Linda Chavez put forward this proposal in a column to in contrast to the proposal floated by the Democrats.

Why not give every man, woman, and child in the United States $3,000 to spend on pretty much anything they choose. The price tag would be about $900 billion, barely more than what is in the House package now. But unlike the Democrats' plan, which has government making the decision about how the money should be spent, people would get to decide for themselves.

There'd be no limits on who could receive the money -- a rich man would get the same three grand that a poor woman or child received. The program isn't intended to redistribute wealth, but to infuse the economy with cash. The only rule that would apply is that the money would have to be spent within a certain period of time, say 18 months. In addition, most of the money would have to be spent on buying things: payment toward a new or used car, down payment on a home, some new appliances, home remodeling, clothes, electronics, or even a vacation. Hey, you could even use it to put solar panels on your roof or erect a windmill in your background if that's what you wanted. But only a portion of the money could go to paying down credit card or current mortgage debt -- say, a third -- and then only if the person was already two months in arrears in their payments.

In order to keep this cash distribution about as simple as possible but still allow the money to be tracked so that we know that people are actually buying stuff not hording the money in their bank accounts, the government would disperse it in the form of debit cards linked to the individual's Social Security number. The government could surely subcontract this out to one of the large credit card companies for a small administrative fee charged to the cardholder, similar to what some companies charge now for gift cards. And recipients would receive a statement that they would have to submit with their tax return within the time period to ensure they played by the rules.

While I prefer this idea of putting money in the hands of the people, I don’t know that I like the idea of a government bureaucracy tracking our spending and telling us how we can spend money that is, essentially, our money. But the idea did get me to thinking, and I have an idea that just might work – and would have the advantage of bailing out both banks AND people, while putting money in the hands of people to spend.

What, you may ask, is the idea? Well, it came to me when I encountered this statistic quite by chance.

Revolving credit in November stood at approximately $973.5 billion and was falling at a 3.4 percent annual rate.
Bank credit card debt, except from credit cards from gas stations and stores, comprised 85 percent of total revolving credit, or $830 billion.

My proposal? Pay off all that consumer debt. After all, the total is approximately the amount that was to be spent under the stimulus plan. Instead of sending it to various special constituencies for projects that wonÂ’t be implemented for months or years, spend every penny of it right now. What would the result be? In effect, putting the total amount of individual monthly credit card payments in the pockets of real people immediately, and for every foreseeable month. After all, many Americans would find themselves with an extra $300 or more in disposable income EVERY MONTH.

Now some might argue that this unfairly rewards those who spent too much and incurred debt while doing nothing for those who remained debt free. I’ll agree that there is a disparity – but is it any less fair than giving cash to businesses and groups that were unwise in their business practices or are politically well-connected? And more to the point, a direct bailout of average Americans does two things – it not only allows the Americans whose spending is most encumbered to spend, but it has the effect of putting more money in the hands of financial institutions to lend by taking nearly $1 trillion off in loans off the books of banks, freeing that money up for loans to business and consumers. That would further encourage spending, which would require additional production and additional jobs.

Mind you, I donÂ’t like bailouts as a matter of principal. I donÂ’t favor government give-aways. But if we are going to have one, letÂ’s have one that directly benefits the average American and which will have the added benefit of working to stimulate economic growth immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

1 My plan is similar in that the money would be spent at the individual level rather than by government; however, mine would be constitutionally legal and so simple. Do away with income tax for a few months and instead of waiting until the end of the tax year, individuals would have that money since it would not be taken out as withholding on their weekly or monthly check. Those not working would not get any benefit so it would be a step in the right direction. Those working here illegally and who get paid cash under the table wouldn't benefit either, another step in the right direction. Government will still print money faster than a hostile New York cab driver can honk his horn so they won't have justification for hollering at the loss of tax revenue. What do you think?

Posted by: T F Stern at Sat Jan 31 02:39:12 2009 (Ruh11)

2 Oh, why not? It would work just as well as anything else. And since both Blue Guys and Red Guys just don't give a gosh darn about spending....

Posted by: Ms Cornelius at Sun Feb 1 09:42:27 2009 (VA5bl)

3 pvljljqq kgdexryucqkbw yob

Posted by: Tilngqjy at Sat Feb 7 01:58:44 2009 (tPIn/)

4 ttktfrbv 43873ahfzpkjg :]]

Posted by: Uqboeeln at Sat Feb 7 05:01:47 2009 (GxAro)

5 , pyfzdxey, 29768, subyjdaf, :-]]], yokzfifm, krqyim, iexzgspj, 8945, tjqcdvky, qvsar, jdhintkw, 095,

Posted by: Imqsgmjk at Fri May 1 05:42:40 2009 (QgiFH)

6 sop, uzdmsiae, > , fuqdtgpa, 568712, lvfghvri, hwtosd,

Posted by: Hmlnuvvw at Wed Oct 7 10:53:49 2009 (nUgwk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An essential part of liberty is the right of freedom of association, which carries with it the right to not associate. The right to freely associate is a part of the basis for the existence of labor unions and for legislation which requires that businesses negotiate with labor unions formed by their employees. But workers do have the right to choose to not unionize, or to decertify a union which they feel no longer represents their best interests.

Former President George W. Bush had done a great service to workers unhappy with union representation by issuing an executive order which interpreted labor law as permitting employers to tell workers that they had that right. Union bosses, needless to say, did not like that, because it meant that they actually had to give a damn if their members (often forced to join due to union shop regulations) were happy with the representation or not. Overturning that regulation was among their high priorities – and today they got Barry Hussein to silence employers so that employees remain ignorant to their rights under federal law.

President Obama plans Friday to reverse an executive order allowing unionized companies to post signs alerting employees that they are allowed to leave unions.

Critics of the order said that while unionized shops were allowed to let workers know they could de-unionize, non-unionized shops were not required to post information telling employees they could unionize.

Now I’ve got a real problem with this move by Obama, and it boils down to this. The Bush order permitted, but did not require, employers to engage in true speech regarding the legal rights of employees, while this new action prohibits such true speech based upon the objection of labor bosses that the old order did not compel (not permit, require) employer speech about the right to unionize. This seems to fly in the face of the First Amendment, as government is regulating the content of speech about activities that are legal. If this regulation were to ban false speech, I’d argue for it – but even Obama and the union bosses acknowledge that the speech which is now banned was not false, not coercive, and not encouraging illegal activity. Rather, it is an explicit attempt to tip the scale in favor of one side of the business/labor equation. As such, I’d argue that the new policy is not merely unconstitutional

Ed Morrissey also makes this observation about the regulation:

Remember when Barack Obama and his administration tried excusing the rescinding of the Mexico City policy on the basis of free speech and keeping women well informed of their medical choices? Apparently, Obama has less concern over American workers than foreign women.

* * *

So American workers should not know that they have the right to de-unionize? Obama wants to keep Americans in closed shops ignorant of their choices? Keep ‘em barefoot and enlslaved to the Union Boss Bills of the world?

In other words, Obama is pro-choice on abortion and no-choice on unions. Or, from another perspective, he wants as much money extracted from the paychecks of productive Americans as he can manage in order to pay for favored liberal causes (abortion, unionism) – even if those made to pay don’t believe in or want the “service” provided in the name of liberalism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Gateway Pundit has a neat story up about Kurt and Brenda Warner – but unfortunately it is not accurate. Here’s his original.

In a supermarket, Kurtis the stock boy, was busily working when a new voice came over the loud speaker asking for a carry out at register 4. Kurtis was almost finished, and wanted to get some fresh air, and decided to answer the call. As he approached the check-out stand a distant smile caught his eye, the new check-out girl was beautiful. She was an older woman (maybe 26, and he was only 22) and he fell in love.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1770 words, total size 11 kb.

Disgusting. Treasonous. Just plain evil.

Since 1997, Harold Nicholson has been locked in a federal prison in Oregon, the highest-ranking officer of the Central Intelligence Agency ever convicted of espionage.

But even as federal inmate No. 49535-083, Mr. Nicholson never really retired as a Russian spy, federal prosecutors say. In an indictment unsealed Thursday, Mr. Nicholson and his 24-year-old son, Nathan, were charged with using jailhouse visits, coded letters and clandestine overseas meetings to sell more secrets to the Russians over the last three years, in a scheme Mr. Nicholson hatched from his prison cell.

“You have been brave enough to step into this new unseen world that is sometimes dangerous but always fascinating,” Harold Nicholson wrote to his son last July, the indictment says, in what was apparently an reference to the scheme.

The Nicholsons pleaded not guilty on Thursday in federal court in Portland, Ore., and the public defenderÂ’s office was appointed to represent them.

The elder Mr. Nicholson pleaded guilty in 1997 to selling the Russians identities of fellow C.I.A. officers. Prosecutors said he “trained and tasked” his son in spycraft from his cell beginning in 2006, and helped the son meet Russian handlers in Mexico, Peru and Cyprus to pass on information intended to help Russian agents evade detection, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said Nathan Nicholson, a former Army paratrooper, had returned from his visits with the Russians with at least $35,000 in cash, some of it in a PlayStation video game case. The money was intended in part to settle a “pension” that Harold Nicholson said was owed him from his days as a C.I.A. spy for the Russians before his arrest in 1996, the prosecutors said.

The elder Nicholson should have gotten a life sentence the first time around, not a plea bargain that netted him only 23 years. The time is here now to lock both father and son in the deepest, darkest hole in the US prison system (if not Gitmo) forever. Too bad we canÂ’t apply the Rosenberg treatment to them, as I believe should be done with all Americans who betray the US by engaging in espionage against our country.

And may I make a special note for those who have speciously accused me of anti-Semitism for opposing a pardon for the spy Jonathon Pollard – I apply the exact same standard to these two Christian traitors who sold-out to Russia as I apply to the Jewish traitor Pollard who sold-out to Israel.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Barry Hussein is a moron -- if we apply the same standard to him that was applied to his predecessor.

Remember -- George W. Bush was labeled an idiot when he attempted to open a locked door (the unlocked door was on the other side of the stage) -- how much dumber must Comrade Hope'N'Change be if he can't tell the difference between a door and a window?

And how "in the tank" is the MSM for not giving this story the same sort of play they gave the door story? Gateway Pundit notes it is somewhere around a factor of 10,000-to-1.

My question -- why didn't Obamessiah simply use his miraculous powers to turn the window into a door?

H/T Don Surber, Patterico

Posted by: Greg at 08:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

That would be my reaction to this sign.

It is real – the result of hackers.

Transportation officials in Texas are scrambling to prevent hackers from changing messages on digital road signs after one sign in Austin was altered to read, "Zombies Ahead."

Chris Lippincott, director of media relations for the Texas Department of Transportation, confirmed that a portable traffic sign at Lamar Boulevard and West 15th Street, near the University of Texas at Austin, was hacked into during the early hours of Jan. 19.

"It was clever, kind of cute, but not what it was intended for," said Lippincott, who saw the sign during his morning commute. "Those signs are deployed for a reason — to improve traffic conditions, let folks know there's a road closure."
"It's sort of amusing, but not at all helpful," he told FOXNews.com.

So yes, it was a hoax – not the herd of Hope’N’Change addicts in search of the Obamessiah.

Posted by: Greg at 09:17 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

The census comes in 2010 – and will be followed by reapportionment and redistricting in time for the 2012 elections. That may bode well for the GOP, as it is red states that will be gaining seats and blue that lose.

The 2010 census could add multiple House seats to red-leaning states — as many as four districts to Texas and two each to Arizona and Florida. And it could subtract seats from blue-trending states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Most of the states slated to gain seats in reapportionment next cycle feature Republican-controlled state legislatures and governor’s mansions — the powerhouses that decide how to allocate congressional districts.

Now let’s be honest – there is no way that all of the seats gained in Texas will be GOP seats. I’d expect at least one to be solidly Democrat. But the reality is that that this seat will be created by peeling Democrat voters from some marginally Democrat districts – making them more competitive for the GOP. And since the GOP is likely to maintain control of both the legislature and the governor’s mansion in 2010, it will be Republicans who will be in the driver’s seat for drawing the new districts. Something similar will be true in Arizona and Florida.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times today illustrates one of the more dishonest tactics used in any discussion of issues of civil rights today – indeed, a dishonest tactic that has long been used to discredit opponents of a given piece of legislation by so-called supporters of civil rights. In this case, the tactic is used with regard to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck fairness Act. Here’s how.

The new president can play a useful role in helping to rally Senate Democrats not to rest on their Ledbetter laurels and to persuade Republicans to come on board. In the House, only three Republicans voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In the Senate, five did. By now, Republican opposition to civil rights and pay equity is not surprising. That makes it all the sadder.

Do you see it? It is right there in the second-to-last sentence. The editorial writer has defined opposition to a particular piece of legislation as opposition to civil rights and fairness. And that, my friends, is an act of unfairness and dishonesty.

After all, is animus towards civil rights and fairness the only possible reason for opposing these particular pieces of legislation? Could it be that there are flaws in the well-intentioned pieces of legislation that make some question whether their adoption is wise if those flaws are not corrected? Could it be that there are other pieces of legislation that might address the issue in a way that particular legislators prefer? In such cases, might not a negative vote represent service of the public interest rather than opposition to civil rights and fair pay? After all, the mere tagging of a piece of legislation with the words “civil rights” or “fairness” does not necessarily make it the only vehicle for advancing those agendas..

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Normally I prefer to see a federalist solution to most problems, with issues resolved on the state level. However, some issues are, by their nature, federal questions because of their serious impact upon interstate commerce. ThatÂ’s why I fundamentally disagree with the Houston ChronicleÂ’s Nick AndersonÂ’s position in this editorial cartoon.

Here’s the problem – the automobile industry is not one that operates on the local level. It is clearly a national industry, and automobiles both move in interstate commerce and are regularly transported between states. The result of allowing environmental standards to be set on the state level is that the auto industry will have 50 different standards to deal with, potentially necessitating 50 different versions of each and every car due to the need to meet the emissions standards of each state. It is not feasible, and would undermine the already troubled auto industry even further. On the other hand, we could also see the standard of one state become the de facto national standard. Should Vermont or Rhode Island or California, for example, dictate the environmental standards for all 50 states, effectively giving them control over what products may be offered nationwide – a clear matter impacting interstate commerce? For that reason, the matter of automobile emissions standards is one that should be dealt with on the national level rather than the state level – it isn’t a question of rejecting federalism, but rather one of understanding which level a question is most properly handled upon. The Neophyte-In-Chief should have understood and not undone the Bush Administration policy on the matter.

And I'm not alone in this -- just ask Michigan's liberal Democrat Senator Carl Levin.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

When a prosecution witness and a juror are doing the horizontal mambo, it seems to me that you there exists a significant reason for a do-over. And if it is an investigator and a witness? Well, the conflict is different, but it certainly provides enough of a taint to warrant overturning a conviction.

Attorneys for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) have accused an FBI agent involved in the Stevens corruption investigation of having an inappropriate relationship with a key witness in the case.

Based on a complaint by an FBI whistleblower, Agent Chad Joy, the Stevens defense team claims that Mary Beth Kepner, the lead FBI agent on the case, had a personal relationship with Bill Allen, the CEO of an Alaska oil services firm and a witness against Stevens.

Stevens’ lawyers state that Joy’s memo “strongly suggests that the inappropriate relationship was sexual.” Joy stated that Kepner “wore a skirt for Allen” on a day that he was to testify in the case.

Joy also charges that Kepner may have provided secret grand jury information to Allen about other ongoing federal investigations.

I agree with Ed Morrissey on this one:

The affair may be the lesser of the concerns prosecutors have over this motion. Joy informed the prosecution of the relationship on or before December 2nd, but did not reveal it to the court on that day. That could represent prosecutorial misconduct if the judge rules that the information was relevant and germane to the defense — and it’s hard to argue that a sexual relationship between a key witness and an FBI agent wouldn’t go to credibility.

The entire Stevens case was marked with assorted irregularities by the prosecution. Justice is a good thing – but I’m starting to wonder if what was done in this case was not justice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Over the weekend, I made my first purchase from Circuit City in over three years. The prices were OK – but not the sort of bargains that so many folks seem to be expecting. I bought a camera for my computer at just a couple bucks less than what I would have paid across the street, and a game program that was enough of a bargain that I was willing to drop some cash on it. But otherwise, my wife and I simply walked away feeling the same way described in this article.

As Circuit City fades into history, the electronics chain is teaching shoppers that a liquidation sale does not necessarily translate to bargains.
ThereÂ’s no question the shelves are emptying, but some shoppers have been walking out empty-handed.

“I wanted to see what the sales were like,” said David Woods, a power plant operator, who left the Galleria-area store without buying anything. The discounts, mostly 10 percent to 30 percent off, didn’t impress him.
“You can get that online,” he said.

The problem, in my book, is that Circuit City rarely had prices that were competitive with the other places I shop. Therefore the discounts just are not that impressive.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Too early to tell if the numbers are in free-fall -- but this is a mighty significant drop in less than six days.

BARACK ObamaÂ’s approval ratings have nosedived by 15 points after only six days in office, according to a new poll.

The Gallup poll shows that reality is setting in for the new US President after the euphoria that greeted his inauguration last Tuesday.

But his ratings still stand at an impressive 68 per cent despite the fall.

Granted, 68% is nothing to sneeze at, but it is not the 80+ points of a week ago. And while nobody expected the numbers to stay so high, I don't think anyone thought there would be such a precipitous fall.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

All part of the African version of the Taliban, out to stir up more Islamist terror.

Eleven youths suspected of being trained with the hardline Islamist group of Al-Shabaab in the south-central Somalia were arrested. The youths reportedly arrived from Mogadishu to Hargeisaand had lived in the United States.

And

Somaliland security forces arrested five people after they raided a house in Hargeisa. The suspects consist of four men who are said to be from the United States and a woman from Mogadishu, all five suspects were taken into custody yesterday.

Local newspapers reported today that the woman who came from Mogadishu rented a villa in Hargeisa days before the four men arrived from the US. Members of the security forces had received a tip about the terrorist suspects and were ready to move in and arrest them.

Seems to me that we have a terrorist problem right here at home. What does the Obama Administration intend to do about it?

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

One more example of how Islamists have managed to impose their values on the West, rather than assimilating.

A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. WildersÂ’ opinions with him.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

Seems to me that what you have here is that a Muslim has been allowed to impose his values on what other members of the House of Lords may discuss and who they may meet with. Seems to me that this is antithetical to the values that Great Britain used to stand for – but then again, maybe allowing so many Muslims into the UK has weakened the sterner stuff of which the British were once made, resulting in a Britain that is significantly less great than in former days.

On a related note, Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer have a great piece in National Review on the threat to freedom of speech from those who, like Lord Ahmed, would suppress free speech when it is critical of Islam.

If Geert Wilders is silenced, all those who oppose attempts to impose Islamic legal norms upon the West will be silenced also. European nations and the United States should stop appeasing Islam and start fighting together against the rapidly increasing Islamization of Europe. This is a struggle for human rights and human dignity, and for the great heritage of Western civilization that has given so many things to the world, yet whose children and heirs seem curiously embarrassed and reluctant to defend it.

Enough is enough. We must defend our freedom, or we will most certainly lose it.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Posted by: Greg at 09:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Apparently the nationÂ’s cartoonists are having a hard time drawing our new president.

During the presidential campaign, cartoonists frequently homed in on Obama's measured temperament, with more critical strips caricaturing him as cold and aloof. More often than not, though, drawings were complimentary. One showed him mending a Constitution shredded by Bush, and another depicted him as a symbol of 1960s civil rights struggles. Cartoons regularly portrayed Obama as rail-thin with big ears or playing basketball (one of his passions) or placed him in a pantheon with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln.

Oliphant complained that Obama's physical features don't naturally lend themselves to caricature.

"With Bush, you had that general vacuity -- those blanked-out eyes and those goofy expressions. As for Obama, Thank God for his ears. A good-looking president isn't good for cartooning."

Actually, I see two problems.

First, these guys are generally for Obama – they really don’t want to make him an object of ridicule, despite their claims that they are not going to go easy on him. After all, there is plenty to caricature in the “nose-in-the-air, superior-to-you-in-every-way” pose that he so often takes.

But beyond that, these guys have to be careful. If they get too tough on him, we know the usual response – RRRRAAAACCCCIIIISSSSMMMM!!!!

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Here are the most recent winners.

Council Submissions

• First place with 2 1/3 points! - The Colossus of Rhodey - The entertainment of moral ambiguity


• Second place with 1 2/3 points - (T*) - Joshuapundit - Israel Capitulates


• Second place with 1 2/3 points - (T*) - Mere Rhetoric - IÂ’m Going To Miss Westminster Abbey - Britain Hands Itself Over To Radical Islam, Blames Israel


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - (T*) - The Provocateur - The Insider Story of ACORN


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - (T*) - The Glittering Eye - Fallacy of Composition


• Fourth place with 1 points - Rhymes With Right - And Where Does He Get His Life Back?


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Bookworm Room - The Inspirational President


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Soccer Dad - Teaching Thomas

Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 1/3 points! - Robert Avrech/Big Hollywood - The Real Battle Of Algiers, Part 2


• Second place with 1 2/3 points - Armed and Dangerous - Gramscian Damage


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - Daled Amos - Did Monty Python Negotiate IsraelÂ’s Ceasefire?


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - Pajamas Media - We Have Overcome Today


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - Middle East Forum - Syria CanÂ’t Be Flipped


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - BookForum.com - Onward and Downward


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - Jeff JacobyÂ’s Pundicity - Questions for ObamaÂ’s science guy


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - Badger Blogger - A call to action for Wisconsin conservatives

  Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
  Post contains 276 words, total size 5 kb.

  Hide Comments | Add Comment

This time it is un-funny faux intellectual Jon Stewart, who spent the last several years making money off of rooting for George W. Bush to fail.

So let's get this straight -- opposing Comrade Hope'N'Change and his moves toward socialism is "arguably treasonous", but engaging in 9/11Trutherism and hoping that anti-American terrorists defeat US troops in the field is patriotic. I don't know about you, but I'm sure confused, especially since I know what the Constitution says about treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Limbaugh has done nothing of the sort. Can the same be said of Code pink and much of the rest of the anti-war left?

H/T NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

You know, I love a good burger -- but this might just be taking the idea a little bit too far.

An 8,000 calorie burger? My arteries are hardening just considering the concept! Still, let's be honest -- it does look REALLY good.

So, if you ever find yourself in Chandler, Arizona, this might just be the place to drop in for a bite.

(And are there any restaurant entrepreneurs interested in bringing this concept to Houston?)

H/T Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

During Israel's incursion into Gaza to stop missile attacks on civilians, we heard a lot of reports that made it sound as if not one stone was being left upon another in Gaza. Indeed, one of the worst perpetrators was the New York Times. That's why I find this little tidbit in an article today to be fascinating.

Most of Gaza, especially the capital, Gaza City, remains largely intact. This is not Grozny after the Chechen war or Dresden after World War II. The hospitals are coping; shops are reopening; traffic is becoming a problem once again. Israel has tripled the amount of goods flowing in here since before the war.

In other words, Israel went to great lengths to avoid areas that were not being used by Hamas for military purposes. Israel did not engage in indiscriminate attacks upon the whole of Gaza. And only now, after shilling for the terrorists, does the new York Times bother to tell us that. Sure doesn't sound like Nazi-style genocide to me.

H/T Commentary's Contentions

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who knowingly hire illegal aliens are as guilty as the illegals themselves. That's why I fully support moves like this.

Seven executives and managers at IFCO, a Houston-based pallet company, were charged Friday with conspiring between 2003 and 2006 to harbor illegal immigrants.

In April 2006, immigration agents raided 40 IFCO pallet plants in 26 states and detained 1,182 undocumented workers. Two of the seven officials charged Friday were Spring residents Christopher Tiesman, 40, the senior vice president of finance and accounting; and Kenneth Gines Jr., 51, controller for pallet services.

Tiesman and Gines, along with two other top-level IFCO executives, are charged “in a related conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration by submitting false payroll-related information to those agencies, and to facilitate the misuse of Social Security numbers by IFCO employees,” said a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Albany, N.Y.

Bock'em, Danno!

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

It being the Age of Obama, the notion that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is now out of fashion on the Left. First Chris Matthews, and now Leonard Pitts have gone so far as to declare Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic over his statement that he hopes Obama fails as president.

"I hope he fails.''

Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous; about Bill Clinton, who was slimy; about Jimmy Carter, who was inept; about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he's going to fail, yes. You may warn he's going to fail, yes.

But do you ever hope he fails? Knowing his failure is the country's failure? Isn't that, well . . . disloyal?

The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.

That's a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.

Excuse me, Leonard, but where have you been for the last eight years? I've not heard so much as a peep of outrage from you as your fellow denizens of the Left have questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush as president, peddled conspiracy theories involving him, spewed endless accusations against him, and even stated that America deserved anything it got from terrorists. You never once questioned their loyalty -- indeed, you joined them in attacking President Bush at every opportunity, reveling in the notion that your dissent was indeed patriotic.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot, and you see fit to question the patriotism of Rush Limbaugh for hoping that Barack Obama fails after being a willing part of the movement that sought to make George W. Bush fail. Dare I point to the hypocrisy of your words, sir? Dare you own that hypocrisy?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Need a house? Well, in many ways this is a great time to be buying, if you are economically secure. That said, looking for a new place can be daunting, especially if you are looking to relocate to a new city. That is where the internet can be your best ally. For example, if you are moving to Austin, there is a great website called HomeCity that offers you the ability to check out some of the many great real estate offerings in the capital of Texas. Their site is well organized and user friendly. So for help buying Austin real estate, make sure you check out HomeCity!

Posted by: Greg at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

This product is simply creepy -- in a Cultural Revolution sort of way.

Printed in a size that easily fits into pocket or purse, this book is an anthology of quotations borrowed from Barack Obama's speeches and writings. POCKET OBAMA serves as a reminder of the amazing power of oratory and the remarkable ability of this man to move people with his words. His superb and captivating oratory style has earned comparisons to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and this collection presents words that catapulted his remarkable rise to the American Presidency. Includes themes of democracy, politics, war, terrorism, race, community, jurisprudence, faith, personal responsibility, national identity, and above all, his hoped-for vision of a new America. This book is truly a primer for readers who want to examine the substance of his thought and reflect on the next great chapter in the American story. It is an unofficial requirement for every citizen to own, to read, and to carry this book at all times.

What next -- are those of us who don't fall down and worship going to be carried off to labor camps for reeducation and self-criticism sessions? And when will we be expected to get the Mark of Dear Leader on our hand or forehead?

H/T Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 08:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Everybody knows that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln. But studies of an old letter have now shown that his father, well-known Shakespearean actor Junius Brutus Booth, had written a letter threatening to assassinate President Andrew Jackson years before!

Dismissed for 175 years as a fake, a letter threatening the assassination of President Andrew Jackson has been found to be authentic. And, says the director of the Andrew Jackson Papers Project at the University of Tennessee, the writer was none other than Junius Brutus Booth, father of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth.

Dan Feller and his staff solved the mystery of the July 4, 1835, letter to Jackson. The story of their investigation will be featured this summer on PBS' "History Detectives."

The letter, which addressed Old Hickory as "You damn'd old Scoundrel," demanded that Jackson pardon two prisoners named De Ruiz and De Soto who had been sentenced to death for piracy in a high-profile trial of the day.

Interestingly enough, no one has ever taken the letter seriously. Even Jackson's staff filed the letter as an anonymous threat, assuming that such a well-known figure as the elder Booth would not have written it. That shows you how differently matters of presidential security were taken in the early days of the republic.

Given that Jackson had chased down and subdued a would-be assassin earlier that year, I'd argue that an attempt to slit his throat in his sleep would not have been a wise move from the standpoint of personal safety. But the letter does go to show that the instability of the son may well have been a hereditary family trait.

H/T Protein Wisdom

Posted by: Greg at 08:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

It is always nice to see children dressed well in fashionable outfits. After all, there are times when dressing up is absolutely right for children -- but unfortunately, sometimes it is difficult to afford nice outfits for children or to find them locally. But it is possible to dress children well in the latest childrens fancy dress outfits for reasonable prices.

How can you do that? Where do you go for these bargains? Well, you can find them any time, day or night, just by logging on to your computer and searching the right sites. One good choice can be found at www.rsavenue.com. There you will find the latest in children's fashions for the girl or boy you are seeking to outfit, available at reasonable prices The site is quite user friendly and allows you to search by size, sex, or other features. And the variety of clothing you will find there is simply astounding, from more traditional looks to the latest trends for your child.

Best of all, rsavenue.com is a site that you can recommend to friends and family. You can even send gift certificates as gifts so that the parents of children you want to buy for can make the appropriate selections online, eliminating the concerns you may have about picking the right sizes. After all, I have friends and family members whose children I would love to buy for, but I don't always know the right sizes, so that solves a lot of my problem right there.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not a Mormon. Indeed, I've made any number of criticisms of Mormon theology and the flawed historical claims of the LDS Church. But never would I argue that Mormons, as a whole, are anything less than exemplary Americans (indeed, as a rule they are exemplary human beings).

On the other hand, Hollywood luminary Tom Hanks recently did exactly that -- based upon the overwhelming support for traditional marriage by Mormons during the election contest over California's Proposition 8.

Now he has apologized -- while not apologizing at all.

Here's his statement.

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience — nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.

Sincerely,

Tom Hanks

Let's break that down.

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American."

Yes, you did -- and in the process singled out members of a relatively small religion as the guilty parties in the passing of that amendment to the California Constitution. You know, sort of like Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in the First World War.

I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.

Interestingly enough, the overwhelming majority of Americans and courts appear to disagree with you, Tom. Not that the fact you are in such a small minority makes you un-American or anything -- merely out of step with the American people like most of your Hollywood liberal clique.

But everyone has a right to vote their conscience — nothing could be more American.

Thank you, Tom Hanks, for acknowledging that the exercise of a fundamental right under our system of government is not un-American.

To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.

Yeah, it does create more division -- and it is also indicative of the degree of contempt you really have for Mormons, the same contempt you show by making the television series Big Love, with its distorted view of the LDS faithful.

No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did.

Sorry, Tom, I don't think you are being honest here. Your words seemed to be a rather deliberate, intentional shot at "those people".

I should not have.

You are correct -- you should not have.

Sincerely,

Tom Hanks

Sincerely? I don't think so. After all, your "apology" fails to actually apologize for having defamed our fellow citizens of the LDS faith. You don't say that your statement was incorrect, false, and defamatory -- you merely say that now was not the time for people to cast such aspersions. At no time do you actually say that you were incorrect when you made that statement, and express regret for stirring defaming the many fine Americans who are Mormons.

So friends, don't be fooled by reports that Tom Hanks has apologized to Mormons -- because the only apology offered is for the words he chose, not the essential meaning of those words.

H/T Ace, Jawa Report, Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Let's see -- Pakistan has never attacked the United States. So why is Barry Hussein denying alleged jihadis there the right to 3 hots and a cot in the USA and a trial before a civilian court? Why use deadly military force instead of sending a couple of beat cops to make the appropriate arrests?

“Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president. . . .

* * *

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven “foreigners” - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives. ”

Yeah, I know -- this is the same policy as we had under George W, Bush. But this is the era of Hope'N'Change, when we are supposed to adopt a kinder, gentler approach towards terrorists in the name of cultivating a more positive world opinion. Since this policy is one of those things that the anti-war apologists for jihadi terror have long argued should be the basis for the impeachment of the recently departed 43rd president, shouldn't there be an uproar over the continuation of the policy by number 44?

The silence is deafening.

Next thing you know, the Obama Administration will be defending warrantless wiretaps and surveillance programs against American citizens.

Oh, yeah -- they've already done that, too.

Where are those rallies and call for impeachment, lefties? Where is Dennis Kucinich and his articles of impeachment when we really need him?

H/T Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember how our new president talked about ending partisanship, reaching across the aisle and getting an 80% margin on any stimulus plan.

Well, either he lied, or his definition of “bipartisanship” is “Republicans must abandon their principles and drink my Kool-Aid.”

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Yeah, you may have won – but so did the Republicans in the House and Senate. They were elected by their constituents to push for certain principles, and you would do well to remember that. After all, your position is that of President, not Fuhrer, Duce, or Caudillo – and you would do well to remember there is no requirement that everyone fall in line with your policy preferences.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ll agree that not everyone who opposes some aspect of Israeli policy is an anti-Semite. However, those who oppose Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism – and its right to exist at all – usually anti-Semitism lies at the heart of the issue.

Take, for example, this situation from Canada.

Re: Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism, letters to the editor, Jan. 21.

Why don't your letter writers come and tell their analytical garbage to my son's 20-year-old friend, who last week ended up in hospital after being beaten up in Toronto? His "crime"? He was wearing a Magen David (the Jewish, not Zionist, Star of David). As he fell to numerous blows, his attackers shouted, "Jewish [not Zionist] scum. Let's see how strong you are without your army now!"

The police were most helpful: "We will lay charges only if we know who they are."

Now a couple of observations here.

1) This was a hate crime. The attack was upon a man wearing the symbol of his religious faith, and had epithets hurled at him based upon his religion. The scum who attacked him had no way of knowing what his position on Israel or the war in Gaza were – they simply picked out a convenient Jew to assault simply because he was a Jew. They make no distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism – why should we in this instance?

2) The Canadian police and media seem quite unwilling to give this hate crime the treatment it deserves. Maybe that is because they don’t see the difference between Jews and Zionists either. Would the incident have been treated the same way if it were a Muslim attacked for wearing some symbol of his/her faith, and insulted with anti-Muslim slurs during the attack? Or would the incident have been a priority for both as an example of the “growing intolerance” against Muslims?

3) Of course, we don’t see incidents like the hypothetical I proposed above. Maybe that is because Jews, Zionists or otherwise, and those of us who are supportive of Israel are motivated by something other than the hatred that underlies the anti-Semitic ideology of all too many of Israel’s opponents. That’s why in every instance of violence surrounding rallies and demonstration the associated acts of violence were committed not by the supporters of Israel, but rather by the “peace-loving” supporters of the terrorists of Hamas. Similarly, Jews, not Muslims, are regularly the victims of these sorts of incidents – in which the targets of “anti-Zionist” hate are targets because they are Jews, not because they are Zionists..

Now are you sure that you really want to try to argue that antipathy towards Jews as Jews isn’t the underlying motivation behind a significant part of the “anti-Zionist” activity we are assured is not anti-Semitism?

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

One of the ongoing talking points of the Left is that those of us who seek to have our borders secured and our immigration laws respected are simply hate-mongers who hold Hispanics (especially Mexicans) in contempt. That we may have a reasonable basis for our positions is simply unfathomable to them. Perhaps they need to consider some of the information in this New York Times article and ask themselves whose position, theirs or ours, makes more sense.

Juárez and El Paso are divided only by the narrow Rio Grande and a couple of border checkpoints that have done little over the years to stop the steady back and forth of trade and family visits.

The two cities are so close that the mayor of El Paso can look out his office window to view downtown Juárez.

But in other ways the two cities are worlds apart these days.

El Paso still enjoys its status as one of the safest cities in the United States, while Juárez, a city of 1.5 million that has always been rough, has become a battleground for drug cartels. More than 1,550 people were killed there in drug wars last year.

Worse, other violent crimes — carjacking, extortion, armed robbery — have surged as the beleaguered authorities struggle to respond to daily gun battles.

“It’s strange to be the third-safest city in the United States right next to a war zone,” said Mayor John Cook of El Paso, as he gazed at the ramshackle neighborhoods of Juárez.

The reality is that Mexico is a troubled country today. It is completely dysfunctional. Failure to appropriately secure our border can only result in those problems crossing that border and infiltrating our own cities. We have seen some of this with gangs like the Central American MS-13 gang – do we need the ongoing epidemic of abductions and murders to take root in the United States before the supporters of open borders admit that there may be bona fide reasons of public safety at the heart of the positions taken by those of us?

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently even true statements that are arguably true can result in criminal convictions in Europe if they insult Islam.

Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam's prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter's home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008.

Now I have said in the past that I do not necessarily accept the validity of the claim that Muhammad was a pedophile. While Muslim sources do indicate that he did consummate a marriage with a 9-year-old, I’m not willing to go so far as to pass judgment on his psychological health – instead I prefer to simply condemn as evil a man who in his 50s foists himself sexually upon a pre-pubescent girl. If Islam is “humiliated” by such things, I’d argue that the source of that humiliation is the moral degeneracy of its false prophet, not commentary upon that deviancy by non-Muslims.

Following close on the heels of the decision of a Dutch court to order the prosecution of Geert Wilders for daring to speak out against some of the evils committed in the name of Islam based upon the precise language of the Quran, I think it is now safe to say that the spirit of the Enlightenment is being smothered by those who would impose Islamic censorship upon non-Muslims in the name of “tolerance” and “sensitivity”. Should they succeed (as they appear to be doing), how long will the light of freedom be permitted to burn here in America before some future majority of the Supreme Court decides to reinterpret the First Amendment’s guarantees in light of “contemporary world standards” using the judgments of foreign courts to radically alter our liberties forever?

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Israel screwed up by not rooting out every last vestige of Hamas from Gaza – so says the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

"It was a big mistake to end the war this way," the official said. "The fact that Hamas is still in power is bad for all."

The PA leadership had decided to take draconian measures to thwart any attempt by Hamas to stir unrest in the West Bank, the official also said.

"There's no room for these Hamas thugs in the West Bank," he said. "We won't allow Hamas to turn the West Bank into another Islamic republic."

Now I remain skeptical regarding how much faith may be placed in the Fatah-led PA – but it is certainly more likely to be a cooperative peace partner than Hamas will ever be.

On a side note, the PA has implemented a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank without so much as a whisper from the world community – while at the same time we are hearing absolute silence from the world community about the wave of violence directed by Hamas against the supporters of Fatah. Apparently the lives and safety of Palestinians is only of concern to the world community when they are harmed by Jews.

Posted by: Greg at 02:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

In other words, he isn't REALLY banning torture, despite his claims to the contrary.

[Obama's new executive orders] will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said.

But the orders leave unresolved complex questions surrounding the closing of the Guantánamo prison, including whether, where and how many of the detainees are to be prosecuted. They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured.

In other words, Obama just signed an order that said "I'm banning what I call torture until I decide that I want to un-ban it. It's not illegal or unethical or contrary to American values if I'm the president who orders it."

This does, however, make it pretty clear that there will be no criminal prosecutions of those who were authorized to use harsh techniques against jihadi swine during the Bush Administration. After all, Obama doesn't want a legal precedent that would bind his hands when and if he decides that those same methods were a good idea after all.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Declaring the principles of the Enlightenment to be in violation of contemporary legal and social norms in Europe, a Dutch court has ordered that Geert Wilders stand trial for daring to speak in a contemptuous fashion regarding Islam and the Quran.

MP Geert Wilders, who leads the anti-immigration PVV party, should be prosecuted for discrimination and inciting racial hatred, Amsterdam's appeal court ruled on Wednesday.

'This is a black day for me and for freedom of speech,' Wilders told the Telegraaf on Wednesday. 'I had not expected it [this ruling].'

The public prosecution department has received dozens of complaints about Wilders' anti-Islam film Fitna and his statements in the media over the past few years.

But at the end of June last year, the department said it did not have enough grounds to prosecute him and that a healthy legal system should allow plenty of leeway to people involved in political debate.

Newspaper letters

The appeal court said that while freedom of speech was important, there were limits to that freedom.

Several of the complaints relate to articles or letters by Wilders which were published in the Volkskrant newspaper. For example, in August 2007 he called for the Koran to be banned. 'I have had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants,' the MP wrote. He also compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf.

Lawyer Haroon Raza, one of those who asked the court of appeal for its position, points to the 'massive social unrest' which Wilders has generated and says this is why he should be prosecuted.

Wilders' refusal to debate the issues with Muslims themselves means that those who feel insulted by his comments cannot counter the claims he makes, Raza told the Volkskrant.

In other words, the outrage of Muslims is grounds for suppressing the speech of non-Muslims -- and a refusal to engage in debate with those one views as evil renders one's speech criminal.

Here is Wilders' great offense -- Fitna. In the name of the inalienable right to speak freely, I post it here and challenge any person to try to force me to take it down.

I wonder -- will President Obama have the balls to stand up for human rights when they are being violated by an ally like the Netherlands? Will he stand up to members of the Religion of Terror whose own violence and intolerance leads the government of a nation that was once one of the major centers of Enlightenment thought to repudiate one of its fundamental principles by engaging in a prosecution of one who dares to speak out against what he views as the dangerous nature of the backwards teachings of a false religion? Or will he remain mute, in effect according to the religion of his father and step-father (and, according to Islamic law, his own religion by virtue of his parentage and his public recitation of the shahadah) a level of protection that he would reject if it were accorded to any other faith?

(NOTE TO ILLITERATE LIBERALS -- No, I did not say Obama is a Muslim. I accept his statement that he is a Christian, but do feel it necessary to note his status under sharia. For more info on my position, read these earlier posts.)

H/T Gateway Pundit, Malkin, STACLU, Hot Air

UPDATE: Ezra Levant, a crusader for free speech rights in Canada who has been repeatedly targeted by the Islamic Censorship Machine, fisks the ruling of the court.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 5 kb.

Confirming just what has always been known by those who are not shills for terrorists.

What really is behind the numbers reported on the number of civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip? Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported Thursday that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas has intentionally inflated the number of casualties resulting from Israel's Operation Cast Lead.

"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article.

In other words, their tactics are not dissimilar to those practiced by the Nazis in the last days of WWII, when they armed members of the Hitler Youth (remember, membership was not voluntary) and placed them in harm's way in a last ditch effort to protect that malign regime from its well-deserved defeat. That is appropriate, given that the Hamas program of anti-Semitism and genocide bears much in common with that espoused by the Nazi Party -- which a number of Hamas' spiritual and political ancestors adhered to during that time.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

And it has appeared in various publications worldwide today.

Clinically Depressed Poodle Mauls Former French President Chirac

I have a vision of Chirac writhng on the floor screaming out France's national motto -- "Je capitule à vous!"

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems like it wasn’t long ago that we on the conservative side were told that questioning the patriotism of those who claimed America deserved the 9/11 attacks, who insulted the troops and urged them to kill their officers, who leaked and published classified material damaging to national security, sought more legal protection for terrorists than are granted American soldiers or who otherwise gave aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war was somehow unacceptable. Indeed, we were regularly told that dissent – even dissent that seditious, treasonous dissent like that mentioned above – was the highest form of patriotism and that we were somehow fascists if we dared to be critical of those who engaged in the most vile of insults against President Bush.

Apparently, though, those days ended at noon on January 20. Failure to support President Obama blindly and give oneÂ’s assent to his agenda is now defined as hatred of America by the mainstream media.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing. I've never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What's that about?

* * * MATTHEWS: But it turns out that not everyone has warm wishes for the new president. On Friday radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said he was asked by a major print organization to offer 400 words on his hope for the Obama presidency. Here's what Rush had to say just days before the Inauguration.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, okay I'll send you a response but I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.

MATTHEWS: Well Rush must have a lot of acorns squirreled away not to share everyone else's hopes that the economy does come back.

Yeah, the partisan Mr. “Thrill-up-my-leg” has questioned Rush Limbaugh’s patriotism. Apparently he has become the arbiter of how and when and over what other Americans may dissent. Will the same leftist activists and media talking-heads (in reality, the same thing) call him to account for questioning the patriotism of this dissenter? Will they remain silent as Matthews labels a dissenting political commentator as un-American – or worse yet, will they pile on along with him? In short, do the standards set by the Left during the Bush administration still apply in the Age of Obama – or is the new “thou shalt not dissent” standard one of the changes wrought by the dawning of the Age of Obama?

For what it is worth, I disagree with how Limbaugh expressed his position. I hope Obama is a success as a President – but I believe that for him to succeed he must repudiate the positions he took during the campaign. To the degree that he does not, I also hope that he fails in his efforts to bring to fruition the most of the proposed policies of his administration, policies which I believe will harm this nation. That is, as I understand him, exactly what Limbaugh was saying in the quote above – and that, my dear readers, is precisely the sort of dissent that is truly the highest form of patriotism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Rush should know better than to diss Chrissy's crush! Not only was that mean and smacked of racism...it wasn't even very nice!

Posted by: Mia at Thu Jan 22 11:14:35 2009 (zGfPP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I fully support CaliforniaÂ’s Proposition 8. I believe it to have been a proper action of the people of California to amend their state constitution to define the institution of marriage as they see fit. And I view as illegitimate most of the tactics engage in by its foes to intimidate supporters and prevent the results at the ballot box from being the law of the land.

On the other hand, I applaud the efforts being made by these folks – even as I oppose the measures they are proposing.

Angered by the passage of Proposition 8, grass-roots activists are working to place measures on the ballot to reverse California's ban on same-sex unions.

The sparsely financed groups are acting independently of the No on 8 Campaign, which is challenging the measure in the state Supreme Court. They plan to use the Internet to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures of registered voters needed to get on the ballot.

Two groups took the first step toward qualifying a ballot measure last week with the state Attorney General's Office, asking for an official title and summary. A third group is expected to follow suit this week.

"Our logic is that we should not put all our eggs in one basket and wait for the Supreme Court," said Charles Lowe, who after campaigning against Proposition 8 founded a Davis-based group called Yes! on Equality. "By doing so, we lose anywhere from 8 to 12 months."

His proposed constitutional amendment would repeal Proposition 8, which holds that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Meanwhile, two heterosexual Southern California college students – Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright – want to take the state out of the marriage business.
Their proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from state laws and replaced with "domestic partnerships."

Shams maintains the measure would provide equality to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, while preserving marriage as a religious and social ceremony.

"This is a compromise," Shams said. "It says 'Get rid of marriage as a state institution. Make it a religious institution, keep politics out of it and stop the fighting.'"

Stephen Stapleton of Sacramento said he plans to file a third ballot measure request this week. Like the Yes! on Equality proposal, it would repeal Proposition 8.

The people have spoken on the issue of homosexual marriage in California -- twice in the last decade. There is nothing, however, to keep them from reconsidering their choice and possibly reversing course. It is my belief that they should not – but if popular sovereignty is to mean anything in this country, then giving these measures a chance to qualify for the ballot and possibly be adopted by Californians is both necessary and proper. And even if I disagree with those pushing these repeal proposals, I would like to express my admiration for their decision to take the high road. Too bad the rest of their movement have instead engaged in tactics similar to those used by the KKK during the 1950s and 1960s.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, I guess that is what “Hope & Change” means in the Age of Obama.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers."

Got that? Obama recovery point man Robert Reich is concerned that government spending might actually benefit white people – and wants to make sure that this does not happen.

No doubt this means that we will see race-based qualifications for beneficiaries of these programs, with disproportionate minority participation goals resulting in the exclusion of “excess white men” from the program.

Could you imagine if an official of a Republican administration expressed a concern that government spending not disproportionately benefit African-Americans? But this sort of racial discrimination is the politically correct kind, so the opinion elite wonÂ’t take note of it. After all, in the two weeks since the statement was made, we've heard not one peep out of the media. So much for the press protecting our right to know -- what they truly believe in is our right to drink the liberal Kool-Aid they dispense.

And here we had hoped that this post-racial presidency might result in an end to the sordid practice of sorting our citizens by skin color in the awarding of benefits and burdens. Instead, we have seen a stake driven through the heart of Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society by the administration of the American who most benefited from it.

H/T Malkin

UPDATE: Over at Hot Air, they have the video. Where is the MSM on this one?

Do we need a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama Administration's conspiracy to deprive whites of the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment? At a bare minimum, it is clear from this video that Barry Hussein and his merry band of socialists are on their way to be the administration which has shown the least respect for civil rights since that of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson -- if not that of Confederate Jefferson Davis (D-Mississippi).

UPDATE 2: Darleen Click offers this pointed commentary.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 3 kb.

Winning Council Submissions

• First place with 2 1/3 points! - Joshuapundit - The Hidden Story On Gaza


• Second place with 1 2/3 points - Right Truth - America Said NO


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - (T*) - Soccer Dad - Both sides now


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - (T*) - Mere Rhetoric - Media Outlets CanÂ’t Get Over The Tactical Brilliance Of HamasÂ’s Use Of Human Shields


• Fourth place with 1 points - The Provocateur - Some Perspective on the Great Loan Modification Scam


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - The Razor - Three Shocks For New Doctors

Winning Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 1/3 points! - Robert Avrech/Big Hollywood - Learning From the Real Battle of Algiers


• Second place with 1 2/3 points - FrontPage Magazine - HamasÂ’ Brutal Legacy


• Third place with 1 1/3 points - Yourish - ThereÂ’s a kind of hate all over the world


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - World Affairs Journal - Paved Intentions: Civilization and Imperialism


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - Yaacov LozowickÂ’s Ruminations - Waging War the Israeli Way


• Fourth place with 1 points - (T*) - Jewish Odysseus - GERMAN “POLICE” JOIN JEW-HATING MUSLIM MOB


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - BlogBat - France TV Using Old Pix to Impugn Current Israeli Ops


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Freedom - Israel vs. Hamas - A Gedera ResidentÂ’s Perspective


• Fifth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Kenneth AndersonÂ’s Law of War and Just War Theory Blog - The NYT and the information theory of the leisure class, Part 1 of 4

  Posted by: Greg at 03:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
  Post contains 282 words, total size 5 kb.

  Hide Comments | Add Comment