SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/20/2009 3:06:50 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
T4 - The Taxinator; Rise of the Taxes

      

Hat tip to Power Line - a photoshop from Michelle Malkin

michellemalkin.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/23/2009 10:33:34 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
TEST OF MORALITY

The One (1) Question Test.

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.

THE SITUATION:

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swir ling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.

==========================================

THE TEST:

Suddenly you see a man and a woman in the water. They are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow they look familiar. You suddenly realize who they are. It's Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever. You have two options: You can save their lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the deaths of two of the world's most powerful people.

==========================================

THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?






To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/24/2009 1:23:55 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Toilet Tutorial

machosauceproduction
May 18, 2009

YouTube

youtube.com

Zo Uses the crapper to explain why the economy is in the crapper!



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/24/2009 1:35:17 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
NEWSBUSTED

YouTube
May 18, 2009

youtube.com

Topics in today's show:

-- President Obama gets heckled at Notre Dame

-- A new polls shows that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life

-- Chrysler will close over 1000 dealerships

-- Vanessa Hudgens is reportedly upset that Zac Efron won't propose to her

Starring: Jodi Miller
Director: Bruce Roundtower
Executive Producer: Matthew Sheffield



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/24/2009 1:37:47 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
NewsBusted

YouTube

5/22/09

youtube.com

Topics in today's show:

-- President Obama continues Bush military tribunals

-- President Obama says the deficit is unsustainable

-- The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 25%

-- Mia Farrow has ended her hunger strike

Starring: Jodi Miller
Director: Bruce Roundtower
Executive Producer: Matthew Sheffield



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)5/29/2009 4:46:41 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
My Personalized Letter from James Carville

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

For reasons that must have to do with original sin, I get fundraising letters from major Democratic operatives (who also often have jobs as analysts on CNN) every week. This one came in from Carville. It's amazing how juvenile these things are. It's like Carville's running for chairman of the yearbook committee.


<<< Dear Jonah,

Just when I thought I've seen everything...
The Republicans have dragged out Newt Gingrich to headline a fundraising dinner.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are leading this country into the future. Let the has beens and never weres in the Republican Party fight among themselves. We want you to join us for a different kind of dinner. No Newts allowed.

There is less than a week left for your chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. on June 18th to meet President Obama, have dinner and go home with a photograph with him. The dinner is June 18th and the deadline to enter is less than a week away! Enter now - the more times you give the more chances to win.

Contribute $5, $10, or more and be automatically entered for a chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. to join President Obama on June 18th — and go home with a photograph with the President!

Sincerely, >>>

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/4/2009 3:30:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
With Comrades Like These...

Posted by John
Power Line

Barack Obama demonstrated an unusual ability to be all things to all people (or most of them, anyway) during last year's Presidential campaign. Now he's exhibiting the same talent on the international stage. He is simultaneously being feted in Wahabbist Saudi Arabia and praised by Marxist Hugo Chavez, who hails Obama as a "comrade":

<<< During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast. >>>


One could view this as a microcosm of the seemingly-incongruous confluence between the Left and radical Islam that occurred in recent years. There is a simpler explanation, however: a great many foreign leaders have an interest in a weakened America, and all of them seem quite fond of President Obama.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/9/2009 12:26:49 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
NewsBusted

6/2/09

youtube.com

6/05/09

youtube.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/9/2009 12:46:25 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
How Churchill Became Churchill

Michael McMenamin

ReasonTV

youtube.com

Rediscovering young Winston's classical liberal American mentor, Bourke Cockran.

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie recently sat down with Reason contributing editor Michael McMenamin, co-author with Curt Zoller of 2007's Becoming Winston Churchill, now out in a paperback edition from Enigma Books. The volume promises "the untold story of Young Winston and his American mentor."

Churchill's mentor was the Irish-born New York orator and politician Bourke Cockran (1854-1923), who served in Congress and advised President Grover Cleveland. Recognized as the one of the greatest public speakers of his day (William Jennings Bryan refused to appear on the same stage with him), the classical liberal Cockran introduced Churchill to the benefits of free trade, anti-imperialism, soaring oratory, and, even more important, says McMenamin, the idea that "government is not the source of wealth...[Cockran] gave Churchill a healthy distrust of government and other organizations (like the Church of England) that could hold power over people."



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/11/2009 4:25:43 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
     One can only wonder whether the State Department has been 
so taken over by liberal Democrats that overt anti-
Americanism is not regarded as unusual or suspicious.

Fitting In

By John
Power Line

Paul wrote here about Mr. and Mrs. Walter Myers, who fit in perfectly in Washington, D.C. despite the virulent anti-Americanism that led them to spy for Cuba for decades. For free.

Myers worked for the State Department and rose to an alarmingly high intelligence position even though his anti-American views were apparently no secret. Stratfor has some interesting observations about the case:


<<< After being recruited, Kendall Myers was allegedly instructed by his handler to move back to Washington and seek government employment in order to gain access to information deemed valuable to the Cubans. In 1981, he applied for a job at the Central Intelligence Agency and in 1982, he returned to working as a part-time contract instructor at the [State Department's Foreign Service Institute (FSI)], and became the chairman for Western European studies. In 1985, he applied for a full-time job at the FSI teaching Western European studies, and in 1999, Myers took a position at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), as the senior European analyst. Myers stayed in that position until his retirement in 2007. After his retirement from the State Department in 2007, Myers returned to [the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)] and worked there until his arrest.

According to the complaint, the Myers were scathing in their criticism of the United States during their meetings with the source. In addition to their criticism of U.S. government policy, they were also very critical of American people, whom they referred to as "North Americans." Myers said the problem with the United States is that it is full of too many North Americans.

The Myers also expressed their love for Cuba and for the ideals of the Cuban revolution. In the first meeting with the source, Kendall asked the source, "How is everybody at home?" referring to Cuba. Gwendolyn expressed her desire to use the couple's boat to "sail home," meaning travel to Cuba.

The couple also provided the source with details of a January 1995 trip they took to Cuba. According to the Myers, in addition to receiving "lots of medals" from the Cuban government (something commonly awarded to ideological spies by the Soviet KGB), the best thing they received was the opportunity to meet Fidel Castro. The couple stated they had the opportunity to spend about four hours one evening with the Cuban leader. According to the FBI complaint, Kendall told the source that Castro was "wonderful, just wonderful" and Gwendolyn added, "He's the most incredible statesman for a hundred years for goodness sake." >>>

So Myers became a high-ranking intelligence officer in the State Department just a few years after having traveled to to Cuba and being awarded "lots of medals?"


<<< One of the other interesting factors regarding this case is that in spite of Myers' strong anti-American political beliefs -- which were reportedly expressed in his classes -- none of the background investigations conducted on him by the State Department provided any indication of concern. Furthermore, he was cleared for access to Top Secret material in 1985 and Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) in 1999 -- 20 years after he was recruited by the Cubans. Apparently the agents and investigators who conducted his background investigations did not dig deeply enough uncover the warning signs of his radical beliefs, or the people they interviewed knowingly withheld such information.

With Montes arrested at DIA, and now Myers from INR, it certainly makes one wonder where the next ideologically driven Cuban agent will be found inside the U.S. intelligence community. >>>


One can only wonder whether the State Department has been so taken over by liberal Democrats that overt anti-Americanism is not regarded as unusual or suspicious.

UPDATE: Clarice Feldman and Kristofer Harrison have much more info about the Myers in the comments.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/11/2009 4:30:58 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
This Was Inevitable

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

ACORN invests in the climate-change racket.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/14/2009 1:42:07 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Still Open Season on Sarah Palin

By J. Robert Smith
American Thinker

Aging funnyman David Letterman proved it the other night. Moose might be out of season, but among liberals, which Letterman is, it's always open season on Sarah Palin and her family. And, by extension, the millions of Heartland Americans the Palins exemplify.

Letterman's off-color quip about Palin's underage daughter, Willow, (notwithstanding his claim that it was about the Governor's older daughter who was not in New York City with her mother) and his derogatory remark about Palin, are just another in a series of broadsides designed to demean and marginalize the Alaska governor.

Letterman's trashy, ham-handed humor at Palin's expense demonstrates again the unabated contempt and fear that liberals have for a woman who established an immediate, powerful rapport with voters last year. His subsequent disingenuous apology to Palin only adds an exclamation point.

Intriguingly, Letterman's jabs, and the continuous stream of invective and ridicule aimed at Palin, speaks volumes about what the left thinks about America's Joes and Janes.

Evidently, not much. Not much beyond harvesting their votes.


East and left coast elites have a beau ideal, and that's President Barack Obama, the elegant, cosmopolitan, smooth apologist for America's foibles and mortal sins. The Big Spender and soon-to-be Debaser of the Dollar. The Savior of Detroit who's Amtraking automakers. The compassionate fellow who wants to ration healthcare. And the man who claimed he'd deny Miranda rights to terrorists, only to, well...

President Obama cleans up, nicely, as they say. He talks the left's talk, and knows what fork to pick up at a five-star restaurant. He's an African-American JFK, which almost makes him the left's ultimate fantasy. The only thing he's not is gay. But even fantasies have limits.

Note that today's liberals -- or progressives, as they prefer -- never rhapsodize about the late Harry Truman, a gruff, unpolished Democratic pol who didn't give a damn about which fork he used at hoity-toity eateries -- if he ever entered any.

Truman regarded Uncle Joe Stalin as a windbag and mass murderer; he considered communism a sham and a great danger. And he initiated the long, hard Cold War that defeated the communists.

That's not what today's liberal admires in a leader: Resolve in defeating the nation's enemies. For liberals, like Pogo, the enemy is us. These descendants of Adlai Stevenson II see life as complicated -- a vast gray zone -- where truth is relative but most everything about America is absolutely wrong.

Palin is too much like Truman for liberal tastes, less the gruffness.
She's a Main Streeter who's very comfortable in her skin. She doesn't put on airs, and doesn't aspire to do so. Her husband is a workingman whom she loves and is proud of; not an inconvenient truth, to steal a phrase. Ditto her son, Trig, born with Down Syndrome rather than aborted. Ditto her daughter, Bristol, who gave birth to an out-of-wedlock son.

Bristol has come out for abstinence among young people. Her honesty and courage is met with rolled eyes and sneers from jaded elites, reporters and liberal commentators. And bad jokes by a ratings-loser talk show host.

Surely, Bristol can't really want to help young people avoid her mistake. Her public stand is all about damage control and pre-emption. She's standing up to inoculate her mother from charges that the Palins talk the good talk about family values but walk a very different walk.

Imperfect creatures that we are, we are all bound to stray. Learning from, and making amends, for our mistakes are large parts of redemption. Bristol is admirably seeking redemption. Had she only chosen to condemn Gitmo and stump for same-sex marriage, then she'd have won plaudits from liberals.

Out-of-wedlock births are a Hollywood norm, and win the seal of approval from convention-hating lefties. Yet another reason to ridicule Bristol.

Governor Palin's conservatism is the sort that connects with the natural conservatism of a majority of Americans. Hers comes with no frills, no eloquent turns of phrase, no Shakespearian grandeur.

Hers is a hotdogs and hamburgers and cold beer conservatism. It's upbeat, reality-tested, everyday commonsense. Americans live it every day. They recognize it in Palin, and are attracted to her accordingly. Hence, liberals' fear.

Bless Palin's moose-shooting, hockey mom's heart. She wasted no time unloading both barrels at the hoary Letterman for his lurid jabs. The time has come for conservatives to start fighting back. Governor Palin is showing the way.

The saying goes that the best revenge is served cold.
In this case, Sarah Palin needs to always bypass the elites and the mainstream media. She needs to take her case directly to hardworking Americans, whether in Auburn, New York, Joplin, Missouri or Macon, Georgia.

And in those towns and cities and suburbs across the nation, she needs to deliver this powerful, game-changing message: Americans don't have to be ashamed of, or apologize for, being Americans. Our traditional values, morals and beliefs are the nation's backbone and have made us great.

We have been a force for great good and freedom in a world often lacking in both. We may stumble and fall at times, but we pick ourselves up and move forward with hope and optimism and an unshakeable belief that, as Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, our best days are ahead of us.

Take this message to Americans and it won't be cynical comics or cynical elites who have the last laugh.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)6/27/2009 2:40:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
When did the lowbrows take over the culture?

By James Lewis
American Thinker

I've been trying to grasp for a truth that is so obvious that all of us know it. But it's not a polite truth, so we don't talk about it. Yet I think it's important to say it out loud, because it is a truth that haunts our national discourse.

As a nation we are under the thumb of idiots. Not just indoctrinated, or wrong-thinking, or power-hungry, or manipulative, or even malevolent people. No, I mean real lowbrows, people who constantly fall for really stupid ideas. Neanderthals. (Look at the Governor of California just running the state budget into the ground. See what I mean? That's not just incompetence. It takes special stupidity, almost a deliberate, willful absence of real thinking.)

The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That's not just false and unscientific; it's not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It's not merely wrong. It's idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn't be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the "climate experts," with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can't think.

Or look at Obama's unbelievable spending spree. No sane and sensible taxpayer could possibly believe that spending trillions and trillions of dollars on blue-sky fantasies makes any sense at all; the only reason Americans aren't in open rebellion yet is that half of them can't believe it's happening, and the other half are idiots. We haven't seen the effect (yet) on our pocketbooks. There's food in the stores still, and housing has gotten cheaper. But let Obama's budget affect our wallets directly and just watch the voters explode with rage.

The Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to put the brakes on Obama's egomaniacal ambitions because they can see themselves going over the edge in 2010. In a self-respecting, intelligent culture, the Obama budget would be dead on arrival. It's an insult to our national intelligence. (His foreign policy is more of the same.)

Or look at the global warming farce, still hotly pursued by the political classes in Europe and this country, although the Australians seem to be coming to their senses. China now has more millionaires than the UK, because they use all their resources, like coal, to fire their industrial plants. They will never sacrifice a single luxury car to the cap and trade fraud. Neither will India. China and India have been under the thumb of egomaniacal socialists (in the case of India) and communists (in the case of China). They've been there, done that, seen the suffering.

No wonder those Chinese college students fell all over themselves with laughter when Timothy Geithner assured them that Obama would never spend the United States into debt. What an idiot! They laughed because Geithner's stupidity or mendacity was too obvious for words.

That's how we should all react to the miserable frauds who are now in national office. You have to dull your senses with drugs or endless propaganda to fall for it. I've sometimes wondered how many people must have killed off their critical thinking with alcohol and drugs. I know a walking few drug casualties myself, people who just burned out their brains. I'm sure they voted for Obama.

Or maybe there's such a thing as learned stupidity. How else can so many people be so idiotic? Our national IQ has dropped to about 75: Several standard deviations below normal.

Well, we have now voted in a President for the lowbrows. Yes, Obama himself is smart enough; even smart enough to say a few years ago that he didn't feel ready for the presidency. Well, now we can see why he said that. But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots -- the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.

That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That's probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there's a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.

Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He's their dream, a black man who sounds so smart.

In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It's a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That's not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It's not just their childish immaturity. It's a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears. Our media stars are just not very bright. They're idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)

Obama's 22 White House czars. That's really stupid. As well as a violation of the Constitution. But it's a Chinese laugh line. It's so obviously wrong and power-mad that it's not worth debating.

Legalizing drugs. That's really stupid.

Obama's power-grab over the medical sector of the economy? It's profoundly stupid. We can insure all the uninsured people in the country for a tiny fraction of all that money. We just need to fix the tire on our national car, and this guy tries to sell us a brand-new O-mobile, it can practically fly off the lot, all on credit, long-term payments, no money down. It's gonna be free! So what if you have to mortgage your wife and children? Even if we already have two national lemons in our garage, Medicare and Medicaid, which nobody likes. Now Obee is trying to sell us on a really, really expensive dream mobile that will fix our problems forever, plus it'll be cheaper than what we have now!

Can you believe it?

That sales pitch only works for idiots.

The rise to power and fame of the real lowbrows explains a lot. It even points to an answer of sorts. Because we've all been intimidated by the Cult of Nice not to contradict anybody who comes out with a really stupid, destructive idea. We can no longer call a really stupid idea what it is. I know that I censor myself all the time. We have been taught to keep our mouths shut when a word in time might make a real difference. We have allowed the national conversation to be dumbed down.

Here's my resolution for July Fourth: From now on I'm going to call idiocy idiotic. Not nastily, but as clearly as I can. It is high time for normal, intelligent common sense to become acceptable again. I'm happy to have a respectful argument with anyone who disagrees with me. But I'm going to start saying the magic words:

That's really dumb! That's really ignorant! You haven't thought about that much, have you? Have you ever considered another side of that batty idea?

I promise to be nice.

But honest.

Pass the word.

If we all start doing it we can change the world.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)7/6/2009 4:12:27 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
As the left hangs their latest trophy [using their favorite tactic, relentless calumny], they continue to pile on. Apparently they want her crushed beyond repair.

**********************

Alaska observers say Palin had gone fishin' on job

By MARK THIESSEN, Associated Press Writer Mark Thiessen, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 18 mins ago
JUNEAU, Alaska – As surprised fans and critics of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin traded guesses behind her decision to resign more than a year before her term ends, the former vice presidential candidate offered few hints at her political future, except to say she'd gone fishing.

..........

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)7/7/2009 8:52:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A little humor from an e-mail:

DONT FORGET ABOUT NEXT SATURDAY!

Don't forget to mark your calendars. As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked. He must commit suicide if he does. So next Saturday at 4 PM ET, all American women are asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort.

All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Muslims and to demonstrate they think its okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women. Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Muslim sentiment.

The American government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity.

God bless America !

It is your patriotic duty to pass this on. If you don't send this to at least 5 people, you're a terrorist-sympathizing, lily-livered coward and are in the position of posing as a national threat.



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)7/10/2009 10:16:51 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with 
common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities.
They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success
does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on
reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse
subject does not automatically imply administrative
ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for
practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a
corporate boardroom.

The Audacity of Conceit

By Victor Volsky
American Thinker

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.

Worse yet, they idolize each other, sticking up for one another out of class solidarity. Case in point:
a few days ago I watched a gathering of noted media intellectuals on C-SPAN. David Brooks of the New York Times was supposed to counterbalance the four leftist pundits who vigorously extolled Barack Obama's genius. But even the token conservative's criticism was perfunctory. Having poked a couple of holes in the administration's economic agenda, Brooks waxed lyrical about Obama's personnel policy. He was struck by the "sheer intellectual brilliance" of the economic team Obama has assembled, people "like Larry Summers" who dazzle any gathering and dominate any discussion.

Apparently, the NYT columnist was unable to see the inherent contradiction in his effusive praises: if the people who formulate the administration's economic policy are so smart, why is it so disastrous? Last January, these wizards of smart predicted that if Obama's stimulus package were passed, the unemployment rate would not go beyond 8 percent by the end of the year. At this point, it is nearing 10 percent and shows no sign of slowing down. How could they be so wrong with their vaunted brilliance?

It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities. They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse subject does not automatically imply administrative ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a corporate boardroom.

Nobody would deny that the members of Obama's circle of economic advisors are indeed academically adept, well-spoken men and women. But have any of them ever run a lemonade stand, much less a bona fide business? Have they ever met a payroll? Do they know what it means to toss and turn in bed, worrying over the coming rise in vendor prices? They may have academic theories and marshal vast amounts of data, but have little practical knowledge of how things work in the real world.

So what do they bring to the administration other than long resumes and fearsome reputations as intellectual polemicists? All these brilliant academics have been brought on board for the sole purpose of lending an intellectual veneer to Obama's political schemes and validate his power grab. Hence the pitiful sight of these noted intellectuals being trotted out to the microphones to bleat pathetically in defense of the administration's agenda.

Which should vividly remind us of the conduct of the Vietnam War by another undeniably brilliant man, full of theories and impressively in command of the data, Robert McNamara, "the perfect man" in Lyndon Johnson admiring characterization, who died earlier this week at 93. John F. Kennedy brought a team of "the best and the brightest" from Harvard to manage the war. They invaded the Pentagon and set about doing what they did best (and actually the only thing they knew): writing learned position papers, drawing charts and measuring results.

They developed a sophisticated plan and confidently awaited the inevitable outcome: the enemy would capitulate when all the curves on their charts would converge to a single point, signifying such and such level of devastation of the North Vietnamese industrial base, such and such number of casualties and other equally weighty indicators. Finally the day came when the fateful point was reached and ... nothing happened. The enemy blithely continued fighting.

The "best and the brightest" rushed back to their equations, they checked and rechecked the numbers but couldn't find anything wrong with them. And yet the benighted North Vietnamese, apparently unaware that they were supposed to surrender, had no intention of complying with the scientific logic of the Harvard men. Not one of them realized what they would have known had they studied Tacitus: that it is not the resources or the level of casualties that determine the outcome of any war, but the resolve to go on fighting in spite of the casualties, i.e. the grit and the fighting spirit.

Karl Marx memorably said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. McNamara's war management was a tragedy. Nearly half a century later, Obama's economic policy, which amounts to an all-out assault on the U.S. economy, repeats history as a farce -- which would be hilarious, if we didn't have to live with the consequences.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)7/13/2009 9:24:14 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote

By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist
July 12, 2009

SAY, DID you hear the one about the congressman who was asked to do his job? Talk about funny - this will crack you up!

Well, maybe it won’t. But Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.

That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’

Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.

“Transparency’’ is a popular buzzword in good-government circles, and politicians are forever promising to transact the people’s business in the sunshine. But as Hoyer’s mirth suggests, when it comes to lawmaking, transparency is a joke. Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages. A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House. And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:

“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’

Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats.
The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.

Such efficiency is no virtue when it comes to lawmaking, which is why every member of Congress should be pressed to sign the pledge Hoyer was asked about. It is sponsored by a grass-roots conservative group, Let Freedom Ring, and is readily accessible online. Equally worthy of support is ReadTheBill.org, which is backed by a coalition of liberal organizations. Still another push comes from the libertarian group Downsize DC, which urges Congress to pass its proposed Read The Bills Act.

Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste. Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Link



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)7/13/2009 10:52:22 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Is this the American Way?

By Paul
Power Line

People for the American Way, the left-wing smear machine, is (In the words of McClatchy press service) quietly targeting Frank Ricci, the Connecticut firefighter whose successful lawsuit for racial discrimination has proven to be so inconvenient for Judge Sotomayor. Specifically, People for the American Way, along with other such drive-by hit artists, is urging reporters to scrutinize Ricci's allegedly "troubled and litigious work history." So far, the lefty blogosphere, at least, has taken up the call.

Ricci is on the list of witnesses Republican Senators will call at Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. But does this make his "litigious work history" an issue that deserves scrutiny? It does so only if that history has some relevance to Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

And plainly, it has no such relevance. No matter how many actions Ricci may have filed in the past, the only one that pertains to Sotomayor is the one she decided. That suit, in which a substantial number of other plaintiffs joined, was found to be meritorious.

McClatchy notes that when Anita Hill testified during the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, she was subjected to personal attack. But Hill leveled personal accusations against Thomas. Adjudicating the veracity of Hill's allegations of so-called sexual harassment entailed some inquiry into her credibility and, given the nature of the allegations, her past.

Ricci has leveled no personal attack on Sotomayor, and surely will not do so in his testimony. All he did was file a lawsuit that eventually found its way into a courtroom where she happened to be sitting. To be sure, this ended up exposing Sotomayor as too intellectually dishonest to write a real opinion and too ideologically committed to reverse discrimination to reach a decision that a single Supreme Court Justice could agree with. But that's not Ricci's fault. I'm certain that when he filed his suit, he hoped that all judges who heard his case would get it right, or at least treat it seriously.

But what of Ricci's "troubled" history of litigating employment claims. It consists of a suit claiming disability discrimination when one fire department decided not to hire him (Ricci is dyslexic); an administrative complaint claiming that his discharge by that same fire department was in retaliation for accusing the department of safety violations; and the reverse discrimination suit against the New Haven fire department that Sotomayor mishandled.

Isn't it odd that an outfit calling itself People for the American Way would call this history "troubling"? One might have thought that such an organization would applaud challenges to disability discrimination, race discrimination, retaliaton, and safety violations.

To be sure, meritless lawsuits are nothing to applaud. But Ricci's race discrimination claim proved to be meritorious. His disability discrimination claim apparently settled when the fire department in question agreed to hire him. This outcome suggests that this suit also had merit and certainly was not frivolous. Ricci did not prevail on his administrative claim of retaliation, but the department apparently was fined for safety violations he blew the whistle on.

In any case, one ought to be able to file a successful lawsuit and to testify about that case without being "targeted" by the left.
If, in the course of his testimony, Ricci misrepresents himself, then of course it will be proper to call him on it. But if he testifies truthfully about the facts relating to the reverse discrimination case he and his colleagues filed, one hopes that the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee will have the decency, or at least the political savvy, not to attack him for asserting his rights in other contexts.

UPDATE: Dahlia Lithwick defends the relevance of attacks on Ricci based on his disability discrimination suit because one conservative blog, in describing the facts of his reverse discrimination case against the New Haven fire department, stated: "Never once did Mr.Ricci request special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." Lithwick thus reveals her dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise.

First, Ricci isn't responsible for what a conservative blog writes about him. Second, what the conservative blog wrote about him is true because the blog was claiming only that Ricci never sought special treatment based on his dyslexia in connection with his application for promotion by the New Haven fire department, a fact Lithwick doesn't dispute.

Moreover, Lithwick's own post strongly suggests that Ricci also did not seek preferential treatment when he sued a different fire department for disability discrimination years earlier. According to Lithwick, Ricci claimed in that case that the department discriminated by refusing to consider him after he revealed during an interview that he was dyslexic. Asking to be considered for hire notwithstanding a disability is not the same thing as seeking special treatment.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/1/2009 4:47:50 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
I Love This Kid

By Bruce McQuain on Claire McCaskill
QandO

A young soldier, or perhaps an ex-soldier, does a little educating of the politicians at a meeting with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) or her staffers. And he’s right:


YouTube video

He wants an apology from McCaskill – and check out the reception he gets.

~McQ

qando.net



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/3/2009 10:36:36 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Next Up, Attack Ads Against Herbert Hoover

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

The Washington Post Metro section notices what we've been writing about for a while: this year, Democrats are using the innovative and groundbreaking strategy of running against President George W. Bush.

Perhaps the most interesting angle is the closing comment from Democratic strategist Tad Devine: "If the two Democrats win governor's posts by attacking George Bush, you better believe you'll see a lot of it in 2010... If, in fact, we see Democrats lose, that could be the end of Bush-bashing."

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/5/2009 1:03:35 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Trashing constituents

Betsy's Page

Now that it seems clear that Democrats are going to face townhalls full of angry constituents who intensely dislike the health care plans coming out of the House, the tactic seems to be to either avoid townhalls, limit who can come, or just trash those constituents who come out.

Marc Ambinder represents the trashing the constituents approach.
First there is calling them "tea baggers" as if using a crude sexual term will so denigrate their issues that those protesters will be disregarded. Ambinder believes that the Democrats' message should conquer the ugly protests.

<<< Where Democrats have President Obama, principles, and a new argument about consumer protections, Republicans have an enthusiastic, self-contained base that is ready to work to defeat Obama's signature initiative. (On some level, this isn't _really_ about health care: it's about anxiety and anger at government, and at the Obama administration.) Democratic members are left to sell a series of principles that are popular, but which have been obscured by the focus on Washington sausage making. >>>

Principles aren't policies. Talking in broad generalizations might appeal to Ambinder, but we're talking about specific policies rather than principles. And when you get to talking about policies, people can start comparing what is proposed to what they have now and they're not impressed. And they get angry. Yes, he's correct that there is anger at government involved with these protests, but that is due to policies taken by this administration and the previous Bush policies. And if people are angry, the congressmen need to pay attention to what their constituents are saying.

As news and videos have emerged of Democrats like Arlen Specter facing angry constituents at townhalls, some Democrats are responding by limiting their meetings.
I heard that Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland has made his meeting "by invitation only." Well, that's the attitude. Is the message that the Democrats want to get across that they don't want to hear from constituents who might disagree with them? Hugh Hewitt has some suggestions of good questions to ask your representative if you get into a townhall. One good question is whether the Democrat feels confident enough in the proposal to be debated by a conservative radio host like Hewitt. I wonder if any have that confidence or at all interested in debating people who oppose the plan.

Representatives don't have to vote the way their constituents think. Edmund Burke more than two centuries ago set the standard by telling the Electors of Bristol that what he owed them was his good judgment.

<<< Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. >>>

That is fine. However, neither Democrats nor Republicans should be voting on such an important issue that will transform 1/6 of our economy merely because that is the order they've received from their party bosses. This shouldn't be a vote based on preserving or harming Obama's presidency. An honorable representative owes his constituents his full explanation of why he is voting the way he is and why his best judgment tells him that his decision is superior to what his constituents wish. And doing so means not avoiding meetings with his constituents and not denigrating the angry ones, but persuading them as best he can.

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/5/2009 4:58:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Apparently Community Organizing Is A Bad Thing Now

By Bruce McQuain on protests
QandO

To hear the left talk about these protests that are springing up and townhalls held by various Representatives and Senators, you’d think that such protests are just unAmerican.

And, of course, the usual raft of “astro-turf” allegations are being thrown around. I’ve watched a few of the videos though and these folks doing the protesting seem pretty darn dedicated to stopping the big health care grab.

In fact, what I see happening is the right using the same sorts of tactics and methods that the left seemed so comfortable with during the Bush administration. Web 2.0 communications that networks protesting groups and keeps them updated and mobilized. I guess there are those out there that can’t imagine that happening at a grass-roots level anymore, although that is the MO the left developed previously while denying the astro-turf allegations.

In fact, I’m somewhat surprised because the right is less likely to run in packs like the left is, so a tip of the hat to the righties – good community organizing guys.

As for the left, suck it up and have the good grace to suffer in silence, recognizing that what you’re seeing now is what you defended as the highest form of patriotism during the previous 8 years.

~McQ

qando.net



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/6/2009 4:55:41 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Te he he

    

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/6/2009 6:27:02 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Man with Serious Issues

By Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

The New York Times is going to have a hard time getting bead on this guy:

<<< An openly gay sheriff's deputy in South Florida who fought homophobia within the police department was actually a calculating sex offender who attacked illegal immigrants, according to court documents.

Jonathan Bleiweiss, 29, allegedly targeted the immigrants because they were afraid to go to the police, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel said, citing the records released Tuesday.

Authorities say he scared at least eight different men he pulled over during traffic stops into performing sex acts with him, and demanded their phone numbers and contact information.

He'd then put on the act of a scorned lover when they stopped returning his messages, court documents show. >>>


corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/13/2009 2:25:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    The Right at least repudiates its nut jobs-and the right-
wing nut jobs don’t even have that much clout and
influence, either cultural or political. The Left, by
contrast, embraces its nut jobs and gives them a free pass.

No Shortage of Crazy on the Left Either

by John Guardiano
newmajority.com

The birthers have been getting lots of derisive press attention, and for good reason: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff,” as Andrew C. McCarthy observes in National Review Online.

But why are leftists and the media silent when one of their own propagates an even more malicious and bizarre theory about our nation’s military and intelligence personnel? Worse yet, why do some of America’s leading media outlets give these crackpots a platform to propagate their lies?

This happens more often than you may realize. The latest case in point is a recent Huffington Post piece by the acclaimed director Oliver Stone, in which Stone asserts unequivocally that “the military-intelligence community” assassinated President Kennedy.

Kennedy, Stone writes, was “regarded as a virtual traitor by elements of the military-intelligence community. These were the forces that planned and carried out his assassination.”

This may seem like old news, and it is: Stone first propagated this malicious lie in his 1991 film, JFK. He is repeating it now because, in Stone’s crackpot view, “to a large extent, the fate of our country and the future of the planet continue to be controlled by shadowy forces” within the military-intelligence community.

This is a slander on the men and women who work tirelessly, day in and day out, to protect the United States and the American people. Stone offers not one iota of evidence to support his crackpot theory because no such evidence exists.

Instead, he speculates
that Kennedy was killed because the “military-intelligence community” feared Kennedy’s embrace of the peace movement. Kennedy, you see, was determined to “pull the world back from the edge of destruction,” but that was something “shadowy [U.S.] forces” would not allow-so they had Kennedy whacked.

In reality, Kennedy was a lifelong Cold Warrior determined to stop the spread of communism. Kennedy had won the presidency, in fact, by criticizing the Eisenhower administration for its supposed lack of leadership in the Cold War, and for allowing an alleged “missile gap” to develop between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Moreover, the idea that Kennedy wanted to withdraw American troops from Vietnam, as Stone and other leftists allege, is ludicrous and simply not supported by the historical record. “I think that [American troop withdrawal from Vietnam] would be a mistake,” Kennedy flatly told Walter Cronkite in 1963.

Sure, Kennedy wanted to reduce tensions with the Soviet Union; but so, too, did every American president, from Truman to Reagan. Kennedy thus negotiated with the Soviet Union?but not because he sought to change or abandon the American policy of containing communism; quite the contrary. For Kennedy, as for presidents both before and after him, negotiations with the Soviets were a tactical and political move in support of America’s overall policy of containment.

Kennedy did sign a test-ban treaty, but mainly for environmental reasons, and not because he envisioned or desired a world without nuclear weapons. In fact, Kennedy significantly increased spending on both conventional and nuclear weapons.

Perhaps because he was such a Cold Warrior, Kennedy was killed by a self-avowed Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald. A native-born American, Oswald actually had emigrated to the Soviet Union before returning to the United States to assassinate Kennedy.

I mention this not to suggest that the Soviets were involved in the Kennedy assassination: because there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. In fact, there is reason to believe the opposite: that the Soviets kept their distance from Oswald because they viewed him as mentally unstable.

Thus, far from being killed by “shadowy forces” within the military-intelligence community, Kennedy instead was killed by a left-wing nut.
This is not surprising. The Left, after all, had ample reason to resent Kennedy, given his fierce anti-communist rhetoric and his commitment to containing communism

In short, Stone gets it exactly backward. He has inverted the historical record to propagate a malicious lie. And, in so doing, he slanders every member of the armed forces of the United States and every member of the U.S. intelligence community.

Unfortunately, Stone is not some isolated conspiracy theorist posting lonely blog posts to little known websites. That is to say, he is not a birther. Stone is, instead, a world-renowned artist and director with vast cultural clout and influence. Indeed, his movies-including JFK-are box-office hits seen throughout the world by millions of people.

In short, when Stone talks-or writes-people listen. Intently. Which is why it is imperative that the responsible Left (I know; I know! I’m being charitable and assuming that a responsible Left exists!) repudiate and disown Stone whenever he propagates his malicious lies. Lies which impugn the honor and integrity of an entire class of people-in this case the men and women who take a solemn oath to protect and defend the United States of America.

But not only does the Left refuse to repudiate and disown Stone; they actually embrace him! They honor him! They give him pride of place at their parties, dinners and award functions.

They invite Stone onto their talk shows and solicit his opinions on all manner of topics. They invite him to write articles and blog posts for their newspapers and online journals-including, notably one of the most widely read websites in America and in the world, the Huffington Post.

The Right at least repudiates its nut jobs-and the right-wing nut jobs don’t even have that much clout and influence, either cultural or political. The Left, by contrast, embraces its nut jobs and gives them a free pass.

Given their indulgence of Stone, the Left is in no position to complain about the birthers. As the old adage has it, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. However, the Left should throw out Oliver Stone.


newmajority.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/14/2009 3:59:53 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Stunning, Shocking, Unimaginable News About John Edwards That We All Saw Coming

By NRO Staff
The Campaign Spot

Readers, you probably want to sit down before you read this news.

John Edwards will admit he is the father of his former mistress's 18-month-old daughter.

You may recall John Edwards insisting that he could not be the father when he admitted the affair last year:

<<< WOODRUFF: I need to ask about probably the most controversial allegation. Which is that a report has been published that the baby of Ms. Hunter is your baby. True?

EDWARDS: Not true. Published in a supermarket tabloid. That is absolutely not true.

WOODRUFF: Have you taken a paternity test?

EDWARDS: I have not, I would welcome participating in a paternity test. Be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events, so I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen. >>>


This is because he is a big fat shameless liar who thinks you're stupid.


campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/25/2009 4:33:14 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
In Massachusetts, The Law Belongs To The Kennedy Family

     

By Tom McMahon on 4-Block

4-blockworld.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/25/2009 4:38:03 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Two Americas

     

By Tom McMahon on Current Affairs

4-blockworld.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/26/2009 2:27:32 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 35834
 
Mass. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy dies

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/27/2009 7:38:50 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
THE CULT OF ICONOGRAPHY

By Bill Whittle
Eject Eject Eject

pajamasmedia.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)8/31/2009 12:52:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

Rasmussen Reports

Link



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)9/3/2009 2:10:01 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Price of Justice

By: Mark Steyn
The Corner

Well, now we know what Her Majesty's Government considers the lives of 279 terrorism victims to be worth:


<<< The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests. >>>

Inevitably, the Labour party's spinmeisters spent the days since the mass murderer's release promoting the idea that the government in London is furious with what's happened but that it was entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Justice Minister and his colleagues. And as usual the oleaginous creep Peter Mandelson, insisting that Westminster had no influence on a Scottish Nationalist (ie, secessionist) government, couldn't help protesting too much:

<<< Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, said last weekend: “The idea that the British government and the Libyan government would sit down and somehow barter over the freedom or the life of this Libyan prisoner and make it form part of some business deal ... it’s not only wrong, it’s completely implausible and actually quite offensive.” >>>

I'm sure. Fortunately, Lord Mandelson's well-connected friends will do his best to help him get over that.


corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)9/4/2009 9:53:42 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Giving the Finger

By: Tevi Troy
The Corner

A 65-year-old man had his finger bitten off at a MoveOn.org health-care rally in California. The biter was apparently a "healthcare reform activist," according to the LA Times. The victim, fortunately, was on Medicare.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)9/4/2009 11:25:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
No Liberal Left Behind

    

Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir

daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)10/2/2009 5:18:35 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Guaranteed to Make Liberal Heads Explode

    

:-)



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)1/14/2010 1:25:58 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Turning Point in Massachusetts

By: Michael Graham
The Corner

For the first time since the race began, I'm prepared to say a Scott Brown victory is a real possibility.

Just two weeks ago, I said "absolutely not."

One week ago, I was thinking, "Well, it's a long shot, but maybe . . ."

But everything changed yesterday.

The video of the Coakley staffer -- most likely DNC hack and former Kerry campaigher Michael Meehan -- shoving The Weekly Standard's John McCormack to the ground, and then repeatedly shoving him again and again in view of AG Coakley, is a watershed moment. It could turn out to be a campaign killer.

First, it highlights the fact that Coakley had left Massachusetts to attend a lobbyist fundraiser in D.C.. Taking big bucks from Big Pharma in the middle of this fight? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Then there's the guy who got shoved. McCormack is the reporter who asked the question about Afghanistan that literally stopped Coakley in her tracks. After a few blinks of incomprehension, she answered by asking, "Does anyone ELSE have a question?" This issue is a disaster for Coakley because it reveals her utter lack of experience or (apparently) basic knowledge on foreign policy, just two weeks after a terrorist successfully got on a U.S. airplane.

And perhaps most damaging is the power of this example. If I were to summarize the attitude of the typical Massachusetts resident right now, it would be "tired of being pushed around." Our governing class doesn't even bother to pretend to pay attention to the people. The last-second rule change on Senate elections is just the latest example of political arrogance.

There are many Massachusetts voters who will see McCormack being shoved, and shoved again, and think, "I know how you feel, buddy."

This is absolutely a disaster for the Coakley campaign.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)1/15/2010 1:23:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
All Negative, All the Time

By: Michael Graham
The Corner

How scared are the Democrats in Massachusetts? They're running an attack at in nearly every ad break in the local news, and they've loaded up on cable channels, too.

But as a guy who spent six years running campaigns, I just saw something I've never seen before: Back-to-back attack ads in the same break. First a "Scott Brown hates your children" spot from the DSCC, then Coakley's own "Scott Brown is an evil Republican" spot.

They have saturated the airwaves with so many attack spots, they're literally running out of places to run them.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)1/27/2010 1:20:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Senate Dems Unfurl New Electoral Strategy: Divide and Conquer GOP

FOXNews.com

Senate Democrats, seeking to breathe new life into their 2010 electoral prospects after their shocking loss in Massachusetts last week, are unveiling a new war strategy: divide and conquer the GOP.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee passed out a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to define their Republican opponents early and to highlight the differences between moderate voters and tea party-style conservatives.

"Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical -- yet time-sensitive -- opportunity for Democratic candidates," the DSCC wrote in the memo, which was obtained by FoxNews.com. "We have a finite window when Republican candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record."

The memo encourages Democratic candidates to compel their opponents to answer a series of questions on issues that have helped boost the tea party movement and reveal cracks in GOP unity, including health care, taxes and President Obama's citizenship and ideology.

Among the questions Democrats should ask Republican candidates:

"Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?

Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?"


If a Republican answers no to any of the questions, the memo advises Democrats to "make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois."

The memo underscores the sense of urgency Democrats feel after a series of setbacks, including the loss of Ted Kennedy's longtime seat last week to Republican Scott Brown, Beau Biden's decision Monday not to run for his father's Senate seat in Delaware, and North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan's recent announcement that he will not seek re-election.

The latest bad news for Democrats came from Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry, who made a surprise retirement announcement on Monday.

Democrats fear Brown's victory in Massachusetts could signal a bloodletting in the November midterm elections as voters, filled with populist rage over the Wall Street bailouts and high unemployment, take their anger and frustration out on incumbents.

Republicans responded to the memo with their own advice to GOP Senate candidates:

"Fortunately, it appears our friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to learn anything after their historic loss in Massachusetts," the National Republican Senatorial Committee wrote in a memo provided to FoxNews.com.

"These kinds of partisan parlor games simply reinforce that the Democrats have a tin ear on what's important to Americans," the committee wrote, citing the need for jobs and reducing the national debt, among other issues.

The memo urges GOP candidates to force Democrats to answer a different set of questions, including whether the $787 billion "stimulus" bill worked.

"Would you support a second so-called 'stimulus' bill, even though the first failed to create much-needed jobs?

Or do you believe the unspent money should be returned to the taxpayers?

Are you willing to hold open discussions to reach an agreement on bipartisan health care reform, or will you continue to support backroom deals -- such as the Cornhusker Kickback -- in order to ram an unpopular and costly government-run health care bill through Congress?

"Do you support increasing the nation's debt limit by yet another $2 trillion?

Do you agree with the Obama administration that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American citizens, tried in American courtrooms, and ultimately held on American soil?"

The memo says if Democrats cannot understand that these are the issues that voters care about in 2010, "we look forward to retaining the growing support of Independent and even Democrat voters who are tired of their divisive rhetoric and continued defense of the status quo in Washington."

Republicans have been struggling to fully capitalize on voter discontent as the rise of the tea party movement has come at the expense of GOP establishment figures, who conservative activists believe are too moderate to represent their causes.

A Democrat won an upstate New York congressional seat last year when tea party activists forced the Republican candidate to bow out days before the special election as support swelled for the Conservative Party candidate.

In Florida, conservative challenger Marco Rubio is now neck-and-neck with Gov. Charlie Crist for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat, according to the latest polling.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released last month showed tea party candidates were more popular than Republican ones.
In a national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters, 23 percent said they preferred to vote for a candidate from the tea party movement, compared with 18 percent who supported Republican candidates.

The Republicans need to take away 40 Democratic seats in the House and 10 in the Senate to reclaim power in Congress. Several prominent nonpartisan political analysts see the trend away from Democrats growing, too. Charlie Cook in his Cook report lists 59 House seats in play, 49 of them Democratic and several facing near-certain defeat. Stu Rothenberg, who writes his own political report, says 72 seats are in play and 58 are Democratic.

At least eight other House Democrats are considered potential candidates to bow out.

"These political actors can read the signals in the political marketplace and the signals in the political marketplace say right now that this is going to be a very good year for Republicans and a very bad year for Democrats," political analyst Michael Barone said.

feeds.foxnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)1/27/2010 4:02:30 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
In Retrospect, the GOP Was Enormously Lucky That Specter Switched Parties

By: Jim Geraghty
The Campaign Spot

Remember when Arlen Specter switching parties was a sign of doom for Republicans?

Nine months later, it looks like one of the luckiest breaks for the GOP in 2009. Had he remained with the party, I suspect Pat Toomey would have beaten him in the primary, but that's not a given. And lot of the GOP establishment would have gotten sucked into defending a wobbly vote in a primary fight that would have made the current Crist-Rubio tussle look like hug therapy. Now Toomey gets a smooth ride through the primary and can harness his resources for the general election.

Instead, the Democrats get to worry about whether Specter will survive the primary -- that, too, looks iffy -- and if he does, they get to spend millions to tell Pennsylvanians that the fossil who's been there forever and who keeps snapping at people is their best possible choice to represent them for the next six years.


campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)1/27/2010 4:05:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
I Thought It Stood for 'Never Polls well for Republicans'

By: Jim Geraghty
The Campaign Spot

A new poll puts the GOP ahead of the Democrats on the generic congressional ballot, 44 percent to 39 percent, but it's from those noted right-wing propagandists at . . . er, NPR.

That poll puts Obama's approval at 49 percent, disapproval at 48 percent.


campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/10/2010 1:15:40 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Democrats, Meet Your Biggest Nightmare

By Carol Peracchio
American Thinker

My husband's cousin Paulette called me the morning of January 20 from Massachusetts. Breathless with excitement, her words tumbling out so fast I could barely keep up, she recounted the joy of Scott Brown's win in the special election to the U.S. Senate.

Paulette is 66 years old. She and her husband are retired. She has an active social life which includes lots of friends and competitive amateur tennis. She babysits her granddaughter and checks on her 92-year-old father in Florida every day. She told me she'd never been politically active, "except for voting, of course."

But all that changed after Barack Obama's election.
Paulette started watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Health care reform, with its 500-billion-dollar Medicare cuts, scared her out of her wits. When she learned I write articles for AT, mostly about health care, she started calling me periodically last summer. We'd commiserate on how discouraging it was that no one in Washington is listening, or even seems to care. Paulette, like so many of us, felt frustrated and helpless.

Then Senator Kennedy passed away, and a political activist was born.

Paulette described her first meeting with Scott Brown.
A friend called one morning in late November to tell her that State Senator Brown was coming to town that day to open a campaign office.

"I barely had time to throw on clothes. I didn't care how I looked," she told me. She rushed over to the office and signed up that day to work. "I told Scott Brown that we are going to win this." I asked her how she could be so certain back in November, when absolutely no one out here believed Brown had a chance.

"I knew we would win because I lived there. I talk to lots of people. I knew how we all felt about what Obama and the Democrats were doing."

Then she added, "I just couldn't take any more."

So Paulette went to work. She staffed the office several days per week, answering phones and handing out signs and literature. She knocked on doors all over her neighborhood. She visited shut-ins and helped them request absentee ballots. She helped organize volunteers to drive voters to the polls. Just before Christmas, she called to give me another update. She was off to follow up on some of those absentee ballots. "There's a family down the street that has four. I need to make sure they got mailed."

Every day when Paulette would drive to the elementary school to pick up her granddaughter, she would stand next to her car and wave her "Scott Brown for U.S. Senate" sign at the passing traffic. "I get a few thumbs down," she reported, "but most people honk their horns and smile."

When Paulette called me the Friday before the election, she hadn't a scintilla of doubt that Brown would win. "We're going to do it, Carol!" she exclaimed. "We're going to stop Obama!" The polls reflected her optimism. But on the political shows over the weekend, conservatives appeared afraid to be hopeful. More than once I heard it expressed that a Brown win was a long shot. They consoled themselves by saying that even if he lost by a narrow margin, that would be a victory in blue, blue Massachusetts.

A loss for Brown wouldn't be a victory for Paulette, however. To Paulette, victory meant Scott Brown would be senator.

Conservative internet forums were just as pessimistic as the TV pundits. Over and over I read comments gloomily describing how Brown would have to win by double digits to overcome the inevitable ACORN and union fraud. I asked Paulette about it. She laughed it off. "We're going to win," she repeated.

So on Tuesday night, as Martha Coakley conceded hours, if not days, earlier than the conventional wisdom predicted, I had the feeling that Paulette was the only person who wasn't surprised. The next morning, I could do nothing but offer my deep gratitude to Paulette and the others in Massachusetts who "just couldn't take any more."

Scott Brown deserves credit, of course, for fighting an amazing campaign. But I think it's the Paulettes in Massachusetts who have the most to teach us. Such as:


1. There are a lot of voters out there who agree with us. Poll after poll shows that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in America. It's high time we conservatives actually believed it.

2. There is no substitute, absolutely none, for personal, grassroots involvement in campaigns. Too many of us want to just "mail in" our support. That way, none of our neighbors will know that we are actually (gasp!) conservative. Go back and reread #1. There's a good chance your neighbors are conservatives, too.

3. Democrat and ACORN fraud cannot overcome a tidal wave of conservative and like-minded independent voters, even in liberal Massachusetts and New Jersey. For far too long we have accepted the inevitability of losing because of Democrat voter fraud. Then we just throw in the towel and don't even try to defeat the entrenched liberals. I'm certainly not saying fraud doesn't exist and that we don't need to be diligent in our efforts to combat it. But ACORN is no match for energized, intelligent, informed conservatives.

4. We have to get involved early. Signing up to make telephone calls the last weekend of a campaign, while better than nothing, isn't good enough. It was almost sad to see busloads of SEIU members rolling into Boston for President Obama's speech two days before the election. Outside of giving the media a thrill and depressing Beltway conservatives, the whole effort was a waste of time. Primaries for this year's congressional elections are starting now.

The time for conservative involvement is yesterday. Brown's win taught us that no seat is 100% safe. (My dream is to see that proved again in Barney Frank's district.) My own congressman is a blue dog Democrat who voted for cap-and-trade. I wonder if he has any idea what's in store for him this election year.

So here's to you, Paulette, and all your fellow patriots in Massachusetts. I can almost hear our Founders saying, "Ya done good!"

Carol Peracchio is a registered nurse.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/12/2010 12:49:48 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Democrats in worst shape in the last 50 years

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
02/10/10 1:24 PM EST

In my Examiner column today I try to answer the question: how could a team that produced such a successful presidential campaign have produced such an unsuccessful policy agenda? The metrics are pretty clear: Barack Obama got the highest percentage of the vote for a Democratic candidate for president since 1964 and now he has plunged his party into its weakest position in the polls since that time.

For confirmation, look at the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls on the generic vote for Congress: 45% Republican and 42% Democratic. Rasmussen Reports, which interviews only those who pass a screen as likely voters, has it 44%-36% Republican, ABC/Washington Poll has it 45%-42% Republican, NPR’s bipartisan poll has it 44%-39% Republican and Gallup has a 45%-45% tie. Democracy Corps, a Democratic outfit which has earned respect for its results, has Democrats ahead 46%-41%.

ABC’s Gary Langer does a good job of putting these numbers into perspective. He writes, “It should be noted that vote preferences today don’t predict those in November, and generic congressional preferences, in particular, don’t reflect the idiosyncracies of individual races across the country. That said, the current 48-45 split in favor of Republican candidates among registered voters, while not a statistically significant advantage, is unusual. Republicans have held a numerical advantage just six times in scores of ABC/Post polls since 1981.”

At this moment, Democrats look to be in worse shape with the voters than they have been at any time in the last 50 years.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/13/2010 1:47:32 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Following the Crowd

By Steve McGregor
American Thinker

One of the most prevalent arguments used in favor of almost every leftist issue
-- socialized medicine, nuclear disarmament, and many others -- is the same argument we caution teenagers against: peer pressure.

"Everyone else is doing it; why can't I?" is a phrase that seems to echo from adolescence and, thanks to our current president, throughout politics. I can almost picture Mrs. Soetoro asking the young Barry, during one of his formative 4:00 AM lectures, "if everyone else was jumping off a cliff..." In response to that adage, somehow he learned to say, "Yes."

During his major Obamacare sales pitch before Congress last year, the president whined, "We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people."

This plea should sound familiar: We're the only major industrialized nation not to sign up for the Kyoto Protocol emissions targets. We're the only industrial nation that doesn't guarantee its workers any paid vacation. We're the only G-20 country without a federal VAT or Goods and Services Tax.

It's such a familiar refrain that when asking a friend of mine about the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" controversy, his first response was to point out that "the U.S. is the only major Western military..."

I interrupted with "so what?"

Peer pressure is distinctly un-American. It certainly didn't factor into the Founding Fathers' decision to declare independence or establish a Bill of Rights. To think America would survive without a monarch or a dictator was an idea so original it was almost irrational. Thankfully, the Founders decided not to make the New World just like the old one. They pursued a course of action based on its own merit, not global popularity.

This is the pulse of American exceptionalism. We don't envy; we innovate.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed last year that his budget aimed "to create the stronger enterprise culture that America enjoys." You don't have to be an anthropologist to notice the irony in Mr. Brown's claim that government "creates" culture. But he's right about our competitive spirit. Did General George Patton announce that "Americans love a conformist"? No, "Americans love a winner."

Issues like health care and the "right" to serve in our military deserve to be debated and considered. But the debate should concern pros and cons, the merit of the idea, its purpose, and its intended effect -- an exchange of tangible arguments. Significantly alter the behavioral guidelines for military service because everyone else is doing it? Rearrange one-sixth of our economy (the same economy Mr. Brown envies) because it feels right? If these arguments sound hollow, it's because they are.

In his desperation to follow the crowd, Obama has failed to see the consequences of giving in to peer pressure: He is resolutely coaxing America toward the cliff's edge.

Steve McGregor is Special Adviser on defense issues to a peer in the British House of Lords. He is also a post-graduate student in Social Anthropology at University College London. Previously he served as a captain in the Rakkasans. Read more of his writing at stevemcgregor.org.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/15/2010 7:50:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Huffington Post: “Obama Better Start Breaking Kneecaps”

By Ed Driscoll on The Return of the Primitive

Arianna Huffington to Roger Ailes of Fox News on the Sunday, January 31st edition of ABC’s This Week:

<<< HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it’s not a question of picking a fight. And aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree…

…It’s not about the word police. It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there. >>>

It sure is:



Note baseball bat with “Barack” photoshopped on, in case the title was too subtle and nuanced:



You stay classy, Arianna & company.

pajamasmedia.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/17/2010 1:27:36 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Bayh Bayh Lefty Bloggers

By: Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

From a CNN story on Bayh:

<<< "He hates the Senate, hates the left bloggers," a friend and longtime adviser to Bayh said. "They are getting their wish, pure Democrats in the minority." >>>


corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/18/2010 4:56:39 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
This Is Your Country on Progressivism

By David J. Bobb on Progressives
Big Government

Picture an incandescent light bulb. This is your country.



Now imagine a compact fluorescent light bulb. This is your country on Progressivism.



What does a country on Progressivism look like? To start with, in the evening hours it’s pretty dim. Have you tried reading at night in a hotel room recently?

With more than 300 million of those little curly-Q fluorescent light bulbs now sold annually, our country is looking a lot less bright. Ever since Congress a few years ago declared that by 2012 Americans needed to be more energy efficient, it’s been out with Edison, in with the EPA. And turn on some more lights—I can’t see a thing!

When the CFL’s (even light bulbs get an acronym in our age) first hit the market, proponents of the new bulb responded to frequent complaints by insisting that their product would get better. Since that hasn’t happened, maybe the old model could be improved, some thought. Tweak Thomas Edison’s invention and bring it up to current standards.

As the New York Times reported this past summer about new efforts to update the Edison bulb, “Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.”

In that single sentence we can see a whole volume about what Progressives believe.

Progressives, imbued with an undying confidence in the vitality of the federal government, see it as a goad to “goodness.” Government can mandate its way to “innovation.” And that “innovation” can, over time, make us good.

We should learn to love the new light bulbs, its proponents say, because it will help us all save the planet. The act of adopting something as small as a new light bulb molds us into better planet-loving people. Pro-actively energy-efficient in all that we do, we can become better citizens.

The Progressive view of the Constitution, strangely enough, mimics Progressive advocacy of the new light bulb.
Update the old thing, Progressives say of our Constitution, and make it fit our times. It’s too ancient—too inefficient—for our age. A little mandate from the President, Supreme Court, or Justice Department, surely will spur constitutional innovation. This change will create a “new” Constitution, and a better country.

What is this “new” Constitution? It’s a living document—vital, dynamic, active—that allows for the greatest “innovation.” Such innovation is possible because the new Constitution grants each branch of government maximum leeway to advance the administrative state—the behemoth that brought you inferior light bulbs screwed into their sockets by Uncle Sam.

The old boundaries—separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and a jurisprudence of original meaning—can be swept away with the confidence of a new enlightenment that says, “Government is here to help, and the Constitution must not stand in its way.”


We should learn to love this “new” Constitution, its Progressive proponents say, because it will help us all become better people and better citizens. We will finally have the security that should have been promised by the Founders.

It’s been widely reported that when one of the new CFL’s breaks, the clean-up is a little messy.
Kids have to be cleared out of the room for fear of neurotoxic poisoning, and adults are left with 12 steps, according to a handy EPA guide, for cleaning up the mercury. All you need, the EPA tells you on its Web site, are the following items: “4-5 ziplock-type bags; trash bags (2 to 6 mils thick); rubber, nitrile or latex gloves; paper towels; cardboard or squeegee; an eyedropper; duct tape, or shaving cream and small paint brush; a flashlight; and powdered sulfur (optional).” Must be simple, huh?

It’s kind of difficult to clear the kids out of the country when there’s a constitutional crisis. And while a Constitution can’t exactly be broken, it can be rendered irrelevant. Thankfully, ours is a resilient document. Its strength lies not in the parchment but rather in the immaterial principles of justice, the rule of law, and liberty and equality to all. We will find lasting greatness only in an appeal to those principles, and not in reliance upon government-mandated “innovation.”

This is your country, after all, and not that of the Progressives.


feedproxy.google.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/19/2010 8:06:22 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 35834
 
I report. You deride.

From the 'View from the Far Left of Center' thread; This is how they look at the suicide plane crash in Austin, TX.

Message 26330252

& check out the 2 intellectual replies

siliconinvestor.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/19/2010 8:16:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Now when it's clear a LWE has gone off the reservation & slaughters innocent people [Amy Bishop], this is how the folks at the 'View from the far left of Center' react.

Message 26319214

siliconinvestor.com

siliconinvestor.com

Hmmmmm. Where's the snarky, sneering about those knuckle dragging LWE's?



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/22/2010 12:46:14 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
First Email of the Morning

By: Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

All of the asterisks are mine:


<<< I think you are a discusting JEW and your bulls**t stinks, what a looser you and your f**ked up republicans are, George Bush was the worst president we have ever had, Oh and yes he was a f**ked up republican such as yourself. Oh ya and wasnt it a f**ked up republican that gave all the wetbacks a fee ticket to the U.S. lets see that was Ronald Reagan, another f**ked up republican such as yourself, and no the Dems are not to blame, your f**ked up George Bush got this country into all the f**ked up mess its in now, Why do you think the American people voted all the f**ked up republicans out??? You would be wise to keep your f**ked up Jew mouth shut everyone knows you republicans are f**ked, allways have been, as long as there are f**ked up Jews in this country such as yourself they allways will be. In short go f**k yourself Jew bastard. >>>


Me: Slow down, I'm having trouble following.


corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30561)2/26/2010 12:58:44 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (27) | Respond to of 35834
 
Liberal Paranoia About Christian Conservatives

Posted by David Limbaugh
February 25, 2010 05:33 PM

The left's paranoia about the intersection of Christianity and the public square continues unabated. It's amazing how much they fear something that represents such a little threat to them.

In his column in the British newspaper The Guardian, Northeastern University associate journalism professor Dan Kennedy rails against Republicans' "intolerance" of secularism and accuses them of representing a threat to the First Amendment.

In their penchant for projection, leftists accuse conservatives and Republicans of intolerance, when in fact, their own intolerance dominates the issues of freedom of speech and religion. Liberals accuse conservatives of being theocrats, when they are the ones trying to chill religious freedom and expression.

One would expect that Kennedy, having made these charges, would provide some proof in his column that Republicans have abridged or advocated abridging someone's First Amendment rights -- such as using the authority of government to infringe on citizens' freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly or petition or somehow violating the establishment clause.

I searched in vain for the payoff. He provided no examples, no scintilla of proof that Republicans are even skirting up against an activity that could fairly be considered threatening to Americans' First Amendment guarantees.

The main source of Kennedy's current angst seems to be a few statements from Republican politicians at the Conservative Political Action Conference a week ago. Apparently, the greatest offender was Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whom Kennedy describes as a "fire-breathing Christian warrior and aspiring presidential candidate in his spare time."

What did Pawlenty say that struck such fear in Kennedy? He said: "I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us forward. ... The first one is this: God's in charge. ... In the Declaration of Independence, it says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, D.C., or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our Creator that we are given these rights."

Kennedy responds that Pawlenty misrepresented the Founders' "intent" because Jefferson, the "primary author" of the declaration, deleted all references to Jesus' deity from his personal Bible.

Jefferson's Christianity may be subject to debate, but it is clear that he didn't view himself as expressing his own views in the declaration; rather, "it was intended to be an expression of the American mind." (The American mind, it should be noted, was decidedly Christian.) Plus, a congressional committee led by the devout John Adams made more than 80 changes, deleting nearly 500 words and adding two references to a providential God. The declaration was a corporate statement of Congress. Also, Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention. So Kennedy's reference to Jefferson is at best misleading, as is his convenient omission of many other relevant facts -- including that 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.

Kennedy's other proof of Pawlenty's intolerance and "hatred"? He "oozed mild-mannered hatred for anyone who doesn't share his beliefs." Kennedy's basis for that claim? Pawlenty "trashed anyone who attended 'Ivy League schools' or who go to 'chablis-drinking, brie-eating parties in San Francisco'."

Please get a life, Mr. Kennedy, and learn to take at least a little ribbing in exchange for your vitriol.

You see, in Kennedy's leftist mind, if you simply disagree with and make fun of the left, you're guilty of hatred. If you merely invoke God in your public pronouncements, such as Pawlenty's "God's in charge" or Huckabee's call to "take this nation back for Christ," you're proposing "a theocracy of believers. It is an assault not just on anyone who isn't one of them, but on the American idea, and on liberal democracies everywhere."

Once again, Kennedy is projecting. He's the one objecting to the speech of others. He's the one accusing them of advocating a theocracy, when nothing could be farther from the truth. He's the one exhibiting intolerance for the other man's religious views and speech.

He cites no evidence of Republicans advocating any theocratic ideas. When Christians say God is in control, they mean that in the sense of his divine sovereignty -- not as some endorsement of turning any political control over to a national church, much less any individual church.

When we witness this kind of scattershot Christian-bashing paranoia from the left, we must remember that you won't find censorship of speech or thought or infringements on religious liberty emanating from conservatives or Republicans. Those impulses, when present, generally originate from the left.

So settle down, liberals. When it comes to threats to liberty, you have nothing to fear from us. We will fight to protect your religious liberties and even your political speech -- wrong as it is. Can you say the same in reverse?


davidlimbaugh.com