Patriots and Pissants

The screaming leftards have finally gotten their way. Defense Secretary Gates has given in to their manufactured anti-war outrage. He will now allow flag draped coffins to be used as anti-America propaganda by the foam-at-the-mouth leftists who are still angry about us winning the Iraq war.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon will lift its ban on media coverage of the flag-draped coffins of war victims* arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

But the families of the victims will have the final say on whether to allow the coverage, he said.

This has been a sore subject for me. Regardless of where you stand on the war, you know there are casualties; the government is not hiding anything. In fact, each death is announced, along with the person's name and a picture if available. That is a small but fitting recognition of a hero's ultimate sacrifice. Taking pictures of coffins and having ideological spats over them disrespects our fallen patriots.

I particularly detest those smirking bed-wetters who use a picture of flag draped coffins as their avatar when they post their self-indulgent, left-wing, anti-American, fleck-spittle, diaper rash rants. Every time I have the misfortune to stumble upon some libtard pant-load using a picture of coffins in some public internet forum, I deliver this message to them:

Unless you knew every person in each of those flag draped coffins, and knew that they agree with your political point of view, you are exploiting them. I doubt you ever stood at attention while they loaded or unloaded one of those boxes onto a C-130 you were on. You probably never ran your hand over the fabric of the flag and said a silent prayer before you went down the ramp. You probably never had to see one of your friends leave theater in one of those coffins. You are exploiting fallen heroes for your own smirking, petty purposes.

To paraphrase that old poem:

It's not the America-hating liberal college professor or the unhinged, ranting street protester that gives you the right to be an ignorant, unpatriotic moron. It is the American soldier, who serves under, and is wrapped in, the flag you spit on and burn. God Bless America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* And by the way, CNN, military personnel who are killed in the line of duty are not "victims," they are casualties, or simply "dead." This isn't a story about illegal aliens or people too benumbed by government assistance to get out of the way of a hurricane. These are patriotic people who volunteered for the military and died in the service of their country. They are the antithesis of victims. Save the victim talk for the Democratic voters who have their hands out or who are always nursing some grudge.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Ruins of the Self-Esteem Society

Kevin Hassett nails the Wall Street whiz kids. He draws a bead on the toxic mixture of Ivy League education and cocksure self-esteem that reduced Wall Street to a discredited, ruined wreck.

Twenty or 30 years ago, it was common for the best and the brightest to be doctors or engineers. By the 2000s, they wanted to be investment bankers.

When Wall Street was run by people randomly selected from the population, it was able to survive everything. After the best and brightest took over, it died the first time real-estate prices dropped 20 percent.

Wall Street is gone because its firms did a terrible job assessing the risks of the positions they took. The models these firms used to evaluate risks failed.

Back when Wall Street was run by individuals without fancy degrees, they had a proper skepticism toward fancy models and managed their risks with a great deal more humility and caution. Only when failed models became canon did catastrophe strike.

Computer models and fancy degrees are great, but they can't replace humility and judgment based on experience. Read the whole article here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=a_ac69DqFutQ

Spreadin' It Around

Jennifer Rubin critiques President Obama's plan to "spread it around."

From a political standpoint, the idea that we should bail out irresponsible home buyers or incompetently run auto companies is proving to be very unpopular. Rasmussen polling revealed that 64% of Americans oppose further car company bailouts and only 38% back the president’s mortgage bailout plan.

...the very policies which they intend to implement are proving to be unpopular both on Wall Street and on Main Street.

Read the whole article here.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time

The World Turned Upside Down

The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.

Naturally, all national governments and business leaders must take resolute actions. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid making decisions, even in such force majeure circumstances, that we will regret in the future. We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism...Although additional protectionism will prove inevitable during the crisis; all of us must display a sense of proportion.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent. The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation...

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the
state...

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

What makes this speech all the more amazing is that it comes from Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, and former KGB officer. Being an old Reagan era cold-warrior, who manned this nations ballistic missile early warning system from the height of the cold war to the after the collapse of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union... I never, in my wildest dreams, thought I would live to see the day that that an ex-KGB officer, President of Russia, and current Prime Minister would lecture, and rightly so, the United States on the dangers of Socialism and the Socialist state. I now know how General Cornwallis felt as he surrendered at Yorktown as the band played "The World Turned Upside Down". All I can say in absolute astonishment and amazement is:

LISTEN TO THE NICE RUSSIAN MAN, HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!

The serving men doe sit and whine, and thinke it long ere dinner time: The Butler's still out of the way, or else my Lady keeps the key, The poor old cook, in the larder doth look, Where is no goodnesse to be found, Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Cheers!

~Finntann~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Transparent Shell Games

The Obama administration has declared there will be no more off-budget spending. They will now account for it all in the official numbers.

"All told we are showing $2.7 trillion in costs in this budget that were excluded from previous budgets and I think that is a mark of the honesty and responsibility contained in this document," he said. (Editing by Jackie Frank)

I applaud the Administration's transparency, but this is a shell game. Revealing the “True deficit” is a convenient way to mask your gross spending increases (32%) as well as set a high benchmark from which to base future cuts upon.

No politician does anything for purely altruistic reasons. If this administration were really serious about true government accountability, it would insist the federal government follow the same accounting rules it foists upon those perched just below the pinnacle of Mount Olympus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWAT01105820090226
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4IDVnpqVC0M&refer=home

3 HOURS OF SLAVERY

The 3.55 trillion DOLLAR Obama budget, with additional projected spending of 390 billion, and the already passed trillion dollar bailout gives us an unprecedented 5 TRILLION dollar orgiastic spending frenzy never before seen, and that is with such creative accounting methods as a 750 billion dollar home mortgage industry bailout that is only put on the books as 250 billion because the government thinks it will get 500 billion back... eventually. Not only are we spending like crazy but this all pushes the deficit to 1.75 trillion dollars, four times the Bush deficit and twice the previous post-war record.

How are we going to pay for all these pie-in-the-sky programs? Socialized Medicine, Socialized Education, Socialized Mortgages (if Obama's "Hail Caesar" pseudo-State of the Union Address is any indication). We are resorting to a fine American tradition of slavery. Obama's plan is to repeal the previous Bush tax cuts (but only on that despised class of people... those who work hard) for those earning over $250,000 a year, returning the top bracket to 39 percent. If you make $250,000 a year, and work an eight-hour day, that equates to three hours of free labor for Big Daddy O! You work, he takes it all. How's that for involunteering? Even at more modest incomes significant portions of YOUR labor will be for someone else, and with no compensation. Think I am exaggerating?

Slavery: A form of forced labor where a person is compelled to work for another. Slaves are held against their will deprived of the right to leave, compensation, and to refuse to work.

Still think I am exaggerating? Try not paying your taxes and you will see how far in bondage you really are.

But it doesn't really matter... carbon emissions are at an all time high, the ice caps are melting and the seas are rising... we have climate change. Don't worry though, Big Daddy O's gonna take care of you. The government is going to set carbon limits, a reasonable act if you reasonably believe that we are all doomed if we don't change our behavior. But wait... it gets better:

While setting carbon limits, the government is going to sell you exemptions... to the tune of 645.7 billion dollars. Carbon emissions are apparently bad, unless of course you can turn a twisted socialist profit from them. This is described as cap and trade, apparently the government sets limits on carbon emissions by business or industry. If you exceed your emissions, no problem... there is a company somewhere out there that didn't meet theirs... so, get this... the government then takes the unused portion of the other company's carbon limit and sells it to the company that is exceeding theirs. Interesting concept, only three questions: If I am the company that purchased say 2000 tons of carbon emissions and only used 1000 tons... do I get money back? And two, what kind of incentive am I under to reduce emissions, if you are only going to steal that reduction and sell it to someone else? Third? If carbon emissions are really all that bad, does this really do ANYTHING? After all, both companies are still emitting the same amount of carbon.

Might be kind of a harsh analysis, but today, while listening to the radio, I lost all faith in humanity. Listening to a discussion between Sean Hannity and some 24-year old female college student regarding socialized medicine, education, child-care, transportation, and housing the following summary question was put to the woman who was defending her position that the government should take care of those in need:

"So what your saying is that the government should give health care, education, child-care, transportation, and housing to those that need them, (caller agreed) and that in order to pay for all this the government should take the money for all this from those with the capability to pay? (caller also agreed)".

What is most horrifying about this exchange is when it was pointed out that this was a paraphrase of Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the young, presumably educated caller did not know that this is an essential principal of Communism, nor did she even know who Karl Marx was.

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!!


~Finntann~

A Good Reporter: Jake Tapper

I just wish reporters would ask serious questions and be skeptical of all politicians. No obvious political or ideological bias. Not gotchas, just questions that draw out a politician's thinking and throw more light on an issue so we the people can evaluate the facts and make decisions. I've found one so far.

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper has been doing some serious, unbiased reporting. I really like the cut of his jib. Unlike the Obamessiah worshipers in the press corps, this guy throws fastballs. Jake is the reporter who asked the president how we would judge whether his plan is working a year from now. He asked for metrics. Not an aha, just a serious question that I myself was thinking. He asked White House spokesmouth Gibbs this question yesterday:

One, does the president believe that raising taxes hinders economic growth. I understand that he believes in -- in fairness in the tax system and he needs to -- they need to reduce the deficit and pay for some of these programs. But is he concerned at all that raising taxes could hinder economic growth?

He then followed up with two more zingers. Read his whole article here. Tapper also gives us an itemized rundown of all the new taxes in the President's budget. It's a must read. Here is just a sample:

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

He also breaks down the economically stupid, jobs killing taxes on businesses. It's a must read. Go see it here.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

Card Check

Labor Unions, little more than partisan platoons of the Democratic Party, want to eliminate the secret ballot via "card check."

I like to hear a good argument from the other side, especially when it is attempting to defend the indefensible. More liberalism is an easy argument to make to the economic and constitutional illiterate. It's a feel-good fairness issue that really resonates with an entitlement culture.

What I can't understand is how one can defend the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, which actually snatches away an employee's free choice.

The Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the private ballot method of voting up or down on unionization. Instead, it forces each employee to publicly sign a card stating her intentions. If you have a crowd of angry, intimidating men standing around you as you sign your card, is that choice really free?

Now, on to defending the indefensible. In These Times, an old-school lefty publication, has written the best defense of this bill I have seen so far. They start with the flawed premise that the decline in unions caused America's Decline. One only has to compare the unionized northeast's economic malaise to the relative prosperity of the non-union south. But nevermind that for now...

This great 30-year shift in wealth, power and public priorities coincided with—and was in large part caused by—the decline of a labor movement under assault from corporations and right-wing ideologues.

I like their innocuous explanation of Card Check:

Here’s how it would work: When a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, they would gain recognition for their union.

No goons knocking on your door at 3am inquiring about your family and "oh, by the way, where's your signed card?" No, the workers happily fill out the forms and put them in a brightly colored shoebox like on Valentines Day. They get counted every day until, BINGO! One day finally, it's 50% + 1, and we have a union!

EFCA would sharply increase penalties against employers who violate labor laws when workers organize. It would provide workers faster relief from violations, such as firing for union activity. And it would provide the option of mediation and arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach a first contract on their own.

So if a pain-in-the-ass pro-union agitator is caught haranguing the proletariat instead of driving his forklift like he's paid to, teams of bureaucrats from the liberal Department of Labor will swoop down to shield him from the wrath of his mean overseers. The Federal Government will intrude upon a privately owned business and hijack the HR process that normally kicks in when someone is being disruptive instead of doing what the boss is paying him for.

The most effective part of the article is it's emotional appeal using personal stories of innocent workers being harassed by the man and getting fired for fighting back with union tactics. The author hints darkly at shadowy groups and worker intimidation, filling in the factual voids with ominous tonal shading. (Cue the scary music)

Employer opposition takes its toll, as workers fear for their jobs or economic wellbeing. In the face of employer hostility and long, drawn-out campaigns for union recognition, workers grow cynical or disillusioned, persuaded that collective action is futile, even if they would like a union.

Here's the best piece of propaganda in the article. Nevermind the non-sequitur pretzel logic. It is a brilliant rhetorical flourish:

Further, the employer defense of secret ballots is a sham. “Workers without a union don’t vote on anything,” says Tom Woodruff, director of Change to Win’s strategic organizing center. “When was the last time non-union voters voted on a pay raise?” For that matter, when did corporations seek worker secret ballots on executive pay or offshoring jobs?

The fact is, employers almost always get the final vote

They move their operations when labor costs or taxes get too high or government regulations become too onerous. Where unions are strong enough to keep the employer from escaping, the consumer is the one administering the final thumbs-down. Just look at high tax, unionized Michigan. According to the Wall Street Journal, it has lost 83,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade. Where did those jobs go? Mexico, China, Indonesia? No. They went to Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama. While Michigan was bleeding out over the past decade, the south picked up 91,000 non-union manufacturing jobs.

I fail to see how unionizing the entire country will do anything other than drive American jobs to cheaper overseas locations.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/4191/ready_to_rumble
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

California: Failed State

Liberalism, which clings to the childlike belief in the free lunch, has wrecked the once great state of California

California, land of energy, agriculture and a treasure trove of brilliant human capital, is collapsing in upon itself, straining under the weight of a staggering $40 billion plus deficit.

In Homage to Catalonia, a personal narrative of his participation in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell marveled at the ability of Marxists to reduce to a state of filth and chaos any building they occupied.

Like Orwell, Americans may now marvel at the state of filth and fiscal chaos liberal Democrats reduce almost any state or municipality they occupy. Detroit, Chicago, Michigan, California... Only liberalism could bring the world's sixth largest economy to it's knees in one generation.

I take no glee in pointing this out. California once embodied America and our optimistic, expansionist ideals, but no longer. This collapsed welfare state is exhibit A in the gallery of liberalism's failures. Of course, the New York Times and a yapping chorus of progressive apologists don't see things this way. So who's to blame, according to left? Why Republicans, of course! This is from the NY Times, toilet paper of record:

The roots of California’s inability to address its budget woes are statutory and political. The state, unlike most others, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature to pass budgets and tax increases. And its process for creating voter initiatives hamstrings the budget process by directing money for some programs while depriving others of cash.

For months Republicans have vowed not to raise taxes, which in California means no increase in either the sales, gas or personal income tax.

The American Prospect pushes the liberal line even further: Proposition 13 and the ensuing property tax cuts wrecked the state. So there we have it: A state completely run by free-spending liberal Democrats at every level collapses and the Republicans are to blame.

Wayne Allyn Root throws a bucket of cold water on this nonsense:

The good news is that California leads the nation. The bad news is that California leads the nation in deficit, debt and the amount of residents escaping to other states.

*California leads the country in spending on government employees.

*California spends twice as much as the national average on education (with dismal results).

*California spends almost $200 million per year on free college educations for illegal immigrants (no that's not a typo).

*California has the most draconian anti-business rules and regulations in the nation. That forces businesses to spend too much. The result is that California is the most costly place in America to do business (according to the Milken Institute's business cost index).

*California is heaven for trial lawyers and hell for small businesses. That could be why so many major employers have left the state (according to Investor's Business Daily).

*California has the second highest income tax rates in all of America. And it is among the nation's leaders in virtually every tax category possible- income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on real estate transactions, taxes on stock transactions, capital gains taxes, workers compensation taxes, the list is endless.

Behold the Fruits of Rampant Liberalism!

* Record breaking debt and junk bond rating. Highest debt ever for any state in the history of the nation.

* Job growth 20% lower than the nation. But it's not just any jobs that California is losing. According to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the state has lost 440,000 high-wage jobs.

* 3rd highest unemployment rate in the nation.

* Reverse Gold Rush. Last year, over 144,000 more people left California than moved in. That led the nation. This was the 4th straight year of out-migration.

Liberals can try to refute this, but the facts are clear, and Californian refugees are voting with their feet.

If President Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress have their way, soon we'll be saying:

We're all Californians Now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431135774170619.html
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090113-085202
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=1&hphttp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=failed_state
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/business/NA-GEN-US-California-No.-8-Economy.php
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/NATLCalifornias-Exodus.html

Federal Crack Dealers

I am disappointed in President Obama. I didn't vote for him but I wished him well and hoped he would end business as usual in DC. I now realize I was hopelessly deluded.

His speech before Congress last night was populist, partisan, cocky posturing. Newsweek was right: We are all socialists now. Government will wipe away every tear, change every diaper, and pay for everybody's college. I guess I can drain my kids' college fund now and buy some kickass guitars and guns...

The Great Benefactor took control last night, but a few weeks ago he ceded leadership on the stimulus to Harry and the Pelosicrats, who hastily slapped together a trillion dollar monument to economic ignorance. I now understand why he did it: He is in complete partisan agreement with them.

Robert Samuelson, brilliant economics reporter and non-partisan honest broker, calls this monstrosity what it is: A liberal cornucopia of pet spending projects that is too unfocused to do any stimulating.

Republican governors are leading a revolt (Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina). Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has actually read the stimulus bill, unlike the Democrats who voted for it. He points out that this is anything but a "one time" initiative...

The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs.

The Governor of Texas doesn't like it much either:

Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

The South Carolina Governor had this to say about the new programs this porkulus funds:

"There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.

These good men are correct: Our government is peddling crack. You can't just snatch billions of dollars worth of programs out from under these government-dependent addicts. This "stimulus" is a Trojan horse that ushers in a new golden age of social liberalism. I guess that's the change everybody's been talking about

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_stunted_economic_stimul.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535040968044863.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/crisis-resolution-board-opinions-contributors_regulation_sec.html

Trespassing is Still Illegal

Civil rights lawsuit pits rancher against illegal immigrant trespassers

WASHINGTON TIMES: A federal jury in Tucson, Ariz., ruled Tuesday that Arizona rancher Roger Barnett did not violate the civil rights of 16 illegal aliens from Mexico he stopped while they were trespassing on his property in March 2004.

So what was Mr. Barnett doing? Shooting 'Cans with a 50 cal mounted on a tripod while Bubba scouted terrain with a spotting scope? Nabbing trespassers and pressing them into forced servitude on his ranch? Rape, robbery, murder?

Nope. Roger Barnett held the trespassers at gunpoint and called the cops. For this he is called a racist vigilante by dingbats who view our legal system as a cash cow to be milked for all its worth in pursuit of finding the most rights for the most criminals at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Thankfully, the court upheld constitutional property rights, but it still inexplicably awarded the aggrieved illegal alien trespassers $78,000. MALDEF, the Mexican version of the Jesse Jackson Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, is outraged. They had plans to really cash in on this one, hoping to extort $32 million out of our justice system. In a final twist for the good guys, MALDEF won't be collecting a penny:

MALDEF's failure to prove that Barnett violated the illegals' civil rights gives him the opportunity to claim attorneys' fees - effectively negating the $78,000 that he is liable for.

This was a good day for the American justice system. The race hustling pimps came up empty handed this time. But they'll be back. Termites can't resist a rotting structure.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/20/a-partial-victory-for-common-sense/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/?p=733

Live Free Or Die

State legislators are accusing the Federal Government of flagrantly usurping its authority and bursting it's constitutional bounds.

This allegation is based upon the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. It helps to recall a few facts:

1) The constitution does not come from the Federal Government. It comes from the people of the several states.

2) The Constitution is a set of instructions from the people to the Federal Government. It was established by the thirteen original states as a delegation of certain specific powers to the federal government so that the rights of the people might be protected.

3) Our inalienable rights come from God, not the government or the Constitution. The Government and the Constitution don't bestow rights, they safeguard them.

Peoples' Rights and States' Rights: Two Amendments

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

New Hampshire, Live Free or Die State
New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on 21 June 1788 by a vote of 57 to 47. With this vote, it became the ninth state to approve the document and thus made it effective for the ratifying states. New Hampshire's legislature is now considering HCR 6 , a resolution affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles. It's out of committee now, with the majority Democrats recommending it be voted down, although it is just a resolution that implements no law.

According to Milford News, Deputy House Speaker Linda Foster, D-Mont Vernon, opposes the resolution because the need for it is vague. She said nobody who supports the resolution has articulated clear examples of federal tyranny.

"I wish they would explain to me what they are angry about," she said.

I guess she hasn't been herded through airport security lately. How about politicians blowing taxpayer money like there's no tomorrow, and then borrowing more from Communist China when the coffers are empty?

How about the federal government poking its snout in every last nook and cranny of human existence, far and beyond those activities contemplated by the constitution? For a layman's explanation of the resolution, go to NolanChart.com.

The media is studiously ignorant of this story. This could turn into a national phenomenon if reporters would stop acting like the Democratic Party Praetorian Guard. Local newspapers, blogs and other new media outlets are the exclusive source of information, which unfortunately makes this look like a kook story. I could maybe understand if this were limited to New Hampshire, but it's not. Arizona's HR 2024 is a similar measure.

Interestingly, Opednews.com, a very liberal site, has an article supporting these State's Rights efforts:

United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing...

A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the US Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

This is not about treason or revolution. God save us from anything like that. It's not about right or left. It's about legally restoring this nation, These United States, back upon a solid constitutional foundation. It's about reining in the berserk, incontinent, out of control beast known as the Federal Government.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5958.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Firestorm-Brewing-Between-by-Lance-L-Landon-090217-130.html
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Mortgages & the Milking of America

Government propagandists, playing the press like the Devil's Bagpipes, are telling us how wonderful the President's new mortgage plan is. CNBC and other liberal government press organs shouted down dissenter Rick Santelli, who called for a new millennium tea party. Danielle Babb, dean of business at Andrew Jackson University, has written a fine piece that dares to question the wisdom of this latest redistributionist effort.

The plan isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are several issues on both the homeowner and investor side as well as the lender and builder side that make this plan problematic in the long term. As the Economic Advisor for Vice President Biden said yesterday, we will "share the pain" -- we being the government and the banks.

There is only one problem -- "we" are the taxpayers, and of those that own homes, over 90% of them are still paying on time. It seems like the "Ask not what your country can do for you..." idiom doesn't apply to everyone. The plan won't work. It doesn't address jumbo mortgages, many of which are about to reset this year and through 2011 and don't qualify for Freddie or Fannie mortgages.

It doesn't address the moral hazard of so many people I read about and hear from that are literally not paying their mortgage, but instead are waiting for a government handout.

It doesn't address those who are frustrated by seeing big banks and the "Big 3" given billions of our taxpayer dollars while they pay their negative amortization mortgage on a home that is $200,000 under water -- homeowners that are now encouraging their spouses to quit their jobs so they can get an even lower payment under the new 31% DTI.

She details the perverse incentives that only a government could devise: Incentivising people to quit their jobs and quit paying their mortgages to qualify for government assistance, not to mention those underwater who are scooping up a new property at firesale prices and then abandoning the old home. Professor Babb's article is an excellent argument against this plan. Arm yourself. Go read the entire article here.

http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10465005.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-rosenthal-23-feb23,0,6124753.story

Obama to Adopt Swedish Model

Haven't been listening to the news much, but my ears perked up when I heard President Obama wanted to adopt a Swedish model. Think of what the official First Family portrait would look like!

Maybe it's just a ruse and he's going Slick Willie on us? Heh heh... No, Mr. Obama seems too serious for such tomfoolery. Then I found out that he wanted to adopt the Swedish model for bank nationalization. Oh...

I think this could really perk up the banking industry. Imagine the tellers all talking with those comical Swedish accents: "Vat can I help you vit today, Meester Smeet?" Muzak replaced by Abba, Tuborg beer served in the lobby, and those tall, blond models...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123517380343437079.html

Reality Check: Don't Fool With Mother Nature

The chimp attack is one more reality check. Don't fool with Mother Nature.

Travis the celebrity chimp went berserk and bit off the fingers and ripped away the face of his owner's friend. A tragic story that reminds us that a chimp, no matter how cute or well-trained, is still a wild beast.

We've seen all the news reports, but the Brits can always be relied upon to give us the grisliest blow-by-blow.

Yes, he could sit at the table and sip tea, ride in a car, and even take Xanax like his stressed out human counterparts, but you can't suspend the laws of nature. Infantile anthropomorphizing should be left to Disney cartoons.

Other Reality Checks
What goes up must come down: Market prices can also fall
There's no such thing as a free lunch: Ask California
A liberal will govern as a liberal
Union-enforced wages and benefits won't save your job. They may price you out of the market
If you loan money to people who can't pay it back, they won't

http://wcbstv.com/local/chimpanzee.attack.stamford.2.937244.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1147529/Drug-crazed-celebrity-chimp-stabbed-shot-death-mauled-woman-attacked-police-officers.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96EAAPO0&show_article=1
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/orangutan.attack.stamford.2.936381.html

On Star Meets Big Brother

Now the federal government want's to tax you by the mile.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn—an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

Can you imagine the hysterical liberal outcry if the dreaded Bush-Cheney regime had proposed tracking your every vehicular move with GPS? But it's OK since the Democrats are doing it...

LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.

Of course! Why raise taxes when creating new ones is so much more fun? Ray LaHood is living proof that an Illinois Republican is just a Democrat by another name.

Oops! Looks like the White House has already shot this one down. What are those inscrutable liberals up to? Hmmm...

Blogger buddy Chicago Ray thinks he has the answer. Being from crooked Chicago, home of the corrupt Democratic machine, he is a highly trained Democrat watcher. Check out his take here.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96F6JO80&show_article=1&catnum=3

Satan's Bagpipes

The Democratic party plays the press like Satan playing his bagpipes

Germans call Bagpipes a "Tootlesack." That struck me as quite comical when I first heard it from a drunken crowd of German Soldiers I was careening around with down Europe's cobblestone streets. The Scotsman who blew pipes for his British Army unit didn't like it too well though. It looked for a minute like there was fixin' to be a Queen's Own -vs- Bundeswehr throwdown. It all worked out OK because the English-speaking Germans couldn't cut through the angry piper's insults, which were wrapped heavily in a whiskey-soused burr. My Deutsches Freunden couldn't understand the whole bagpipe appreciation thing either. They hated the sound.

Bagpipe music: You either love it or hate it. To aficionados, it is an eerily haunting transport to windswept highlands and a bracing, courage-boosting call to battle. To detractors, it is a discordant clash of wheezes, snorts, and growls, with a bagful of tortured cats thrown in. One of my favorite Beverly Hillbillies moments was when Grannie grabbed her broom and set upon a man playing the bagpipes because she thought he was being attacked by a noisy monster.

The press is the Devil's bagpipes: A discordant hot air powered wailing of multifarious tones and squealings that somehow arrive at an evil, liberal harmony.

When the Democrats crank up Satan's Bagpipes, it feels like we conservatives are being attacked by a noisy monster. Meanwhile, liberals are happily dancing and singing along to the tune. It's their fighting song. It hearkens back to a time when we were all liberal and poor in FDR's America, where men were paid pennies to lean on shovels all day and the Feral Government controlled everything. Bankers were jumping out of windows and the Robber Barons who built our great railways were finally brought low by the great depression.

Why the Devil's Bagpipes? Because Muslims, Christians and Jews all know that Satan cannot create anything; he can only desecrate and pervert what God has created. And he can only do that with human cooperation. If that doesn't describe the press I don't know what does.

The press treats religion derisively, if at all, and believers are portrayed as superstitious buffoons. The only "Religious" people treated respectfully are those promoting gay marriage and other clearly anti-biblical ideas. Hollywood celebutard pronouncements are given the respect due to Moses descending from Mount Sinai.

Our stinking press can't even report basic facts without mischaracterizing them or adding their own little editorial comments. They can't help it: Most reporters have no real-world expertise. They earn a journalism degree and start reporting. Reporters of old at least started from an honest profession and some real-world knowledge that didn't come from radical Marxist professors.

So, am I saying the Democratic party is Satan? No. But The Prince of Darkness is more than happy to blow his pipes for them. So is the press evil? No. Like most of Satan's tools, they are clueless dupes who think they are doing good.

Where's Granny with her broom when we need her?

* Yes, this is a reprint of an October 08 post

Theory of Beer and Intelligence

Remember that sitcom Cheers? Here's Cliff Claven's theory of beer and intelligence:

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this..."

"A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo.
And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

"In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

"And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers!'

Interesting Reading at New Ledger

I found a new news & information web site the other day. New Ledger has interesting articles from what looks like a fairly conservative perspective.

In Deconstructing Krugman, Francis Cianfrocca explains how a Nobel Laureate Economics professor can make dumb recommendations.

He also explains our current crisis in Crisis Explained.

This site even has a section dedicated to environmental issues, which it give the more traditional label of Conservation.

Check it out!

Disenchanted

I for one am sick and tired of American politics, the bloat, corruption, malfeasance on both sides of the aisle.

I haven't been particularly enamoured or excited by any of their Presidential nominations, but I was reading the Libertarian political platform and find I agree with pretty much the majority of it... with a few exceptions here and there.

If they had anywhere near 30% of registered voters, I might even consider them more seriously than I have in the past.

Thoughts? http://www.lp.org/platform

~Finntann~

One Good Rant Deserves Another

I love it when I stumble across a comment that is better than the original article.

The Orange Country Register had a good editorial about the pork spendulus, where the editors concluded "Without secrecy, panic and haste, the stimulus bill could never have passed."

A reader named Windfall posted a reply explaining political truth to us in a resigned, matter of fact way. I'm not the author of this rant, and it's not a barn burner like Finntann's, but I love it nontheless.

windfall wrote:

Let me make this real simple for you. If you are a political party, you are in business to win elections. To do that, you need voters.

If you are the party of say the long distance runners, you want to create more long distance runners, either by importing them or by influencing voters already here to become long distance runners.

If you are the party of the rich, you want to create more rich voters. You do this by removing impediments to work, saving, investment and production. You lower tax rates and reduce the burden of government.

If you are the party of the poor, you want to create more poor voters. You do this by increasing impediments to work, saving, investment and production. You raise tax rates and increase the burden of government. If this still doesn’t create enough poor voters to solidify your powerbase, you import more poor people and put them on a path to citizenship or just register them to vote anyway. And if this still doesn’t create enough poor voters, you finally just pay people outright to stay dependent on government, which ensures that they never get ahead.

The path to financial independence has an early fork in the road.

One way leads to dependence, one to independence. In order to qualify for government handouts, you need to present and document yourself as a victim. In order to get ahead, you need to accept the axiom that “if it’s going to be, it’s up to me”.

These two positions, states of mind really, are diametrically opposed. It is virtually impossible to hold both concepts of oneself simultaneously. This is why you can choose to get by or you can choose to get ahead but you can’t choose both. Of course, you can always go back and revisit that choice. And that is why the welfare reform of the 1990s worked in terms of weaning people off the welfare rolls and onto a different, more responsible, more productive and, ultimately, more independent path.

In repealing welfare reform as well as encouraging illegal immigration, motor voter laws and the right to vote without providing even basic identification, and by constantly pushing for higher taxes, more government intrusion and intervention into business as well are more borrowing and spending, Democrats are simply doing everything in their power to make it easier to get by and harder to get ahead. They’re hoping that when millions of voters and potential voters reach or revisit that fork in the road, they will choose dependency.

What’s so difficult to understand about that? After all, they are the party of the poor. They need to create as many poor people (and as few rich) as possible.

2/18/2009 7:46:57 AM

Recommended (21)

Why you ain't my problem!

Fair WARNING... I'm going to do a little ranting and raving here. Because like Howard Beale in the movie Network... I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

What's wrong with all the socialist spending going on.

First, I am a CAPITALIST and proud of it. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, everything I have I earned by the sweat of my brow, and brain...crafted by my own two hands. A free-market economy provides the greatest freedom and opportunity to the greatest number of people than any other political system out there. We have no locked castes, no royalty...sure some people get a little jump on others, but only through the hard work of their parents. Some don't.... I didn't. I received no inheritance, no free education... I started from blue-collar working class roots, in the same jobs that today many of you consider "not good enough" for Americans. I started with a menial job and worked my way up from there.

Second, I am a LIBERTARIAN and proud of that too. Honestly, provided you don't get your goods from anybody else dishonestly, I don't think anybody ought to be telling you what you can or can not do. Want to be gay? Fine by me. Want to do drugs? I got no problem with that. But understand something plain and simple... as a libertarian I believe in personal responsibility. YOU and only you are responsible for your own actions, you are accountable only to yourself. You got a problem with your current lot in life? Don't blame your parents, your neighbors, or the man keeping you down... take a long hard look in the mirror.

What does this have to do with the stimulus bill? A whole hell of a lot. Because these two basic principles of American freedom seem to have fallen by the wayside. YOU are entitled to NOTHING, other than the OPPORTUNITY, to make of your life what you will.

Let's get something straight right off the bat... something my father (who was born in 1900 and lived through the great depression...and no, I'm not that old, he was) taught me: TANSTAAFL! Never heard of it? It means "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". Another concept that seems to have fallen by the wayside. You get what you earn, plain and simple.

Why am I opposed to illegal immigration? Well I hear people say today that illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want. DON'T WANT? What kind of BS is that? I started out working 12-13 hours a day doing menial labor for a landscaping company, yup... I cut grass. A profession teeming with illegal immigrants today. Don't tell me it's a job Americans don't want...cause that's where I started... and I leveraged myself up from there.

America was and is the Land of Opportunity. Don't tell me it isn't, because I know better. I grew up in a neighborhood that was full of Greek immigrants (legal immigrants) who started off with nothing, working for someone else. They scratched together their pennies, scrimped and saved, and moved onto the next step: A hot-dog cart. Anyone from Philly will know what I mean. They got up at five in the morning dragged their cart into the city and worked until six. Scrimped and saved and moved onto the next step, a pizza place, hoagie shop, or restaurant. They worked ungodly hours, scrimped and saved, and pushed their kids through college.

Years later, on a business trip I met an older gentlemen in a hotel bar. My associates and I hung out with him for a few hours until he got up and left. When my friends and I went to leave the bartender told us not to worry about it, the older gentlemen had picked up our tab. I spent a lot of time in that hotel on business and got to know the old man. He was an immigrant, he had come to this country from Turkey many, many years before, penniless and not speaking a word of English. When I met him, he spoke flawless English and owned a multi-million dollar ocean-front hotel. Tell him America isn't the Land of Opportunity. He taught me a very valuable lesson about America... anything is possible, and there are an awful lot of people out there just like him.

Infrastructure? Amen... spend all you want. General Motors? Chrysler? Screw-Off! I work hard for my money...you want some of it? You better damn well earn it through a quality product at a decent price. If you can't produce, if you can't effectively manage your own company, employees, product, and market...you don't deserve any of my money, you deserve to fail. GM employs 266,000 people, Chrysler 58,000: The employees of that company make on average $5 an hour more than the employees of American Toyota or Nissan. Well bubbas! That's $64 Million a week in wages, $259 Million a month, or 3 Billion a year. Don't come sniffin around my wallet cause your company sucks... want a job? take a pay cut. You want to eat? Go cut somebodies friggin lawn... I did.

I stopped buying your shitty product years ago... had you produced quality at a decent price, I would still be buying and you would not be in the dire straights you are now. From the assembly line worker who didn't care about fastening my door panel correctly (by the way, it rattled like a SOB)... to the senior executive flying to the Bahamas on the corporate jet.... Tough Shit. You know what? I probably would have even paid a little more for a quality product and quality service. I certainly paid more for my Land Rover than I would have for a Ford Explorer... but you know what the difference is? When I went to the Land Rover dealership to buy, for service... they got on their knees and kissed by bloody ass! Yup, they gave me croissants, coffee, a loaner, I got my oil changed, they washed and detailed my car, so when I got it back it was all sparkly and shiny.... IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE YOU BONEHEADS! Compare that to getting bent over the desk by the service manager at any American dealership and where would you go and buy your car? GM goes under, Chrysler goes under, 324,000 people out of work? Well last thing I heard there were 12 million illegal immigrants in this country... DEPORT THEM, there are plenty of jobs out there... and keep your whining prima dona trap shut about them being not good enough for you.

Family Planning? Contraceptives? I got family planning for you... don't want kids? don't have sex. Want to have sex? Buy your own frigging contraceptives...or PAY FOR THE KIDS! It ain't my responsibility for you to get your jollies off, nor is it my responsibility to pay for your little rug-rats! I got my own rug-rats, that I pay for by the way...because they are my responsibility... I don't ask you to pay for mine, don't expect the reverse. I already pay for their education... you want me to pay for their diapers too?

To the woman who just had octuplets on top of 6 other kids, you ought to be slapped. Single, unemployed, on assistance with six kids, you don't need fertility treatments, you need a psychiatrist. You want 14 kids, that's fine... my Grandmother had 13 (that lived, she actually had 17)... but you know what? The government didn't pay for them! Did you pay for the fertility treatments out of your own pocket? Did you pay for the team of 46 doctors and nurses and four delivery rooms? I seriously doubt it since you were on food stamps. You are the classical example of irresponsible behavior... and guess what? If your movie of the week deal falls through... who's paying for the kids? We are!

Contemplate this too.... if you weren't single with six kids and living at home with your grandmother, she might not be $24K in arrears and facing foreclosure. Not on Welfare? You receive SSI and Food stamps.... what do you think welfare is? No income? Who paid for your $100,000 in fertility treatments? You managed to save a lot of money working double-shifts? What living in your grandmothers house for free while she goes in arrears and faces foreclosure? Aren't you a doll. Who is going to pay the 2.1 Million dollars the government estimates that it costs to raise 14 kids to 17? Oh yeah... Student Loans... let me know how that works out for you after announcing it on national TV.

Well... that's enough ranting and raving for one night... we'll have to cover other topics in society and the stimulus bill later.

Cheers!

~Finntann~

Bread & Circuses

Harry and the Pelosicrats, at the urging of Our Great Benefactor, slipped a few extra gifts into the spendulus bill, according to this very serious WaPo article. I'll ask a few questions, since the dullards in the press are still too busy drooling over our new president:

The final bill, approved by Congress on Friday, includes $8 billion in unplanned spending specifically requested by President Obama for regional high-speed rail projects

How much extra will this $8 billion cost? High speed rail will not pay for itself, it will have to be maintained by money the government takes from you and me, like Amtrack is now. If it were a financially smart idea, entrepreneurs would have already built it.

No pork package would be complete without an additional handout to a bloated failure:

The GM language emerged after the automaker warned that several conditions in its $13.4 billion loan agreement with the federal government could trigger tax liabilities of between $7 billion and $10 billion. As a result, the company argued, it might have to devote a large portion of its loan to paying taxes.

God forbid GM should have to pay taxes like the rest of us. Notice how only the federal government can cause you to incur a $10 billion liability by giving you a handout?

Most disgusting of all is how myriad special interest groups treat the Federal Government as a million-teated hog, a kind of porcine Ishtar, sacred prostitute of the Temple of Irresponsible Self-Indulgence. With just a gesture of the finger, Caesar has directed we throw an additional $8 billion into this bacchanalia.

Bread and Circuses...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401724.html

Libertarians, Social Conservative, Natural Allies

What's wrong with libertarianism? It's too cold, too logical... Sterile.

It lacks the fecundity to spawn an emotional movement, and sociologists tell us that politics is driven by emotion.

Libertarianism stands for... Nothing! It doesn't have an elephant or donkey as its symbol, or even a flag.

Actually, libertarianism stands for thousands of things: Drug use, homosexuality, gun rights, log cabin get back to nature, Christianity, Judaism, atheism. It stands for not standing in the way of human activity, some of which may be destructive to the actor.

And guess what? That puts libertarianism in complete concert with the constitution. Unfortunately, it also puts libertarians in the same suspicion-worthy category as liberals and atheists in the minds of cultural conservatives. That's too bad, because these two groups have overlapping goals that can only be protected by banding together.

Peter Berkowitz writes in WSJ Online:

Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution's lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.

The cultural conservatives point to how California, Florida and Arizona passed bans on gay marriage. What they fail to recognize is that, notwithstanding these victories, public opinion is trending against them on this issue. In 2000, 61% of Californians voted against gay marriage. In 2008, the anti vote had shrunk to 52%.

Libertarian conservatives point disdainfully to GOP spending that is indistinguishable from Democratic profligacy, as well as a fixation on issues that government has no business getting into such as stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, and gay marriage.

At best, cultural conservatives and libertarian conservatives are highly suspicious of one another; at worst, these are mutually hostile camps.

Berkowitz explains why these two groups need each other:

But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.

He then identifies the principles these two camps can rally around:

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.

Short-term clashes over priorities and policies are bound to persist. But championing these principles is the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions hospitable to traditional morality, religious faith, and the communities that nourish them. And it is also the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions that promote free markets, and the economic growth and expanded opportunity free markets bring.

It's not about fighting the noble but futile battle of converting everyone to your social values. It's about defending the constitutional principles that guarantee your right to continue to exercise those values. This is how conservatives keep liberals from hijacking the government and using its powers to snuff their values. It's about creating that space for human action that is free from government control. That is what the founders envisioned. Who knows, in the process, you may just gain some converts by your actions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html

Right America: Feeling Wronged

This evening I watched the HBO Documentary: Right America: Feeling Wronged: Some Voices from the Campaign Trail.

I am sitting here wondering why I bothered. Why would I in any way expect a fair treatment of conservatism from TIME WARNER and HBO? I guess I am a little naive and still expect better from the American media, but as I posted on the HBO thread:

"I have not seen such a political hack job or heavy handed and clumsy piece of sheer propaganda since Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Public Enlightenment. Alexandra Pelosi (yes, daughter of that Pelosi), managed to stitch together a quilt of interviews casting the Republican Party and Conservative movement in the worst possible light by focusing on the extreme fringe and portraying it as mainstream."

Intercut with scenes of John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus was the longest string of racists, xenophobes, bigots, and ignoramuses I have ever seen, put together in what was portrayed as a "legitimate" documentary on the dissatisfaction of the right. I am left wondering how such a piece of freshman (high school, not college) journalistic trash gets prime time airing on a major media outlet. Oh! Mom is Speaker of the House... explains a lot, that and the liberal media is obviously getting bold and limber enough to fellate themselves publicly.

Pelosi managed to define conservatism and the Republican Party (in 45 minutes, no less) as no more than poor white trailer trash, spouting the N-Word, calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, the Anti-Christ, and a socialist. Although the Einstein who did that was unable to define the term, but he did offer to look it up on his palm pilot. It is propaganda plain and simple, albeit anything but subtle, the likes of which haven't been seen outside of Venezuela since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It is this kind of yellow journalistic trash that leaves those on the right with the nasty aftertaste of media bias long after the credits have run, ironically from a documentary purported to represent "a snapshot of some of the most enthusiastic conservative Americans". Yet comes off so heavy handed that even the Washington Post described it as "'Right America': Filmmaker Uses A Distorting Lens". You know you're in trouble when the liberal media starts distancing itself from your methods.

I have this to say to Alexandra Pelosi: If your attempt was to denigrate, mock, humiliate, and portray the Republican party as a bunch of uneducated redneck racist losers, you have succeeded only in the extent that people believe that your 'film' is representative of conservative America.

If your attempt was to document the legitimate political disagreement between conservative and liberal America, you have failed miserably. This propaganda piece that you have crafted is unworthy of the Freedom of the Press that so many have lain down their lives in the defense of. It is petty, small, divisive and more worthy of a third-world banana republic despot than a great American political party. Sure you'll receive your accolades from the vapid members of the left, but then you already have those, I for one hope that HBO airs your documentary over and over, for anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see it for what it is, a heavy-handed and clumsy propaganda film that will leave a sour taste in the mouth of any but the most blind populist fools.

In my mind you've certainly earned the accolade and title of: Minister of Public Enlightenment.

~Finntann~

Ironic Story of the Year

Muzzammil Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, a project to promote a positive image of Islam, cut off his wife's head in their place of business. This happened in Western New York state. In the United States of America.

This item should be given an award for Most Ironic Story to Get No Press Coverage. The newspapers that did cover it danced around the whole "Islam and cutting heads off" thing. Mark Steyn gave us this newspaper clipping in his insightful treatment of this case:

An upstate TV exec who set up a channel promoting Muslims as peace-loving people was stressed about his failing business in the days before he allegedly chopped off his estranged wife's head, a friend of the couple said today.

C'mon guys, it's happened to all of us... Bad day at work, you slam your pickup door too hard and bust the glass out of the side window. The dog gets in your path to the front door and you give ol' Beauregard a boot. You're not purposely trying to hurt anyone or be mean. You're just upset about your financial situation, and there's your wife in the kitchen... You're in a bad mood, you lose it and accidentally chop here head off. It could happen to anybody, nothing newsworthy there...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWVlZDFkN2RmOGE1YWMzMmY5YjBiZThkYTIxN2Q5ZDU=
http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/578644.html

The Trillion Dollar Man

Lee Majors was the $6 Million Dollar Man . A-Rod was on his way to being the first Billion Dollar man before he turned into A-Fraud. Michael Phelps may yet get the title, drunk driving and bong hits notwithstanding.

With economic doom hanging over the free world, President Obama has bravely grabbed the mantle of Trillion Dollar Man.

The Bush era pirates blew a hole in the side of the Treasury and wasted hundreds of billions with their Friends and Family Plan. No wait, that's cell phones. The Bush Administration invented the TARP, an acronym for the Taxpayer A-- Rape Plan. Next came the competing warlord gangs, the Harry Senators on one side and the Pelosicrats on the other, to fight over who gets to loot the leftovers.

Into this aftermath steps President Obama, Transcendent Hero and our first Trillion Dollar Man. He shrewdly hammered out a Solomonic House-Senate compromise that split the difference by giving both sides everything they wanted, to the tune of a trillion dollars.

And now, (No, I didn't clip this from The Onion) he's shifting his concern to the budget deficit...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457407865686565.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14ryan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion