Friday, May 28, 2010

In Celebration of Memorial Day



"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Thursday, May 27, 2010

A Lie or a Felony?

By Karl Rove

There are one of two things going on here: Either Joe Sestak is a liar and he's not telling the truth about this, or somebody inside the White House committed a felony.

Federal law, 18Usc21,1 says that a government official cannot receive anything of value in return for a promise of government employment. That is to say, you can't offer somebody a government job in return for receiving anything that could be considered a benefit. Well, you know, a clear path to the nomination for your political ally is clearly something of benefit, so to resolve this, we got to have -- Joe Sestak has got to step forward and say here's who made the offer and here's when they made the offer to me. And then the White House has to make that person available and explain why this isn't a violation of law.

And you know, it's not enough to depend upon the White House to simply to say, well you know, we've looked into it and there's not a problem. Who said what to whom and when did they say it?And who knew about this offer being made? Did the president, for example, know about an effort to, in essence, bribe Joe Sestak [to get] out of the race? And we can't allow stonewalling. The people of Pennsylvania and the American people deserve to have answers to these questions.

What we do know was that Joe Sestak was asked the question, "were you offered a job in the administration in return for pulling out?" And he said, "yes." So again, it goes back to the fundamental question, who said what to him? And he needs to be forthcoming in that. And then we need to check with the White House to have them make that person available and put their explanation on it. I doubt that it was said in sort of a hidden way so that Joe Sestak assumed. He was emphatic when he answered the question yes, he was offered a job, a post in the administration if he withdrew from the primary. That's pretty straightforward and direct. Who made that offer to him?

You have the chairman of the Democratic National Committee saying yes, we need to get to the bottom of it. Yes, we do. I mean, this is a bribe. And the idea that somebody inside the White House would have tried to bribe a candidate with an offer of government employment, again, I repeat, it's either Joe Sestak telling a lie -- in which case the White House needs to be absolved of any wrongdoing -- or he's telling the truth, in which case, we need to know who committed, potentially, a felony at the highest levels of the White House.

The reason I'm concerned about this is, we already have a sense of callousness inside the White House about these kind of questions. The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was in Congress in 2005 and was given e-mails from the Republican Congressman Mark Foley in which he was trying to sexually prey upon underage teenage male Pages, and then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel sat on those e-mails. He had a moral obligation to give them over to the Page Committee, which is charged with protecting the safety of the Pages or to turn them over to the Ethics Committee which looks at violations of law by Congress. Instead, he held on to them for a year, content to let, in the meantime, Congressman Foley prey on underage male Pages perhaps, in order to use it as a political issue in the closing days of the 2006 campaign.

That kind of moral callousness in the White House chief of staff gives me pause as to why we can't trust the White House to just sort of say 'we looked into it and there's no problem.' Who talked to whom and what did they say? And let's have Joe Sestak's version and let's have the White House version and let the people decide whether or not there's a problem.

Karl Rove is a former George W. Bush  Senior Advisor.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Mexico's President Has Some Nerve Lecturing His U.S. 'Amigos'

By Bradley Blakeman

The fact that an American administration would invite and incite a head of state to disrespect our nation is unconscionable.

The Democrats thought that if they invited Mexican President Calderon to address a Joint Meeting of Congress this week that they could encourage him to use that solemn opportunity to take a swipe at Arizona's new immigration law. Well it backfired.

The fact that an American administration would invite and incite a head of state to disrespect our nation is unconscionable. This is what the President of Mexico said about an American law from the podium of the United States House of Representatives:

"It introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." He went on to say, "I agree with the president (Barack Obama) who says the new law carries a great amount of risk with the core values that we all care about are breached."

It was no secret what President Calderon would say. Here is what Time Correspondent Tim Padgett wrote on Wednesday as he anticipated Thursday's speech:

"So perhaps we deserve some of the lecturing we're bound to get from President Felipe Calderón when he climbs Capitol Hill on Thursday. He'll point out, as the Obama administration has conceded, that much of the blame for Mexico's horrible narcoviolence lies with our insatiable demand for drugs and our lame-brained refusal in 2004 to renew a ban on assault weapons that are being smuggled into Mexico. He'll insist, rightly, that we comply with NAFTA and give Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways. And he'll rail at Arizona's hysterical new anti-immigration law, which allows police to detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and which critics call carte blanche for racial profiling of Mexicans and other Hispanics. 'It opens the door to intolerance, hate and discrimination,' Calderon said recently."

Calderon's dissatisfaction with American immigration policy is as much an indictment on President Obama as it is with the House and Senate -- all of which are controlled by Democrats, by the way. President Obama promised that in his first year he would make immigration reforms a top priority. Well, a year has come and gone and the president and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate did absolutely nothing with regard to immigration. Their inaction forced the State of Arizona, out of frustration, to take action through legislation.

Arizona law's, (which our Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary seem to have no trouble criticizing even though they haven't bothered to read it), mirrors federal law -- almost verbatim.

How can Mexico's president rail against American immigration law when Mexican law is almost identical to law in the United States and Arizona?

Mexico has become a narco-terrorist state. More than 15,000 people have been killed in drug- related violence since Calderon took office in 2006. President Calderon and his government are not in control. Who is he to come here and lecture to us when he has surrendered his nation to drug dealers and thugs? Mexico is rife with corruption and it has a jobless rate that dwarfs our own.

Calderon's country does not have Americans, by the millions, flooding into Mexico to take jobs, and use services they are not contributing to.
America needs to enforce its immigration laws, period. Arizona taxpayers, like those from other border states, are required to spend billions of dollars every year as a direct result of our nation's failed immigration policy. It show up in higher costs for law enforcement, health care, schooling, housing, jobs, etc. States are not reimbursed from the federal government for the federal government's inability or desire to enforce federal law. Enough is enough!

Now is the time to deal with immigration in a real, just and equitable way for all parties. Immigration reform starts with enforcing existing laws and securing our borders.

As far as President Calderon is concerned: Hasta la vista, sir.

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Not to be Believed

Below is video of Bill O'Reilly reporting on the unbelievable story of some left-wing nut job - who was appointed to the State Department - and who yesterday engaged the Chinese in discussions about how China beleives the U.S. has problems with human rights issues, and how this 'brain-donor-before-death' from State obviously agrees and cites the Arizona Immigration law as proof.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Thanks to the Tea Partiers, Term Limits Have Arrived At Last

By Liz Peek

Tea Partiers have found an organizing theme, even if they don’t know it yet. Like beaters flushing quail, they are turning incumbents out of office at an unprecedented rate – both on the left and the right. In effect, they are imposing their own special brand of term limits.

Political pundits are alternately rejoicing or despairing over this unexpected development, depending on the leanings of the latest victim. The passionate energy of the Tea Partiers was welcomed in right-wing circles when it stirred opposition to health care legislation and especially when it lobbed long-shot candidate Scott Brown of Massachusetts into the Senate. Now that it has upset long-time legislator Senator Robert Bennett of Utah and is threatening Arizona’s John McCain, Republicans are having second thoughts. Their anxiety is amplified by the primary contest in Kentucky, where Tea Partiers may push Rand Paul to victory over Trey Grayson, the more mainstream pick of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Tea Partiers already dumped Florida’s Charlie Crist; now there’s concern that party stalwart Orrin Hatch of Utah could be next.

Democrats started out anxious about the Tea Partiers. To lose Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat to a Republican upstart left no doubt about the group’s influence. Though party pundits have been not-so-secretly rejoicing about the quicksand Tea Partiers are spreading before Republicans, they may quickly change their tune. The loss of West Virginia Representative Alan Mollohan to right-leaning State Senator Mike Oliverio in that state’s primary is another wake-up call. Oliverio honed in on Mollohan’s ethics issues and pounded him on having supported the health care bill. Turns out the Tea Partiers are ambidextrous.

Should Americans celebrate these developments? Yes! Without a doubt one of the most corrosive influences in our body politic is the near-certainty of being re-elected to many Senate and House seats. The folks at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) who each year publish a list of the “Fifteen Most Corrupt Members of Congress” say that the most predictive indicator of joining that unholy club is time in office. Legislators who are voted in year after year acquire an unhealthy disdain for the voters they represent. It is but a short step from comfort to corruption.

Representative Mollohan, a multi-year member of CREW’s “Fifteen Most Corrupt” list, had served 14 terms – nearly 30 years – in office. And, he occupied a seat that his father had held for 14 years before that. His previous popularity and his ethics violations had derived from the amount of pork he was able to deliver on a consistent basis to his district and to friends and family. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, he earmarked $369 million in grants to his district for 254 programs over the past ten years. Of that total, according to CREW, $250 million went to five non-profits created by Mollohan and staffed by his friends. Over that period, people associated with these same outfits funneled nearly $400,000 to Mollohan’s campaign and PAC.

While voters have previously been wooed by earmarks, assuming that money funneled to their district came from somewhere and someone else, they are waking up. The nation’s fiscal health is failing, and voters are consequently upending many previously sacrosanct notions. Among those previously taboo topics, for example, is cutting spending on public schools. Governor Chris Christie is daring to take on the militant teachers unions of New Jersey, cheered on by the hard-pressed taxpayers in that most high-taxed of all states. People – especially out of work people – are no longer willing to support the endless raises, bloated administrative budgets and insane work rules demanded by a union that arguably does not deliver a good product. People want a new deal.

Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina has introduced a constitutional amendment to establish term limits on those serving in Congress. He notes that over the past two decades politicians have been reelected 90% of the time. “Americans know that real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians” says DeMint. He is completely right. In poll after poll, a large majority of Americans say they support term limits. The good news is that we may not have to wait for DeMint’s long-shot bill to pass; the Tea Partiers may impose term limits all by themselves.

Liz Peek is a financial, political and social columnist.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The 800 Pound Gorilla In The Room

Concerning the recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, why is everyone over looking the 800-pound gorilla standing dead center in the room?


Elena Kagan is almost certainly a lesbian. She was indentified as such by friends and acquaintances, after having confided to them, both at Harvard and with other people she’s interacted with during her career.

Probably the best substantiation is that the White House ordered CBS to kill a story which raised questions about her being a lesbian. They always seem to act defensively in light of correct, potentially embarrassing information.

Also, Kagan has never publically denied that she is gay. If true, I see this as being highly problematic, as she will undoubtedly further the gay agenda, witnessed by the fact that when disagreeing with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," while at Harvard, she decided to nullify an existing law and was summarily overruled by the Supreme Court; the very one she will now be serving on if appointed. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how she will end up ruling on issues before the court dealing with DOMA, same sex "rights" issues and gay marriage, issues she has always supported.

Once again Obama has seeded this country’s highest offices with a left-wing progressive liberal who is also almost certainly gay. If homosexuals make up between 3-5% of the population, then Obama positively has an agenda, supported by the fact that - according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund - he has now appointed over 100 of them in his administration.

Welcome to the transformation of America. This country is slowly dying. The only chance it has is some CPR, come November

Monday, May 10, 2010

Here We Go Again

If anyone doubts the almost constant assault on God and country in this nation, then you have to look no further than California. Last week it was reported that four or five high school students were reprimanded and sent home because they had the temerity to wear American flags on their clothing. Now, we have another incident in California where students were given an art assignment. When a student chose to draw an American flag with the words “God Bless America” emblazoned on it, her teacher said it was offensive. Yet, she praised another student for drawing a picture of Obama. Here we have, on one hand, a picture of one of the most divisive presidents in modern history, who in one short year has polarized this nation so dramatically there is almost no parallel, seen as being laudable by this teacher, but the simple concept of “God Bless America,” which should strive to unite this country, is looked upon as being “offensive.” The whole public school system should be revamped and purged of these liberal progressive teachers who contradict the very fabric of our Constitution and American way of life.


In a foot note, visitors at a Senior Citizen Center in Georgia were told they couldn’t pray over their meals since the government mostly paid for them:

Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to the Ed Young Senior Center visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which, according to them, ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center, which has been in place for over eighty years, was traded in for a moment of silence. . . . Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. Vice President, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay .55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said.

Rutherford said the moment of silence was introduced to protect that funding. He said although the change may have been misinterpreted, perhaps his company could have done a better job selling it.

If this isn’t the height of political correctness, I don’t know what would be. This Rutherford guy is obviously a major pinhead. Moment of silence my ass!

As the Supreme Court has explained, “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

You’d have to be a total nimrod to not understand the difference, and this ass-hat Rutherford is just doing what we used to call in the military, CYA; Covering Your Ass.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Bizzarro America

Did I wake up in Bizzarro America this morning? You know like that place in the Superman comics where everything is ass-backwards? We’ve got some dip-shit Mexican Vice Principle at an American high school in “Mexifornia, “ telling five white students they can’t wear the American flag on their clothing because it’s “Cinco de Mayo,” a holiday they don’t even celebrate in Mexico??? WTF??? You know, enough is frigging enough! If these people are so enamored with Mexico - who insist on waiving Mexican flags and protesting in the streets because they think they have it so bad - who don’t show any allegiance to this country, and want to demonstrate their loyalty to Mexico, then do us all a favor and MOVE BACK TO MEXICO! I’ll bet you a dollar to a taco they’ll be crawling back over that fence to get a way from that shit-hole of a country faster than they can say, “God Bless America.”


"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Hollwoood Is Full of Pussies

What a bunch of lame-assed pansies they have in Hollywood. While our soldiers are dying overseas to protect their sorry asses from muslim extremists, the Hollywood elite have decided to tuck their tail and turn yellow on the subject of depicting, or making any reference to, "The Prophet Mohammad." After the Southpark people were threatened, it looks like all of Hollywood has put out the word, and now all media outlets have followed suit, and are afraid to even mention or make reference to anything to do with "Mohammad" or muslim extremists in general.


For one of the first times I can say I'm ashamed to be an American. Americans have never let terrorists or tyrants dictate what we say or think... until now. We had never backed a way from a fight, when it was to protect free speech or thought... until now.

We now have become no more than a bunch of scared little 'marys', hiding under our skirts, afraid to offend anyone for fear of retribution. It makes me sick. It's time to 'Man Up' in this country and find the set of balls God gave us and bomb these camel-humping muslim malcontents, and their POS "prophet" back to the stone-age where they belong.

I, for one, am not afraid to depict their false prophet in any terms I see fit. You want a piece of me? Set the time and place. You just better hope you're a better shot than I am. Of course, knowing how you scum operate, you're more likely to take the coward's way out and use an IED. But, if you're man enough to face me down, I'd be more than happy to send you on your way to see your beloved "allah" or that POS Mohammad, so you can collect your 72 virgins, which knowing how you guys hate women, will probably be 72 men.

Here's what I think of your "prophet":

This is my artist's rendition of "Mohammad"

Monday, May 3, 2010

Five Lessons From the Times Square (Almost) Bombing

By James P. Pinkerton

One of the reminders of Saturday's foiled terrorist is that we need to monitor dangerous people and their actions.

Five points to keep in mind:

First, a salute to those who went running toward the smoldering Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square on Saturday night. On 9/11, as the Twin Towers were burning and tottering, we learned that hundreds of our best Americans were running up the stairs, even as thousands were running down. As we know, those who went running up all died--died as heroes. And the same could have happened last night in Times Square. And while nobody was hurt last night, there will be another dangerous night, and another dangerous morning. The first responders don’t get billion-dollar bailouts, they don’t get invited to swanky dinners in Washington; they simply keep the rest of us safe. And if our national values system doesn’t sufficiently express our gratitude toward gritty heroes, then there’s something wrong with our national values system.

Second, it’s easy to make an explosive device. If all that’s needed is propane and alarm clocks to set off a near-bomb, then just about anybody with bad intent can do it. The plans are on the Internet, even on YouTube. And we might note the enormous explosive punch of gasoline, as well as a hundred other industrial chemicals. In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City with a bomb made of fertilizer. We all know how he did it, and so do would-be terrorists. If they didn’t get it right last night--they will keep trying.

Third, if explosive materials are all around us, then it follows that the real issue of concern is not the potentially lethal material, but, rather, the potentially violent intent of individuals and groups. A hundred million or so people in this country have guns; it is not possible to monitor all the lethal weapons. Instead, we need to monitor dangerous people and their actions. Let’s hope, for example, that surveillance cameras in Times Square will help us determine the identity of the would-be bombers. But let’s not stop there--we need to be pro-active, as well as reactive.

Fourth, the issue, then, is alert police and intelligence work. While it is true that some people just “snap,” that is not the pattern for terrorist attacks. McVeigh was part of a loose network of extremists; one other person, Terry Nichols, was convicted in the attacks, and many others seem to have had at least some knowledge of the plan. The police need the capacity to infiltrate and monitor networks--and yes, that means that we need the Patriot Act, and other such enforcement tools. Yes, the potential for abuse exists, but the worse potential is that we could lose a city. In a world of dangerous people and dangerous devices, purist libertarianism is not an option.

Fifth, if we need to keep track of dangerous people in the U.S., then it follows that we don’t need still more dangerous people in the U.S. And that suggests a greater emphasis on border security. Wars are raging in the Middle East; it’s only natural that Middle Easterners would bring some of that conflict here to our soil. Indeed, they already have. And, of course, a war is also raging in Mexico; some 23,000 people, including 1,100 police and other government officials, have been killed in the last four years, according to The Washington Post. Do we want that sort of mayhem here? Of course not.

As the American Legion writes in a recent report, “A Strategy to Address Illegal Immigration

In the United States,” Americans have good reason to be concerned about open borders. As the Legion puts it:

The vulnerability of this country to acts of terrorism because of our porous borders and lack of enforcement of immigration laws has most Americans concerned, and rightfully so. Last year, thousands of illegal immigrants were apprehended entering the United States from countries with known terrorist connections. These countries included Afghanistan, Angola, Jordan, Pakistan and Yemen. It was reported by The Christian Science Monitor that 44,000 OTMs (Other Than Mexicans), most of which are from Central America, entered the United States illegally in 2004.

The chaotic situation in Mexico makes lax border enforcement a national security threat. At least two major rings have been uncovered, which smuggled Middle Easterners into the United States via Mexico. In 2001, Iraqi-born smuggler George Tajirian pled guilty to forging an alliance with a Mexican immigration officer, Angel Molina Paramo, to smuggling 1,000 Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, and other illegals into the country from Mexico. Until his arrest in 2002, Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, who ran a café in Tijuana, Mexico, also smuggled Lebanese illegal immigrants into the United States.

Those are sobering statistics. If we don’t heed their warning, what happened last night--indeed, what happened on 9/11--will seem like just an overture.

James P. Pinkerton is the founder/editor of Serious Medicine Strategy.com.
 



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic