March 31, 2009
Venture capitalist Scott Murphy (D) holds a 65-vote lead over state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R) in a special election in Upstate New York, a race cast as an early referendum on President Obama's economic stimulus package.With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Murphy had 77,344 votes to Tedisco's 77,279. Somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 military and absentee ballots remain uncounted, according to the Associated Press, and overseas absentee ballots will continue be accepted until April 13. In short, no winner will be declared any time soon.
Let's think about this one. This district leans Republican, though a Democrat has won in recent elections. The current margin with today's votes counted is only about 4/100ths of a percentage point. And there are literally thousands of ballots yet to be counted from men and women in uniform -- votes that historically tend to break for the Republican candidate. What this means is that we are likely to see Jim Tedisco take this seat back for the GOP -- dealing Barack Obama and the Democrats a setback. After all, this is the first special election in a district that is actually competitive, and it appears that Obama and the Democrats may lose it in the end.
Posted by: Greg at
04:29 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
, March 30, 2009
"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at ThursdayÂ’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I donÂ’t care what color he is. IÂ’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and heÂ’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay Â… I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
I've said it before -- Barack Obama is, for better or worse, the President of the United States. When one sits in that chair and receives all those perks, one also has to deal with the reality that there are those of one's fellow citizens who will be critical. Some of that criticism may be wrong, and some of it based upon being ill-informed. Some of it might even be because there are folks who just do not like the incumbent. Regardless, it comes with the job -- and for any president or his supporters to seek to cut off that criticism, debate, and dissent with a scurrilous, unfounded accusation undermines the man and the office.
Posted by: Greg at
03:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
March 28, 2009
Now, will the media give her the "Bush Twins" treatment? Or the "Gore Kid" treatment?
A "friend" of Vice President Joseph Biden's daughter, Ashley, is attempting to hawk a videotape that he claims shows her snorting cocaine at a house party this month in Delaware.The anonymous male acquaintance of Ashley took the video, said Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer representing the seller.
Dunlap and a man claiming to be a lawyer showed The Post about 90 seconds of 43-minute tape, saying it was legally obtained and that Ashley was aware she was being filmed. The Post refused to pay for the video.
The video, which the shooter initially hoped to sell for $2 million before scaling back his price to $400,000, shows a 20-something woman with light skin and long brown hair taking a red straw from her mouth, bending over a desk, inserting the straw into her nostril and snorting lines of white powder.
So, will this be splashed all over the national media like the silly college drinking escapades of the Bush daughters? Or will the media instead treat Ashley Biden like they did Al Gore III, who has an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse that generally has stayed out of the papers, even when he was expelled from school , ticketed, or arrested?
This question is particularly relevant given Joe Biden's long history as an advocate of stricter drug laws.
Posted by: Greg at
02:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.
President Obama continued collecting money for his 2010 Senate re-election campaign even after he resigned his seat from Illinois, including a maximum $2,300 donation the day after Christmas from a top executive of a Wall Street firm that had received a government bailout.Four contributions - $4,800 in all - were donated to the Obama 2010 fund on Dec. 26, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
The money came from some of Mr. Obama's top presidential fundraisers: Bruce A. Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs, which received a $10 billion bailout last year; Steven Koch, vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston; and John Levi, a lawyer at the law and lobbying firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
Now I realize that he is allowed to keep his Senate campaign kitty and use it for various political purposes -- but to take this money afetr he had been elected president and resigned from the Senate seems mighty shady to me. And to be taking the cash from execs of bailed out companies seems particularly wrong, given that he was in the process of moving from the legislative to executive branch. It may be legal, but it certainly has the appearance of impropriety.
Posted by: Greg at
02:47 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.
March 27, 2009
Posted by: Greg at
09:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday.
Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.
This would no doubt happen through increased taxes (more money for the government – an essential good for the Democrats) in order to make sure we use green technologies that are too expensive to compete (competition bad, comrades) to combat man-made global warming (which the science now shows isn’t happening). But remember – we can afford these higher energy prices in the midst of a recession. After all, the Democrats say so.
Posted by: Greg at
11:57 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
, 
(, 
D, 
)), March 26, 2009
Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.
Let me say it -- I'd like to see a playoff for college football, too. But in the end, this matter is not something that is the business of the federal government -- at least not according to my copy of the US Constituion.
Posted by: Greg at
03:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
March 25, 2009
Congressman Barney Frank defended his use of the term "homophobe" to describe Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice who has ruled in favor of limiting legal protections for gays."What a 'homophobe' means is someone who has prejudice about gay people," Frank told WBZ radio, arguing that Scalia's judicial writing "makes it very clear that he's angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people."
In particular, Frank cited Scalia's opinion in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court struck down state laws barring consensual acts of sodomy. In his dissent, Scalia wrote that the 6-3 vote served to ratify an "agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
"If you read his opinion, he thinks it's a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people," Frank said yesterday.
Congressman Franks, what you have just done is accuse Justice Scalia of an impeachable offense. If you truly believe this to be the case – that he is deciding cases based upon his personal animus rather than the facts and the law – then you have an obligation to act pursuant to the US Constitution and introduce a resolution seeking his impeachment. Anything less is a dereliction of your duty and a violation of your oath to uphold the Constitution. If you do not believe this to be the case, then you have a moral obligation to offer Justice Scalia a public apology for this scurrilous charge you have made against him. The choice is yours, sir.
Posted by: Greg at
01:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
Struggling newspapers should be allowed to operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed Tuesday.Cardin introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. They would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible.
Got that – no more political endorsements. But it would no doubt go further than that, as there would no doubt follow requirements that the opinions page reflect a diversity of ideas rather. That would mean, as an example, that a newspaper like the libertarian-leaning Las Vegas Review Journal would need to balance the ideas of a Vin Suprynowicz and his colleagues with some more statist writer – maybe Bill Ayers. Or, from the other side of things, the New York Times might find itself required by the government to provide more conservative columnists to balance its overwhelmingly liberal stable. That is something that government should not be involved in.
Posted by: Greg at
12:58 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.
March 24, 2009
But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.It can, answered [Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm] Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.
That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.
Got that, folks. The Obama Regime is now claiming the power under McCain-Feingold to ban political speech and writing of all types – even speech and writing of the very sort that the Founders sought to protect. That, my friends, is evidence that there is no possible way to reconcile the law with the Constitution.
Posted by: Greg at
12:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
Instead of merely opposing the legislation, however, Bachmann compared Washington, D.C. to “enemy lines” and urged her supporters to become “armed and dangerous” and fight a “revolution” against cap and trade legislation…
Bachmann also spoke out against the cap-and-trade proposals currently making their way through Washington, and how she'll be distributing information against it at an upcoming event in the district. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back," said Bachmann. "Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing. And the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
Asked about the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, Bachmann told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."
All of the above sources then go on to complain about the tenor of the comments, even as at least one of them notes that the statement is clearly figurative and not literal.
As well they should. The showÂ’s host, Power LineÂ’s John Hinderacker, notes that BachmannÂ’s comment was said in a light-hearted manner in the context of announcing her efforts to educate the public about the dangers of the Obama proposal, and that it was clearly not a call for armed revolution by physical force, but instead an expression of hope for citizen activism. In that sense, she was less radical than Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the tree of liberty survives only when the blood of patriots and tyrants is spilled to give it new life. And given the chronic liberal inability to condemn calls for actual armed revolution and political violence from the Left, isnÂ’t this reaction to the figurative language of a conservative congresswoman a bit over the top?
Posted by: Greg at
12:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.
The nation is close to a major civic breakthrough. By a 321-to-105 vote last week, the House approved an ambitious bipartisan measure to enlarge the opportunities for Americans of all ages and income levels to participate in productive national and community service.A similar plan is now before the Senate. A favorable vote this week would help speed a worthy initiative to President ObamaÂ’s desk.
Essentially, the measure is an expansion of AmeriCorps, the existing domestic service program. It would increase the number of full-time and part-time service volunteers to 250,000 from 75,000 and create new programs focused on special areas like strengthening schools, improving health care for low-income communities, boosting energy efficiency and cleaning up parks.
Volunteers receive minimal living expenses and a modest educational stipend after their year of service. The bill raises the stipend to $5,350, the same as a Pell Grant. Special fellowships would be available for people 55 and older, as well as summer positions for middle- and high-school students.
Now please understand – I think service to the community and/or the nation is a great thing. I’m the son of a career military officer. My brother is a cop. I’m a teacher in a public school with a high percentage of minority and socio-economically disadvantaged students. My family is all about giving back to our community and our country. I don’t object to any of that.
But let’s get down to brass tacks here. I see two problems in this – one related to the potential for job destruction, and the other related to the evisceration of individual liberty.
First, let’s consider that increase in volunteer positions with a small stipend attached. That seems to me to be a potential destroyer of good jobs for unemployed Americans. After all, I’d have to presume that these jobs are already being done by people. Are we going to fire these workers? Or are we creating entirely new jobs – work that is needed and could be done by full-time employees who would then not be payments from unemployment or other entitlement programs.
Second, there is this aspect of the plan.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
This isn’t volunteerism. And it is far outside the mainstream of American tradition, and I’d argue it runs afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. After all, it would be imposing involuntary servitude upon every young person as a condition of their being enrolled in school – something that is mandatory under the laws of every state. This is not military conscription in time of war – it is social experimentation and indoctrination mandated at the national level. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the use of students as unpaid farm labor in Castro’s Cuba, or of the Hitler Youth. And I say that as the former coordinator of the mandatory senior service project at the Catholic school where I taught early in my teaching career (a program which I find unobjectionable because student was obliged to attend our school under penalty of law).
Posted by: Greg at
11:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 735 words, total size 5 kb.
However, I suppose I am still on safe ground if I note that this is strikingly similar to the sort of legislation that Venezuelan thug-ocrat Hugo Chavez has gotten through his rubber-stamp legislature.
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
* * * The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week.
For crying out loud – is this still America? Where are the patriots ready to rise up and put a stop to government acting well outside its proper role as established by the Constitution? Have we as a people slipped so far from the principles that once made America the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation on earth that we are now willing to accept even this sort of insanity without a comment or word of protest?
Posted by: Greg at
11:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.
March 23, 2009
At a time when the federal government is spending billions of stimulus dollars to stem the tide of U.S. layoffs, should that same government put even more Americans out of work by buying cheaper foreign products?
In this case, Chinese condoms.That's the dilemma for the folks at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.
But not anymore.In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper off-shore condoms, including some made in China.
This does, of course, beg the question of whether the US government ought to be in the condom business at all. But if we are, doesn’t it seem reasonable for us to “buy American”?
Posted by: Greg at
01:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
At a time when the federal government is spending billions of stimulus dollars to stem the tide of U.S. layoffs, should that same government put even more Americans out of work by buying cheaper foreign products?
In this case, Chinese condoms.That's the dilemma for the folks at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.
But not anymore.In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper off-shore condoms, including some made in China.
This does, of course, beg the question of whether the US government ought to be in the condom business at all. But if we are, doesn’t it seem reasonable for us to “buy American”?
Posted by: Greg at
01:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
For decades, priests who preyed sexually on children did so with shocking ease and impunity. Their superiors acted as functional accomplices, shuttling abusive priests among parishes and buying or bullying victims into silence. Shame and guilt did the rest, burying abuses under a shroud of secrecy that often far outlasted the statute of limitations for prosecutions or lawsuits.
Those victims deserve a day in court. The New York Legislature should grant it to them, by passing a bill that would temporarily lift the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits involving the sexual abuse of children.The bill would open a one-year window during which accusers would be allowed to sue in civil court, no matter how old the case. After a year, the statute of limitations would be restored, but an accuser would have up to 10 years after turning 18 to make a claim, instead of five. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions would not be changed.
Now I have two problems with this legislation. One deals with the issue of practicality. The other deals with the issue of equal protection of the law.
Let’s look at the first one. Many of the cases that might be brought deal with situations that happened decades ago, and will make it quite difficult for an accuse individual to defend himself. I’m thinking of a case that I’m familiar with from the diocese with which I was affiliated before I left the seminary. One older priest was accused of an incident a quarter-century before by a woman who had been permitted to live in the rectory after being thrown out of the house by her parents. The story was one of sexual abuse by both the priest and a deceased nun – and involved some really warped stuff. The evidence? A report from a psychologist engaged by an advocacy group and an affidavit by the alleged victim. Unfortunately for Father X, both the accused nun and the rectory housekeeper were dead, and all he could do was offer denials of the accusations and a psychological report that indicated it was not in his psychological make-up to do such things. He was pulled from parish ministry, and denied the right to publicly act as a priest thereafter. With the lifting of the statute of limitations, that decision by an overly-cautious church hierarchy would be taken as evidence that they viewed Father X as guilty, and probably result in a jury verdict against him. More importantly, the passage of time would make effective defense in such a case impossible.
But beyond that, there is the equity/equal protection question. In New York State, where this suspension of the statute would be implemented, there is a 90-day window to file claims and suits when the alleged molester is a public school teacher or other public employee. The bill does not lift the statute of limitations there, despite the fact that the rate of sexual offenses among teachers is, lamentably, as high as or higher than among clergy. The disparate treatment here – which allows long-delayed suits against pastors and churches but not against teachers, principals, and school districts – is shocking to the conscience. The reason for that difference is the unwillingness of the New York legislature to expose state and local governments to the sort of liability they are imposing upon the private sector.
In other words, I object because of the injustice that is done to the accused by this change – and because of the favoritism shown to public institutions and employees in the bill. It should either be amended to end the disparity or, as much as I hate to deny an alleged victim the right to file suit, vote down this legislation as well-intentioned but ill-advised.
Posted by: Greg at
01:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 5 kb.
Given the appointment of a prominent abortion advocate from the Clinton Justice Department to a high position in the Obama Justice Department, I think that it is important that Congress ask the above question.
What is VAAPCOM, you ask? Well, it was the “Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy” investigation that was discovered by Judicial Watch, a watchdog organization, after a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that the Justice Department under Janet Reno started an investigation in 1994 — while Johnsen was a deputy assistant attorney general — where they pressured the FBI to investigate pro-life organizations and its supporters.Apparently they sought to prove there was a national conspiracy of pro-life “extremists” who were attacking abortion clinics. After months of monitoring several organizations, including Concerned Women for America (CWA), the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee, among others, the FBI failed to come up with anything. And though the FBI wanted to end the investigation, the DOJ pressured them to continue.
Given that Obama-appointee Dawn Johnson has worked closely with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood to protect the so-called right to an abortion and limit the rights of pro-life protesters and speakers to communicate their message peacefully in public places historically considered to be public forums for the exercise of First Amendment rights, do pro-lifers have legitimate cause for concern? Will Congress confront her during her confirmation hearings, and seek assurances from her that there will be no repeat of this massive violation of the rights of pro-life citizens during her time at Justice?
Posted by: Greg at
12:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
March 22, 2009
Frustrated black lawmakers staged a walkout Friday after the Georgia House decided to delay another vote on a resolution that would have honored Obama as a politician with an "uimpeachable reputation for integrity, vision and passion" and made him an honorary member of the black caucus.
* * * State Rep. Austin Scott, a Republican who led the charge, said he took exception to language that read "no one could be more worthy of a special honor and recognition by the members of this body and the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus than this extraordinary leader."
Now look at the language of the resolution:
House Resolution 673By: Representatives Heard of the 114th, Murphy of the 120th, Smyre of the 132nd, Heckstall of the 62nd, Randall of the 138th, and others
A RESOLUTION
Honoring President Barack Obama on becoming the 44th President of the United States and recognizing President Barack Obama as an honorary lifetime member of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus; and for other purposes.
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States and the first African American to hold this most important and powerful of world positions; and
WHEREAS, prior to becoming president, Barack Obama faithfully and diligently served as a member of the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004 and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, serving from January 3, 2005, until November 16, 2008; and
WHEREAS, President Barack Obama was a highly distinguished member of both the Illinois and United States Senates and has a long and distinguished career as a public servant and representative of the people; and
WHEREAS, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization established in 1973 with a vision to set the standards for black legislators and other political leaders in the years to come and to boldly assert the power of the black vote and the power of the black voice: and
WHEREAS, the primary purposes of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus are to promote the general welfare of minorities and other citizens of Georgia in matters of health, welfare, education, criminal justice, employment, and economic development; to stimulate professional and intellectual growth; and to advance the study and implementation of solutions to the problems of all citizens of the great State of Georgia; and
WHEREAS, throughout his political career, President Barack Obama has enjoyed an unimpeachable reputation for integrity, vision, and passion for public service, and no one could be more worthy of special honor and recognition by the members of this body and the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus than this extraordinary leader.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body recognize President Barack Obama as an honorary lifetime member of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus; join in commending him for his exceptional service to his community, this state, and our nation; and congratulate him on becoming the 44th President of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and other state black legislative caucuses are urged to adopt similar measures recognizing the extraordinary achievements of President Barack Obama.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the chairman of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, Senator Emanuel D. Jones; the president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, Representative Calvin Smyre; and to the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Here are a couple of things I'd object to.
"Barack Obama faithfully and diligently served as a member of the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004"? What about those 130 votes of present so as to avoid taking a stand on controversial issues. Hardly faithful and diligent in my book.
"President Barack Obama was a highly distinguished member of both the Illinois and United States Senates and has a long and distinguished career as a public servant and representative of the people". Distinguished? How? He had no significant accomplishments in the US Senate other than running for president, and was really pretty insignificant as a member of the Illinois legislature. What did the man do, other than promote himself effectively and get himself elected president?
"President Barack Obama has enjoyed an unimpeachable reputation for integrity, vision, and passion for public service..." Really? I'm personally ready to impeach him right now. Besides, given his backtracking on commitments he made to the American people during the campaign, I'd argue he has pretty well impeached his own reputation for integrity.
[N]o one could be more worthy of special honor and recognition by the members of this body... No one? Really? The Dalai Lama? The United States Armed Forces? The teachers who day-in and day-out toil in the classrooms of the state of Georgia with little or no recognition?
And moreover, why does the legislature as a whole need to adopt a resolution giving Obama honorary membership in a segregationist caucus from which many members of that legislature are excluded because of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character? Wouldn't it be more honest for the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus to pass a resolution of their own giving him that membership, rather than insisting that individuals who are denied membership in that segregationist caucus due to their skin color concur in an unprecedented honor that would not be conferred upon a white president?
Do I think it would be appropriate to honor Barack Obama with some sort of resolution marking his election? Perhaps -- but this is one that I would never vote for were I a member of that legislative body because of its laughable rhetoric and racially exclusive nature. Besides, I thought that Barack Obama was all about ending racial divisions in this country -- so how does granting him honorary membership in this segregationist organization really honor what he claims to be all about, especially given that the group is one that would exclude his own mother solely because of the color of her skin?
Posted by: Greg at
02:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1061 words, total size 7 kb.
New York's Republican Party says the Democrat-controlled state government is ignoring calls for an investigation into a $100,000 donation to the state Democratic Party from American International Group days before officials initiated the bailout of the insurance giant.State Republican Chairman Joseph Mondello accuses Democrats of a duck-and-cover response to disclosure of the donation, first reported Thursday by the Associated Press.
This wasn't a run-of-the-mill donation. It was the largest AIG donation to the Democrats in a decade. I don't know about you, but I'd sure like to know what other state Democrat parties received such unusual donations from a company in such terrible financial shape that they needed a massive infusion of cash at the same time. Did any AIG funds go to the national Democrat apparatus?
And let's be clear what the problem is here -- New York state gave AIG a huge infusion of taxpayer cash right after the donation was made. Both the executive and legislative branches of that state are in the hands of the Democrats. It sure looks like a quid pro quo -- and now the Democrats in that state are unwilling to examine the circumstances of the donation and its propriety.
Posted by: Greg at
01:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
New York's Republican Party says the Democrat-controlled state government is ignoring calls for an investigation into a $100,000 donation to the state Democratic Party from American International Group days before officials initiated the bailout of the insurance giant.State Republican Chairman Joseph Mondello accuses Democrats of a duck-and-cover response to disclosure of the donation, first reported Thursday by the Associated Press.
This wasn't a run-of-the-mill donation. It was the largest AIG donation to the Democrats in a decade. I don't know about you, but I'd sure like to know what other state Democrat parties received such unusual donations from a company in such terrible financial shape that they needed a massive infusion of cash at the same time. Did any AIG funds go to the national Democrat apparatus?
And let's be clear what the problem is here -- New York state gave AIG a huge infusion of taxpayer cash right after the donation was made. Both the executive and legislative branches of that state are in the hands of the Democrats. It sure looks like a quid pro quo -- and now the Democrats in that state are unwilling to examine the circumstances of the donation and its propriety.
Posted by: Greg at
01:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
![obama-unicorn[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/obama-unicorn%5B1%5D.jpg)
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
And friends, that doesn't just include the firms receiving bailout funds -- the proposal is to control the pay of the executives of ALL firms, whether or not they receive those funds.
And forget that whole legislative process, where his opponents might be able to block this unprecedented grab for power over the private sector -- he'll just have his appointees and their subordinates make rules that don't require the vote of the people's elected representatives.
The administration has been considering increased oversight of executive pay for some time, but the issue was heightened in recent days as public fury over bonuses spilled into the regulatory effort.The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.
After all, the legislative process is so cumbersome and awkward, and might not necessarily produce the Hope'n'Change that he wants -- so he'll do it himself, without legislative branch input. After all, is Article I of the Constitution really all that important? I mean, Barry Hussein's authority comes from Article II, and II is higher than I and so the powers there must be much more substantive -- and he was a constitutional law professor (well, an instructor without tenure, anyway) for a little while. Besides, isn't it time for the "living constitution" to evolve in such a way as to give him unprecedented power?
Be afraid -- be very afraid.
After all, if Obama can regulate how much these folks are allowed to make, he can also impose a maximum wage upon the rest of us if he decides it is in the national interest.
H/T Q&O, Big Lizards
Posted by: Greg at
01:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.
IranÂ’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rebuffed President ObamaÂ’s latest outreach, saying Tehran was still waiting to see concrete changes in American foreign policy.Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate responsibility for Iranian policy decisions, was responding Saturday to a video message Mr. Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran on Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and expressed hopes for an improvement in nearly 30 years of strained relations.
In his most direct public assessment of Mr. Obama and prospects for better ties, Ayatollah Khamenei said there could be no change between the countries unless the Obama administration put an end to hostility toward Iran and brings “real changes” in foreign policy.
“They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
No good was ever likely to come from this effort -- yet the Obamateur decided to engage in YouTube diplomacy. What he forgets is that the Iranian regime hates America (something not true of the Iranian people as a whole), and nothing is going to change that. What he has done here is made himself look silly, and the United States look impotent. Good going, Barry!
Posted by: Greg at
01:02 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
IranÂ’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rebuffed President ObamaÂ’s latest outreach, saying Tehran was still waiting to see concrete changes in American foreign policy.Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate responsibility for Iranian policy decisions, was responding Saturday to a video message Mr. Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran on Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and expressed hopes for an improvement in nearly 30 years of strained relations.
In his most direct public assessment of Mr. Obama and prospects for better ties, Ayatollah Khamenei said there could be no change between the countries unless the Obama administration put an end to hostility toward Iran and brings “real changes” in foreign policy.
“They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
No good was ever likely to come from this effort -- yet the Obamateur decided to engage in YouTube diplomacy. What he forgets is that the Iranian regime hates America (something not true of the Iranian people as a whole), and nothing is going to change that. What he has done here is made himself look silly, and the United States look impotent. Good going, Barry!
Posted by: Greg at
01:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
CNET News has obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they're at risk of a cyberattack, "critical" computer networks from the Internet.
Obama's popularity is plummeting, and he and his minions are seeking to aggregate more and more power into the hands of the government. He even wants to bypass the legislative process to implement further government control of the economy through executive orders and bureaucratic regulations. What better way to stifle dissent than to prevent convenient access to government records and limit the ability of citizens to quickly and conveniently communicate with government officials?
Anyone thinking "Reichstag fire"?
H/T Pink Flamingo
Posted by: Greg at
12:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
March 21, 2009
You know, remember when Obama said that the people out there who are bitter and cling to their guns? Yeah, he was way off about that. I mean, it's those people who I worry about. I do think that this increases the chance for people, you know, to take horrible action. I mean, you know, already Obama has more threats than any president ever.
We'll leave aside the fact that Maher expressed regret that Dick Cheney was not murdered in a terrorist attack while abroad. We'll ignore the fact that his companion on the broadcast, Keith Olbermann, made comments regarding George W. Bush that were much more outrageous than anything said by Beck on his show. Let's get down to brass tacks on this one.
Let's assume that Maher is correct -- the dissenting words of certain conservatives increase the chance of some unspecified "horrible action" against Barack Obama.
So what?
After all, the alternative is government speech regulation, and the evisceration of the First Amendment.
Barack Obama took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is the commander in chief of our armed forces. As much as any of the soldiers at his command, he should be prepared to lay down his life to defend our nation's charter of liberty. If he isn't, he needs to admit as much and resign.
Now please understand, I want nothing to happen to Barack Obama. I hope to see him live to a ripe old age -- long enough for history to have rendered a definitive verdict that his performance during his single term in the White House constituted one of the worst failures of a President in American history (ranking with Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan). But if the choice is between his life and our liberties, there is no contest.
Now I have condemned outright threats against a sitting president in the past. I do so again here and now -- just as I do threats of death or violence against any other human being. But that isn't what is being talked about here -- instead we are once again hearing Leftists put forth an implicit justification of speech suppression on the basis that someone who is unstable might act in a manner never intended by the speaker.
Posted by: Greg at
04:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.
March 20, 2009
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
I'm curious -- what is The One trying to hide here? the fact that he is newsworthy? The fact that he got an award? The fact that it is from a black organization? I just don't get it -- this is the sort of non-controversial photo-op type of thing that the White House Press Office ought to be opening up for the media. It would be a feel-good story.
I wonder -- could Obama's teleprompter have a prior engagement?
H/T Surber, NewsBusters
Posted by: Greg at
04:21 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Another incompetent in the administration of the Obamateur. What this fool does not realize is that by refusing to call terrorism by its proper name, she makes it implicitly less serious. By refusing to call it an attempt to use terror to achieve the political and religious ends of the Islamist horde, she minimizes its importance and significance.
But then again, this ranks right up there with the dropping of the term "enemy combatant" -- presumably to be replaced by some more neutral term like "undocumented adversary" or "future Democrat voter".
Posted by: Greg at
03:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.
According to the indictment, Democratic election commissioner Charles Wayne Jones and election officer William E. Stivers helped extort money from candidates. In some cases, candidates were apparently asked to pool money so votes could be bought.Thompson, the county clerk, allegedly provided money for election officers to buy votes. Thompson also told election officers how to change votes at the machines, according to the indictment.
Some voters were bribed at the voting booths. Some officials told voters to use booths incorrectly, so that they could go back and change the tallies, the indictment says.
William and Debra Morris are also charged as associates who helped dish out money to buy votes.
Now Sister Toldjah wants to question whether some of those involved might be Republicans -- but given the lask of any other party ID, it seems pretty clear that only one party was involved.
Posted by: Greg at
03:10 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
President Barack Obama says his embattled treasury chief, Timothy Geithner, is doing an “outstanding job.”In a taped appearance on “The Tonight Show”, he told host Jay Leno that Geithner is a smart guy who’s been handed an incredibly full plate. But he’s handling it all with grace and good humor. Listing the recession, the banking crisis and the need to coordinate with other countries, Obama acknowledged Geithner’s “on the hot seat”. But he says too many in Washington are trying to figure out who to blame for things — when they should be focused on fixing them.
I guess Barry Hussein doesn't read the papers -- little Timmy and his subordinates approved the AIG bonuses, even got them written into the legislation by a friendly Dem senator. And Timmy has failed to exercise appropriate oversight over TARP funds.
Wanna bet that the media gives the Obamateur a pass on this one, too?
H/T Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
03:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 2 kb.
March 19, 2009
No, I mean the newest Biden, Champ.
![puppy18_228[1].JPG](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/puppy18_228[1].JPG)
Better looking than the Vice president, and probably smarter, too. Also less likely to say something stupid to embarrass the Obama Regime.
But I am disturbed by this detail in the story.
The veep's wife told People magazine she intends to tear up the off-white carpet installed by the Cheneys in favor of kid-and-pet-friendly hardwood floors.
In these hard economic times, with the Obama Regime spending more on bailout programs than George W. Bush spent on the entire Iraq war, is it really appropriate for the government to spend a bundle to redecorate the Vice Presidential residence when the current decor is perfectly serviceable?
Posted by: Greg at
11:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
March 17, 2009
Is it because of incompetence?
Is it because the perpetrator is a Democrat?
Or is it because the perpetrator is black and his victims white?
Attorney General Eric Holder calls the U.S. “a nation of cowards” because we “do not talk enough about race.” I find this ironic, since the Justice Department seems embarrassed about a recent judgment in its favor by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. U.S. v. Ike Brown is a major Voting Rights Act case involving intentional race-based discrimination by local officials in Noxubee County, Miss.When the Fifth Circuit issued its decision on February 27, there was complete silence from Justice. The department typically issues a press release after any significant litigation victory, and the Civil Rights Division trumpets every success. But not here. The silence from the nation’s leading news outlets was also deafening: Not a word was published about the case by the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other major publication. Why? Because the offensive conduct at issue did not conveniently track with the Left’s view of race discrimination.
* * * If the races had been reversed, does anyone doubt this would have been front-page news? Or that Eric Holder would have been prominently quoted in a Justice Department press release calling attention to this outrageous discrimination? The Department of Justice should be proud of this victory. If Attorney General Holder is serious about talking about race, perhaps he could start with this case.
So, let's have that dialogue about race. Is racial discrimination at the voting booth an evil for the federal government to eradicate only when the victims are non-whites -- or is each and every American worthy of having his or her right to vote protected without regard to race or ethnicity? Why were careerists in the Civil Rights Division so opposed to taking and prosecuting this case? And why the failure to talk about race -- and racism -- when the opportunity exists to demonstrate that our nation's government is prepared to act in defense of the liberties of every American when they are the victims of pervasive acts of racism under color of law (as Attorney General Holder claimed was a department goal in a recent speech in Selma, Alabama)?
H/T Discriminations
Posted by: Greg at
11:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
Apparently Barack Obama thinks differently, and so he wants to strip much of the protection of federal law from whistleblowers who go to Congress.
A leading Republican senator maintains that President Obama is violating a campaign promise with his claim that he can bypass whistle-blower protections for executive branch officials who give certain information to Congress.The lawmaker, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent a letter to Mr. Obama on Friday that condemned a signing statement the president attached to the $410 billion catchall spending bill he signed into law last week.
A signing statement, occasionally issued by presidents upon their signing a bill, is a document that instructs executive branch officials on how to carry out the new law. In this statement, Mr. Obama flagged a provision that protects officials who give information to Congress about their jobs or agencies. He said the statute could not limit his power to control the flow of certain information to lawmakers.
The disclosures that Barack Obama seeks to punish are those that disclose illegal or unethical actions, or activities that are arguably not in the best interest of the American people. What nefarious activities does the new president have planned that he needs the power to intimidate those who are aware of it into silence?
And, of course, Obama has engaged in this course of action using one of those eeeevvvviiiillll signing statements that he condemned back during the campaign. Smells like hypocrisy to me.
Posted by: Greg at
02:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
March 15, 2009
But even better than the picture is this comment on Don Surber's blog on the picture.
Countdown to some Leftard calling this guy a raaaaacist!!!!111!!!! in 5…4…3…2…Countdown to some Leftard pointing out that he is driving a WHITE pickup truck so he must be a “redneck racist moron” in 5…4…3…2…
The scary thing is that the master-race-baiters would likely make the argument.
Posted by: Greg at
11:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
March 13, 2009
This appointment of a terrorist's defense lawyer to the Department of Justice announces that Barack Obama is in favor of a more lenient stance on terrorists. As Lileks says, it is evidence of a going back to 9/10 thinking. Also, since the Old Media have not made a single peep about this, it announces to the world that neither the crimes of 9/11 nor terrorism are any longer of interest to those that make the news. Says Lileks, "It just seems like one of those things that might have stuck out, once upon a time."So, in a era when most of us still acutely feel that Islamic terrorism is an important worry that should still feature prominently in our planning, Barack Obama is appointing a terrorist's lawyer to one of the very agencies that is supposed to protect us all.
And interestingly enough, the MSM is not looking into this issue at all. Where have the stories been exposing this link – and the fact that West still defends his little terrorist puke of a client as being innocent? They have been nonexistent.
Now maybe West has a good explanation for his position. Maybe he took the Lindh case out of the belief that “someone has to do it”. But to still be defending him now, after the verdict has been rendered and appeals exhausted strikes me as a negative in regard to that nomination – and one that the Senate should examine closely during the confirmation process.
Posted by: Greg at
06:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
March 12, 2009
I work with teenagers every day. Every year I have a bunch of pregnant girls in my classes, and also fathers-to-be. I don’t condone the actions that got them there, but I do my best to give them all the love and support I can. I’ve done the same with students who have aborted – some of whom think they were correct, and some of whom come to realize they were tragically wrong. . . . It is called compassion. It is called love.Good people, including those raised with conservative moral values, make bad choices and find themselves living with unintended consequences of those choices (not “punishment”, Barack). It is the obligation of the rest of the good people in the world to lend them our support when that happens. And the first line of support has to be the family – even when those teens went against the values which their parents tried to teach them and which they failed to live up to.
When it was said that the young couple planned to marry, I had my doubts, but I kept my silence on that point -- after all, working with teenagers I've learned that many of those planned marriages don't happen, even though the young couples may sincerely mean it when they make the initial plan in the face of an unplanned pregnancy. Still, I've seen some happen, and I've seen some of those be successful marriages.
Well, as folks now know, the wedding is off. As I indicated above, I'm not surprised. What I hope for is that these two young people manage to figure out how to conduct themselves so that their son has two involved parents. While the ideal home is for a married mother and father, then they need to act in such a manner as to ensure that their string of bad decisions has as little negative impact on their child as possible.
Hypocritical? Hardly. Call it practical -- and identical to the advice I have given to students and former students who have been in exactly the same situation.
Now there are those on the Right and the Left who want to throw stones and make cheap points based upon whatever agenda they may have.
One local Lefty blogger wants to brand the GOP as hypocritical while throwing around ethnic slurs and hateful rhetoric. If he really feels as he claims he does, I'm sure that John will soon be arrested in front of the local high school for shouting "whore" and "slut" at pregnant girls on their way to class. It's just more of the same low-class ugliness we've come to expect from he and his ilk.
And on the Right, we've got Debbie Schlussel taking what I consider to be an utterly wrong-headed position on the matter, attacking working moms and immature teens who fail to control their hormones and have babies. Frankly, I don't consider her rhetoric any more elevated or helpful than that of the liberal cited above. Indeed, I could almost see her cuffed to that liberal after an arrest in the same incident.
Let's be honest here. Nobody, Right or Left, approved of Bristol Palin getting pregnant. Nobody celebrated it on the Right (though some on the Left did, since they didn't mind attacking a young girl in order to tear down her mother). And while many of us hoped that there might be an eventual wedding, what we on the Right generally said was that we were hopeful that the couple would draw on the resources of their families (sorely lacking in the case of Levi Johnston, we later found out) in order to successfully parent their child. And while we praised her decision to have and keep her child, rather than aborting, that didn't constitute approval of unwed teenage pregnancy -- but rather an affirmation of the miracle of every new life. This is not, and should not, be about politics at all -- and I would say the same thing about the daughter of a prominent Democrat, though some might argue differently.
So my advice to folks on all sides is simple -- shut up. This is not a political happening to use to score points one way or another. It is a human tragedy for two young people, their child, and their extended families. At most, it is one more lesson on why sex outside of marriage is not a wise choice, especially for teens -- and that even those who were raised with and who profess certain beliefs about the morality of sex outside of marriage do fall short of the proper standard.
And so I go back to what I said at the very beginning of this saga and again at the birth of young Tripp -- I offer my prayers and best wishes to them all in the hopes that the child becomes a happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving adult.
Posted by: Greg at
12:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 890 words, total size 6 kb.
Consider his comment here, from February 25, 2009:
As I point out the most influential Republican in the United States today Mr. Rush Limbaugh said he did not want President Obama to succeed. So at the very top of the Republican Party, heÂ’s not being wished well here.
In other words, there is something wrong with not wanting Obama to succeed – and indeed, the Demo-meme has been that it is unpatriotic, if not downright treasonous, to hold such an opinion.
How, then, does Carville justify his words. And those of Democrat pollster Stanley Greenberg, from September 11, 2001?
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesnÂ’t succeed."Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and IÂ’m wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They donÂ’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
They wanted President Bush to fail – and their goal was to make the American people want him to fail.
Of course, minutes later they received word of the attack on the World Trade Center. And Carville demanded that the assembled reporters not report their words – and they obliged him. But while he said that the 9/11 attacks changed everything, I’d argue that Carville’s words and deeds over the following seven years indicated that he still wanted Bush to fail – and that he acted to bring about that failure for partisan advantage.
So tell me, how are the words and actions of James Carville materially different than those of Rush Limbaugh? Are Democrats prepared to denounce and repudiate Carville? Or are they willing to concede, by their silence, their own hypocrisy?
H/T Patterico, Hot Air, NewsBusters, BizzyBlog, Gateway Pundit
Posted by: Greg at
10:02 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.
More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys.The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
Let Teddy raise money for his own memorial project – or better yet, let him leave some of his daddy’s bootlegging money to finance the project. Or even assign the rights to his soon-to-be-released memoir to a foundation creating the program.
And that $5.8 million? Spend it on establishing the Mary Jo Kopechne Institute for the Study and Elimination of Drunk Driving.
Posted by: Greg at
09:59 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
March 11, 2009
Who has been running these schools? Obama buddy Arne Duncan, who everyone describes as a great reformer. I think results show that isn't the case. But he's been brought in to do for the students of the entire nation what he did for kids in Chicago.
Call it one more example of Obama-class incompetence.
Posted by: Greg at
08:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
Federal authorities have told a high-profile Arizona sheriff that they will investigate his department over allegations of discriminatory practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.The U.S. Justice Department said in a letter delivered Tuesday to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio that the investigation will focus on alleged patterns of discrimination based on a person's national origin.
Arpaio told The Associated Press that he will cooperate with the Justice Department.
Got that -- going after illegal aliens will get you investigated for discrimination based upon national origin now that the Obama Regime is in power. After all, the overwhelming majority of illegals in Maricopa County are from a single country, and so any attempt to see to it that our nation's immigration laws are enforced will automatically produce enough of a statistical disparity to get you investigated. Watch for other law enforcement agencies to quit making such arrests because of this move.
Posted by: Greg at
03:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
March 10, 2009
And to think that there was once a day when it was generally acknowledged that good government was the business of every citizen – and that elected officials were servants of the people, not peons to be brushed aside by an arrogant aristocracy.
And then there is another corrupt Democrat – this one in Chicago. Alderman Ricardo Munoz doesn’t think much of the rights of citizens to petition their government seeking a redress of grievances.
Your office, pendejo? I do believe that is the peopleÂ’s office, paid for with taxpayer money. Seems to me that youÂ’ve forgotten that all power in this nation comes from the people, and that you are their trustee, not their master.
Is it any wonder I call it the Jackass Party?
Posted by: Greg at
12:54 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 2 kb.
63 queries taking 0.2201 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
