the virtues of the "thinker" who "cleaned up" George Bush's mess, the following:
So, yes -- Obama is a "thinker." Once in office he realized he was now in the real world and thought that "Hey, y'know what? That guy in office before me actually knew a lot of what he was talking about."
... let's take a gander at yet another hilariously blatant example.
Here's Whoopi Goldberg just last week excoriating The Donald about ranking on Barack Obama -- his birth certificate and his smarts:
And here's Whoopi in 2005 ... ranking on President George W. Bush's ... smarts:
Could we call Whoopi ... racist, perhaps, hmm ...?
From the Wilmington News Journal: Rap concert turns violent.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
"Bin Laden unarmed when shot" is the [AP] headline in today's News Journal.
Is there any doubt that the usual suspects would be screaming and howling about "shooting someone in cold blood" that presented "no threat" if George W. Bush was still president? Of course not. I guarantee you we'd see/read some or all of the following:
... will push as hard for the release of Osama bin Laden's death photo as hard as they did for the pics of Abu Ghraib. Because The Messiah has decided that we ain't gonna see the former.
From the WaPo: American Indians object to ‘Geronimo’ as code for bin Laden raid
In a triumphant moment for the United States, the moniker has left a sour taste among many Native Americans.
“I was celebrating that we had gotten this guy and feeling so much a part of America,” Tom Holm, a former Marine, a member of the Creek/Cherokee Nations and a retired professor of American Indian studies at the University of Arizona, said by phone Tuesday. “And then this ‘Geronimo EKIA’ thing comes up. I just said, ‘Why pick on us?’ Robert E. Lee killed more Americans than Geronimo ever did, and Hitler would seem to be evil personified, but the code name for bin Laden is Geronimo?”
OK. Look, the term "geronimo" is used as "an exclamation occasionally used by jumping skydivers or, more generally, anyone about to jump from a great height." The WaPo article states that "It was his name that the U.S. military chose as the code for the raid, and perhaps for Osama bin Laden himself, during the operation that killed the al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan." So, since it was the code for the raid, why cannot the connotation be the military "jumping in" (they arrived by helicopter, after all) to bin Laden's compound to off the sucker? No, of course we have to reflexively ask the opinion of a few grievance-mongers who automatically think that the US is equating bin Laden with the Native American leader.
If these folks are so upset, why aren't they upset that "Geronimo" is not even the Native leader's real name? It's actually Goyaałé, meaning "one who yawns." Perhaps Goyaałé is yawning right now over this ridiculous instance of PC ...
Perhaps the WaPo's Neely Tucker (author of the article) ought to expand her opinion base for Native Americans. Those interviewed seem to confirm what Sports Illustrated wrote about back in 2002 -- that Native American activists' views differ substantially from those of the Native population as a whole ... in this case, regarding Indian names for sports teams. Indeed in the WaPo article, Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Morning Star Institute, a Native American advocacy group, said she has "long fought" against Native imagery in American culture -- including the Washington Redskins mascot. However, according Sports Illustrated's poll on that issue,
Indeed, a recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols. Opinion is far more divided on reservations, yet a majority (67%) there said the usage by pro teams should not cease, while 32% said it should.
Tucker's article continues:
But not all code names and nicknames have been loaded terms, even when the stakes were high. The plan to build the atomic bomb (the Manhattan Project) resulted in two atomic bombs (“Little Boy” and “Fat Man”) being dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber that dropped the bombs was nicknamed “Enola Gay,” after Enola Gay Tibbets, mother of the pilot, Paul Tibbets.
But if these code names were utilized today, it wouldn't matter what their real symbolic reason was. "Manhattan Project?" It'd piss off New Yorkers -- "Why are you associating us with nuclear destruction?" "Fat Man?" Insulting to the overweight. "Enola Gay?" Insulting to homosexuals.
And so on ...
If the right-wing blogs get a hold of this one, there's gonna be hell to pay, especially when somebody realizes that David Goyer, who wrote the [Superman renounces US citizenship] story, is also the screenwriter of the upcoming Superman movie directed by Zach Snyder and starring a British person as Superman. So they're neutering America's greatest superhero and turning him into a thug for the United Nations? This could make the Captain America mess look tame in comparison.
Heck, that fact slipped past me, and I usually am pretty up to date on this stuff. IOW, this doesn't bode well for the money-making aspect of the film. I certainly don't wanna shell out $10 to see some kumbaya superhero beholden to the nitwits at the U.N. And I'm crossing my fingers that this summer's "Captain America" isn't similar.
Previously: Supes gives up US citizenship.
REUTERS poll: 10% of Americans say OBL killing has worsened their image of POTUS| Ladies and gentlemen, your progressive base. (Link.)
'Ya just gotta love Keith Olbermann back in 2009 covering Seymour Hersh's claim that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney utilized a "secret assassination ring" ... which just happens to be the same crew that recently took out Osama bin Laden:
Mr. Hersh is making the revelations at a forum in Minnesota two nights ago. The topic: America’s constitutional crisis. Hersh saying of Mr. Cheney and his inner circle, quote, "They ran a government within the government." Adding, "Eight or nine neoconservatives took over our country." (Link.) (Video at link, too.)
What's Olbermann's take on this "assassination ring" operating now ... and taking out Osama? Congratulations.
Commenter "writer59" (via the Hersh link above) perhaps says it best:
Which is why no one watches or takes these MSNBC shows seriously. They are a joke. Bush---drones, Patriot Act, troop surges, Gitmo, rendition--all BAD! Onscreen countdown of lives lost, constant battering of Bush's character, Code Pink protests, Cindy Sheehan camped out and interviewed endlessly. Obama--drones, Patriot Act, troop surges, Gitmo, rendition--GOOD! He's a hero! No more mention of how many lives lost, no more Code Pink protests, no more Cindy Sheehan interviews.
Elsewhere, giddy "progressives" are anxious to claim that, not only does President Obama deserve all of the credit for nabbing bin Laden, but that so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques weren't even necessary (check the comments) to gather vital intel. Despite the fact that this flies in the face of what numerous past administration officials have claimed, the story of the current anti-terror victory isn't even clear yet.
Even if the current -- and yes, biggest -- nugget of info, the whereabouts of bin Laden, was gathered via more traditional interrogation methods, this doesn't automatically mean that coercive (or "enhanced") methods weren't instrumental in leading up to that point, nor that they weren't vital in getting other vital info, nor (and especially) that it's ineffective period.
This debate will rage on, as it did here with my friend Steve Newton formerly of the blog DE Libertarian. Keep in mind here, the blog title of another former DE blogger, Mike Matthews: "Down With Absolutes."
UPDATE: Uh oh, "progressives": incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "acknowledges (to NBC) information from waterboarded detainees was used to help plan mission at bin Laden's compound."
UPDATE 2: NBC story on the above.
That would be the darling of the American Left (well, during the Bush years), Cindy Sheehan on the "death" of Osama bin Laden:
I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you're stupid. Just think to yourself--they paraded Saddam's dead sons around to prove they were dead--why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent--just put your flags away and THINK!
Sheehan has "absolute moral authority." Remember that. The Left told us so. Now, will the MSM cover her endlessly as she protests the new George W. Bush, aka Barack Obama? That is, if she even does protest.
Via Soccer Dad at the WaPo: Some Muslim scholars say bin Laden’s sea burial violated Islamic traditions.
A radical cleric in Lebanon, Omar Bakri Mohammed, said, “The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don’t think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration.”
An unnamed American responded, "No one should give a flying f*** how Osama bin Laden is buried -- period."
Piggybacking on Duffy's post below, there's much to add to the general euphoria surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden ... except for one thing: The inevitable politicking from both sides. As expected, the LGOMB (that's Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers), especially Jason "Trust Fund" Scott, are bragging that "Obama got the job done where George Bush failed." And then adding, "Suck it, GOP."
Well, it is true -- intelligence under the previous administration was indeed unable to locate and hunt down OBL, while the current one was. All Americans should applaud our current government's efforts and ultimate success in this regard. Only very hardened partisans (on the Right) are nitpicking Obama's decision, and it's coming off as petty. They ought to take a page from Sean Hannity (who happens to be on my radio at present) and laud Obama -- period.
And the very hardened partisans on the Left (like Scott and the LGOMB) ought to cease the gloating and consider the following, idiots that they are: Reports indicate that the needed intelligence to track OBL down and kill him came from enhanced interrogation methods used at ... Guantánamo Bay. Are Scott, the LGOMB, and other far-left nuts as Iowahawk describes below?
Folks like the LGOMB prattled on endlessly about George W. Bush's "war crimes" for authorizing enhanced interrogation methods used in the GWOT (General War on Terror). Yet now ... Barack Obama
Need it be [re]stated that Obama campaigned on just the opposite in 2007 and 2008 -- and that these very promises were a huge factor in getting him elected?
I haven't checked around a whole heck of a lot since getting home from work (work = something that "Trust Fund" Scott has never had to worry about), but the most honest -- and consistent -- far-left assessment I've seen thus far comes from "Nangelator" over Common Sense Political Thought. He writes regarding the fact that OBL's killing was made possible via interrogations at Gitmo:
This is disappointing to me. It’s finding out we won by cheating. Some of the people that would gloat over this would also gloat over a 50% discount at a shop, won by torturing the owner until he relented.
America shouldn’t win by being more evil than the enemy. Or as evil.
Certainly, I do not agree with such a sentiment, not even a little; however, Nangelator often opined quite negatively during the previous administration about the use of enhanced interrogation methods and using Gitmo as a prison in general. And now he's not happy with using these exact things to kill OBL. Like it or not, he's consistent.
Not so, the LGOMB. Their memories are about as functional as their logic and general intellect. All of those strategies that Obama maintained from the Bush administration are now conveniently forgotten, and we get posts by them like this. And gloating at conservative blogs. (Kudos to David Anderson at Delaware Politics for doing what the LGOMB does regularly at their site: severely editing "Trust Fund" Scott's comments there.)
In other words, "Torture? Say what?"
Again, congratulations to President Obama for his courageous decisions, and kudos to all the servicemen and intelligence personnel involved in the operation.
UPDATE: Group that Killed Bin Laden was Smeared (by progressives) as Dick Cheney's 'Assasination Ring.'
Osama's dead. I don't like to dance on graves but today I'll make an exception. I hope he burns in Hell.
That said; yes Obama deserves some of the credit. Going into Pakistan was a bold move. This thing could have gone sideways very easily.
One question: why did he not do this from the Oval Office? Nothing wrong with the East Wing but not what I was expecting.
Some related gallows humor:
How come? There were no black people there. At least as far as the producer and co-host of "The View" are concerned:
The ABC network even found their own all-American William and Kate to marry on air. However, the presenters on the American morning talk show The View marred the celebrations with controversial comments.
Comedian Joy Behar said the Queen had dressed like a 'bumble bee' while comedian Sherri Shepherd asked 'where are all the black people?'
The star said she had earlier searched through the footage of guests at Westminster Abbey.
'Audrey Jones our producer was looking for the black people in the wedding and we found our Rosa Parks moment, because we were like 'where are the black people'?' she said.
'It was like where's Waldo, where are the black people?' she added.
"Rosa Parks moment"?? Is this what we've devolved to?? Yesterday we were told that the Birther movement was worse than the Ku Klux Klan; now, discovering no black folks at the Royal Wedding is akin to a civil rights icon refusing to give up her seat to a white person.