Quote of the Day

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a Latina female..."

- United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - 2001

Actually, Roberts never said that. But imagine the howls from the left if he had. Obama's supreme court nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, did make a similar racist quote...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This nominee is a classic case of the superficial over substance. She was nominated because she is female and a minority, not because she is a good judge. And for the same reason, anyone opposing her will be labelled a racist and a sexist.

Expect this nomination to sail through without a problem.

Read more...

Homosexuals Up In Ams (again)

Once again, homosexuals are sulking and whining about not getting their way. The California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8. Of course, they only got it partly right. They held that Homo marriages that have already taken place will remain legal.

What kind of decision is that? 

If proposition 8 should be upheld (and it should), all marriages in California should be only between a man and a woman. 

Homosexuals are insistent that they have their way on this issue. They want that piece of paper saying they are married. More importantly to them, they want to be able to shut down Churches, businesses and prosecute anyone who disagrees with them. 

What they won't tell you is that a civil union gives them all the rights of marriage. What a civil union does not give them is justification to go after (legally) Churches who teach that homosexuality is wrong. They won't stop until they silence anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Read more...

Is My Blog Being Censored?

I noticed something disturbing as I visited several blogs this morning. It seems that my new posts are not being recorded by "Blogger" on the reading list. I've made 3 posts since yesterday, but the last post that shows on other blogs that list my blog on their reading list is from yesterday morning. 

Maybe the administration has decided that I'm too dangerous. Or perhaps the administrators at "Blogger" are liberals and want to shut me up. 

Or maybe they just have some bugs to work out. 

Whatever the reason, they haven't shut me up. But if this doesn't change, those who might otherwise have an interest in visiting my blog, may not show up. Is this the beginning of the end for me?

Stay tuned.

Read more...

The Trouble With Social Conservatives

Back a while ago, when I was complaining about Republicans who think the GOP has just too darn many religious voters ("funny, so do the Democrats"), I promised I would explain how social conservatives have contributed to this misimpression — and also to their oddly subordinated role within the GOP governing coalition.

It's simple. Social conservatives have had bad models for political action. We've depended on two basic strategies, and neither of them work very well:

1. The Mass-Uprising Model. "The people will rise up and throw off their oppressors spontaneously." Well, it's nice when it happens, but it's hardly a plan, is it?

2. The Secular-Messiah Model: Join with others in the GOP to elect a godly man to office and then expect him to solve all your problems for you. For example, some thought Bush was responsible for failing to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment — at a time when the poor man was 33 percent in the polls. Gay-rights groups don't behave like this. They understand it's their job to make it easy for politicians to do what they ask, not the other way around.

Social conservatives simply have not been in politics. We lack institutions that can defeat our enemies and directly assist our friends.

After a while, threatening to leave the coalition unless the coalition does what you want gets old. And tiring. And ineffective. It makes your allies not like you very much. Social conservatives talk like that because it's our one lever of power. 

Time to get some new levers.

Read more...

Bawney Fwank Lies About ACORN

House Financial Services Committee chairman Bawney Fwank (D-Massachusetts) lied to Lou Dobbs on national television the other night but no one seems to have noticed.

On the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said she was worried about the fact that ACORN and other organizations would "have access potentially to $8.5 billion" in federal funds.

ACORN, which Bachmann noted has received about $53 million in federal money since the early 1990s, has "a pattern of indictment for voter fraud," she said. "It's very concerning. No organization has a right to federal taxpayer money."

During the heated discussion that followed, longtime ACORN ally Fwank said, "the notion that they're eligible for $8 billion is nonsense." A moment later Frank, who appeared last year in one of the group'spromotional videos on YouTube called "ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign," repeated his mantra.

"But it's not $8 billion," he said.

Read the whole scoop here from the writer who came up with the $8 Billion figure.

Read more...

Men Arrested In Terrorist Plot

As part of a holy war against America, four men sought to commit jihad when they plotted to bomb a synagogue and shoot down military planes in upstate New York, the New York City police commissioner said Thursday.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters outside the Bronx synagogue Thursday that one of the men said, "If Jews were killed in this attack … that would be all right."

Kelly said the men allegedly "wanted to commit Jihad" and were angry about Muslims being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The defendants — James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen — were charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, the U.S. attorney's office said. The men, all of Newburgh, are due in federal court on Thursday in White Plains.

Officials said three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent. An official told The Associated Press that three of the men are converts to Islam. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss details of the investigation.

The defendants had allegedly planned to detonate a car with plastic explosives outside the Riverdale Temple and the Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx. They also allegedly sought to shoot military planes at the New York National Guard base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh with Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles.

"They stated that they wanted to commit Jihad," Kelly said. "They were disturbed about what happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that Muslims were being killed."

Asked why the suspects chose to target a synagogue and Jewish center in the Bronx's Riverdale section, Kelly alluded to the proximity to highways, saying it could have been a fast getaway for the suspects. (An aside: I wonder what idiot asked the question about why they were targeting a synagogue. They hate Jews. it's that simple. But, I guess we can't put that into print.)

The defendants planned to "destroy a synagogue and a Jewish community center with C-4 plastic explosives," acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said.

Bloomberg said the alleged plot shows "that the homeland security threats against New York City are sadly all too real and underscores why we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent terrorism."

The muslim population worldwide, and in the U.S. in particular, is growing rapidly. Muslims believe they have an obligation to convert everyone and to kill anyone who doesn't convert. They also believe that any attack on any muslim anywhere is a "holy war." Expect this sort of thing to grow both here and abroad. Expect, also, some of these folks to succeed. We aren't going to catch them all, particularly now that we have chosen to go after right wing extremists, instead.

I have an idea ... Let's close down Gitmo and release more terrorists onto U.S. soil. Whaddya think?

Read more...

Iran Launches New Missile

U.S. government officials are confirming that Iran launched a missile earlier today.

One official says it appears the test was a success -- that is, that Tehran succeeded in launching a medium-range missile.

A second official said only that the U.S. was able to detect the launch and was looking further into details. They both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Tehran says it test-fired a new advanced missile with a range of about 1,200 miles, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. Mideast bases.

Obama needs to be wary of Ahmadinijahd. The two of them are peas in a pod. Both are willing to talk about peace and common ground. Both express a desire to meet with political and ideological opponents to discuss issues, all the while planning to further their own agenda. The big difference is that Obama's agenda is a socialist and radical left political agenda, while Ahmadinijahd's agenda is to wipe Israel, Western Europe and America off the face of the earth.

Very little room for common ground, there.

Obama is scheduled to meet with Israeli leaders shortly, and is expected to ask them for patience and to announce to Him before any military action is taken.

When the U.S. had Israel's back (just a few short months ago), Israel probably would have given us what we wanted, as long as the request was reasonable. Now, Israel is pretty much on its own and will have to look out for itself. The Israeli leaders may put everything on the table for discussion with Obama, but don't expect them to wait for the U.S. to help out before they defend themselves.

Ahmadinijihad has little to worry about from Obama. Israel is a different story.

Read more...

Obama Doublespeak

David Limbaugh writes:

With due respect to the millions who adore President Barack Obama, I just don't understand what causes people to hear only his lofty rhetoric and appeals for unity while turning a deaf ear to his polarizing language and actions, for example, on the subject of abortion.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he seemed determined to address every issue from the perspective of achieving some kind of common ground. We'll give a little bit of this to liberals and a little bit of that to conservatives and all live happily ever after.

I'm sorry, but I believe Obama calculatingly employs this approach mainly as a smoke screen to hide his real agenda, which resides anywhere but on common ground. He specializes in paying superficial respect to his opponents' arguments while proceeding to bury them. The examples are endless.

He calls forced union membership "free choice." He masquerades as a fiscal disciplinarian while authoring nationally bankrupting budgets in perpetuity.

He endorses capitalism as a superior economic system while undermining it with other words and actions. He condemns it as "unfair" and decries achievers as "selfish" and "greedy." He's set on restructuring our economy away from the free market and toward government control, from taking over private businesses to setting executive salaries to subsidizing mortgages to nationalizing health care. But he knows better than to condemn capitalism outright, because if he did, the American people finally would wise up to his endgame.

He tells us his decision to continue using military tribunals to adjudicate terrorists is not a flip-flop because he has put new protections in place. This will fool the uninitiated, but experts, such as Andy McCarthy, have shown these changes are merely cosmetic, designed to provide Obama political cover to conceal his flagrant reversal. And they talked about President George W. Bush's unwillingness to admit his mistakes!

In his speech at the University of Notre Dame, Obama said he doesn't believe people should demonize those holding opposing views and that each group can "make its case to the public with passion and conviction ... without reducing those with differing views to caricature." But is that the spirit he and his colleagues exhibited at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner? Is that the spirit he demonstrated on the White House Web site when he "caricatured" all pro-lifers as "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose"?

Yes, he said he changed that language on the Web site, but he also said he had not changed his position. That is where his heart is; that is what he believes. He certainly changes his outward language when necessary to be less incendiary and appear less extreme, but there is no evidence he's changed his convictions regarding the people who disagree with him on this issue -- some 51 percent, by the way, according to the most recent poll.

Indeed, I think his duplicity is most pronounced on the issue of abortion. On the one hand, he champions a mother's right to destroy her baby in the womb, presumably believing it is not a human life. But on the other, he says the decision of whether to abort has both moral and spiritual dimensions. But if the unborn is not a human life, what moral or spiritual components are involved?

Truth be told, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Obama, like other extreme pro-abortion advocates, doesn't care much whether the unborn is a human life, because he has strongly endorsed partial-birth abortion, which occurs at a stage at which even the most morally darkened soul couldn't deny the baby is fully human. And he argued passionately against Illinois legislation that would have provided for medical protection to babies already born as a result of failed abortions.

He says he wants to "honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion," yet he reportedly intends to reverse a Bush regulation to protect health care professionals who refuse, as a matter of conscience, to perform abortions.

He says he wants to work together to reduce abortions but has signed an executive order restoring funding for overseas abortion providers, which will necessarily increase abortions. So will his appointing judges who will uphold Roe v. Wade and continue preventing states from democratically deciding this issue. Neither act is a demonstration of respect for the opposing view or an avenue toward common ground.

The only ground Obama will join us on is the real estate on which he is standing, firmly and immovably, especially on abortion. He understands that ultimately there can be no common ground about the life of a baby. Those purporting to lobby for it are demanding that we turn the wisdom of Solomon on its head and split the baby in half -- literally.

Obama won't talk straight about the horrors of abortion -- or most of the rest of his agenda -- because if exposed to the disinfecting light of day, it would be stopped dead in its tracks.

Read more...

I Know How She Feels

Just ask Jessica Biel, who despite her stunning looks, perfect figure and hot boyfriend, says Hollywood discriminates.

In a new interview with Allure magazine, on newsstands May 26, the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” actress says that being too good-looking can be a problem for an actress.

“It really is a problem, I have to be blunt,” she says. “I just want an opportunity. If you don’t like the audition, then don’t hire me. But if you don’t want to see me, that’s hurtful.”

I know just how you feel Jessica.  I run into that problem, too.  Me, you and Timothy Geithner (according to People.)  We carry a heavy load.

(Just thought everyone needed a laugh on this slow news day.)

Read more...

Someone Obama Will NOT Meet With

Obama has had an extended sit down meeting with Hugo Chavez. Obama has met with Castro. Obama is getting ready to meet with Ahmadininameisunpronouncable. But even Barack Obama has to draw a line in the sand. There are some people Obama simply will not meet with.

Take Nevada Governor jim Gibbons, for example. Next week, Obama will be in Vegas for a fundraiser for Senate majority leader Harry Reid at Caesars Palace. Gibbons contacted the White House requesting a meeting to discuss statements made by Obama that could be viewed as detrimental to Nevada's economy. Obama has refused to meet with him.

Understand that Obama will already be in Nevada. Understand that the Governor is willing to come to Him for a meeting. This doesn't affect Obama's schedule or take him out of the way.

Even though Obama has time to meet with terrorists, fascists and socialists, do you think he has time to meet with an elected governor of one of our states? Nyet!

"I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this administration," Gibbons said. "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments. President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid. Apparently our money is good enough for the president, but our tourism, jobs and economic future are not. This is politics, pure and simple. President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada."

Obama's quote that "you can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime" was seen as an insult to Las Vegas and a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions if they wanted to deal with the administration for anything.

Read more...

What's The Matter With California?

Just a few years ago there was a NY Times bestseller by Thomas Frank called "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

The premise was: What's the deal with these God-believing, flyover, know-nothings in flat-old Kansas? Why do they vote for the GOP, which doesn't do anything to help the backwards little guy?

Fast forward just a few years and the story is almost exactly the opposite. The once-thriving, liberal coastal states are now on the verge of bankruptcy (especially California, but also New York to a lesser extent) and boring-old Kansas with its un-dynamic, real economy has avoided the worst ravages of the collapse. (Trust me on this. I live in Kansas. The economic downturn that has affected most of the country over the past year has had very little effect on our state, whether you talk property values, unemployment, state budget or whatever.)

Energy analyst Gregor MacDonald takes a crack at the question today, focusing on resource constraints, the crippling car culture along the coasts, the mess with offshore oil and the high cost of feeding the inland agriculture industry with enough fresh and clean water.

Then there's politics.

There have been several good post-mortems of the horrible mess made by Arnold Schwarzenegger, his unwillingness to reign in Legislature spending, and his belief that rising real estate taxes would allow the state to spend forever.

George Will writes in the Washington Post (via CrossingWallStreet):

Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had, people and businesses have been relocating to those states. For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California's business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state's. In the past decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is.

If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than thebudgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent.

Both Reason and The National Review have brought the long knives for Schwarzenegger, as well, in recent months. Yes, it's political stuff, but when you've got The National Review slamming the guy who gave a major address at the 2004 National Convention, it's not particularly partisan.

The point is: California is a horrendous mess, and it means big trouble for the rest of the country.

The state is clearly too big to fail, so the ongoing financial destruction will probably fall onto US taxpayers. But beyond that, California is home to our most competitive, innovative industries, our most extreme immigration policies, as well as, notes Gregor, some of our most vexing energy and auto issues. It isn't ridiculous to surmise that as goes California, so goes the nation.

While wondering what the matter was with Kansas was amusing cocktail chatter for New Yorker readers a ew years ago, figuring out the matter with California is a matter of huge concern.

Read more...

Michelle: Give Something Back

In case you missed it, first lady Michelle Obama, spoke at the graduation of California's smallest and youngest public institution. Her message to the graduating seniors was an urge for them to give something back to their community.

"Many of you may be considering leaving town with your diploma in hand, and it wouldn't be unreasonable. By using what you've learned here you can shorten the path perhaps for kids who may not see a path at all. I was once one of those kids," she said. "Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future."

Give as she says, not as she gives.

In 2000 through 2004, Barack Obama and his wife gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned to charities. Less than 1 percent, for those of you who were reaching for a calculator.

Maybe that's because Michelle O wasn't "proud" of her country back then. Or maybe it's because, like most democrats, what she says doesn't match up very well with what she does.

Just ask Turbo Tax Tim Geithner, who wants to catch tax cheats.

Read more...