Monday, August 31, 2009

Update on Rifqa Bary Case

I am cross-posting a news article with an update on the case of the 17-year-old Muslim-American girl who fled from her family to Florida. Her attorney has filed a court document arguing that Rifqa would be in danger of being killed by her father is she is returned to Ohio quoting the family's ties to a suspected radical mosque in Ohio.

Here is the link:,2933,545020,00.html

The mosque mentioned in the report is the Noor Islamic Cultural Center in Dublin, Ohio, whose resident scholar (until he was banned from the US) was none other than cleric Salah Sultan. I have written about this guy before, but here is a video with his "preachings" (Hat tip to Jawa Report).

I am also, for the second time, posting the video of Rifqa explaining why she should remain in Florida. It is compelling.

Hopefully, the judge in Florida will add two plus two and make the proper decision.

Is This the Changing Face of Americana?

"Have you seen my pitchfork?"

Celebrity Endorsements-Barney Frank for

"A lid for every pot"

Hi folks, Barney Frank here for my good friends at You know, when you're a busy congressman like me, you can't spend all of your time screwing the people. You need to settle down and find a steady soul mate. But who has time to find one that matches your needs? That's why I count on In fact, they've helped me find the right soul mate not once, but twice!

Remember that guy I was living with in Washington about 20 years
or so ago, Steve Gobie, who was running the male escort service out
of my DC apartment? You don't? Good. No seriously, I met him
through E-Harmony. They ran my name in their sophisticated
computer base and came up with the perfect match-a gigolo. It
really worked out great. While I was up on Capital Hill, he was
running the escort business right out of our apartment. It was
such a great arrangement, I was able to take care of all the all
the parking tickets-about 33 of them, according to Wikipedia!

That's my apartment building right there.

The other great match I got from E-Harmony was Herb Moses. Man, we went together like mozzarella and olive oil. Just so happened that Herb was a big executive with Fannie Mae in charge of all those home mortgages you were reading about last year. Me, I was sitting on the House Banking Committee overseeing Fannie Mae. I tell you no other dating service could have put a match like that together. Herb at Fannie Mae, me on the Banking Committee bringing home the bacon every night-no pun intended. And compatible? We never had a conflict of inter...., I mean conflict, heh, heh. That great arrangement lasted about ten years.

Of course, that eventually ended too, but not to worry. I've gone back to playing the field for a while and just screwing the people in my job as congressman. But when I'm ready to settle down again, I'll turn to E-Harmony again to find that perfect soul mate.

E-harmony! Because there's a lid for every pot.

The Politicization of Ted Kennedy's Death

Politics right to the grave's edge

As my regular readers know, I have refrained from criticizing the late Senator Ted Kennedy out of respect for his passing. I am also reluctant to take shots at those of his colleagues and followers who are mourning his death. Something, must be said, however, about the crass politicization of his death for partisan purposes. Generally, the funeral was done well. His wife, Victoria, especially, was a picture of grace and class. Unfortunately, political necessities-urgent necessities for the Democrats- have put a damper on what was otherwise a good send-off for Senator Kennedy.

In the final weeks and days of Kennedy's life, we began to hear calls for a change in Massachusetts state law that would allow the governor, Deval Patrick, to appoint a successor to fill Kennedy's seat. The senator himself asked for such a change. As things now stand, the state of Massachusetts must wait a period of some 5 months, then have a special election. Of course, a few years ago, the law was different. It called for the governor to appoint a successor to a senator whose term was cut short. In 2004, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was running for president. With the prospect of his election, Democrats in Massachusetts feared that the then- governor, Mitt Romney (a Republican)would appoint a Republican to fill Kerry's position. As a result, the Democrats,with Kennedy's help, changed the law. Of course, with Kerry's defeat, it became a moot point, but the law was changed. Now the Democrats want to change it back to ensure a Democrat fills Kennedy's seat. Pure politics.

Secondly, as Kennedy's death approached, many Democrats, like former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, for example, publicly called for the pending government health bill to be named after Ted Kennedy. Reason? To inspire increased public support. "Do it for Teddy", if you will.

Even during the funeral, the health care issue was brought to the fore. I would like to know which adult gave that prayer to Kennedy's young grandchild to read in the Boston mass, something along the lines of, "that universal health care........"

"Lord, hear our prayer."

Then, at the gravesite, a letter was read that Kennedy had written to the Pope. It was touching enough until the reader got to the part where Kennedy was describing his attempts to get universal health care passed.

I'm sorry, folks. It was crass politicization of an event that even Kennedy's enemies were treating with respect. It was reminiscent of the Paul Wellstone funeral, when Trent Lott was booed as he came to pay his respects and Wellstone's son gave a tub-thumping political speech that would have embarrassed his father.

Now, finally, the Democrats, realizing that they are lacking a crucial vote needed to stop a Republican filibuster, are trying to find a way to ram this bill through on a majority vote. The partisan New York Times has even pointed this out in an editorial telling the Democrats they need to get this thing done by whatever means necessary (see below link). This last point also points out another reason why Democrats want that Massachusetts law changed back to the way it used to be. Crass politics.

So whether you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, for or against the government health care plan, I hope you will all pay attention to how this plays out and specifically how the Democrats use Kennedy's death to advance their political agenda. So far, it lacks any class, whatsoever.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Harry Reid Tries to Intimidate the Las Vegas Review-Journal

Harry Reid-tough guy

This weekend, Sherman Frederick, a columnist for the Las Vegas Review Journal, wrote a scathing editoial on Senator Harry Reid, who tried to play the heavy with a newspaper advertising director. I will leave the details to Mr Fredericks's editorial, which I am pleased to cross-post below.

What comes out of this report is that Harry Reid is a wanna-be thug, who, because of his high position in Nevada (and national politics), feels he can push his opposition around. Is this a harbinger of how this government in Washington plans to deal with any opposition voices now that they are in complete power? Hopefully, Mr Frederick and the Review Journal will stick to their guns and continue to expose Reid for what he is (a jerk).

Carol Shea-Porter Has Man Arrested at Town Hall Meeting

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), who, prior to getting elected herself, made a practice of disrupting political events in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, has a very short fuse when she is on the receiving end of... disrespect, shall we say. Watch what happened at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on August 29, when she had a man arrested for speaking out of turn. The issue the man was asking about? The presence of SEIU goons in the audience.
(Hat tip to Hot Air)

So is this the new Democratic tactic to deal with town hall protesters- to have them arrested? Do you think what that man did or said merited an arrest? I don't.

Here's a clip of another event same date (Hat tip to

This lady isn't too impressive, wouldn't you say?

Where's David Axelrod?

No mail today, Fousesquawk.

I was just wondering what happened to all those e-mails I used to get from the White House, especially from President Obama and David Axelrod. You know, since Major Garrett of Fox News asked White House Press Secretary and stand-up comedian Robert Gibbs about unsolicited e-mails about health care, I have not received one single e-mail.

Robert Gibbs
-"I'll have to get back to you on that, Major."

If I remember correctly, the explanation was that folks like me had somehow been put on the White House mailing list by some unknown organizations that had requested updates. The White House advice was that we should take advantage of the click at the bottom of the e-mail to "unsubscribe" from further e-mails. (I never did that.)

So why am I not getting any more personal e-mails from the gang in the White House boiler room? I was starting to feel pretty important. If the White House had, in fact, no control over my e-mail being in their data base, how come they have seemingly removed it?

Robert Gibbs
-"I'll have to get back to you on that, Fousesquawk."

And why is it that we only have one TV news network (Fox) that can bring these things out and keep the government honest? I thought that was the mission of the news media in a free and open society.

Silly me.

Senate Bill S 773- Can the Government Block Our Access to Internet?

"Where's My Internet?"

There is a bill proposed in the Senate that bears careful scrutiny. It is the so-called Cyberspace Security Act of 2009 proposed by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The text of the bill is contained below:

The stated intent of the bill is to protect cyberspace from intentional disruption, yet critics are afraid that in effect, it would allow the president to shut off private users from the Internet in the event of some "emergency". They also point to the language in the bill that refers to the training and designation of special experts, who would step in and, presumably, take over control of the Internet in some emergency.

I still have an open mind on this idea, but suffice to say, this bears watching with a fair amount of suspicion, especially in light of what is going on in the FCC. The Internet, with all its good and bad, is essential to keeping the flow of information going. Nowhere has this been better illustrated than recently in Iran. Let's remember that China restricts access to the Internet for its own citizens.

The charge has already been made, rightfully or wrongfully, that the Obama Administration is merely waiting for some "event" or "emergency" to occur in order to strip away our ability to access and disseminate information. That may be an exaggeration or completely untrue, but we need to pay close attention to this bill as well as efforts to force a "Fairness Doctrine" on conservative talk radio.

The government in power should not lose sight of the fact that we are the LOYAL opposition.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Mark Lloyd-Architect of the Fairness Doctrine?

Mark Lloyd-FCC Diversity Chief

That old bugaboo, the Fairness Doctrine, is still waiting in the wings. With Obama and the Democrats in power, only public vigilance is standing between us and the shutdown of conservative talk radio. Oh, the Henry Waxmans of the world will assure us that nothing is in the works...until, BAM! It's a done deal. Of course, they won't say that it's all about restoring balance to political talk radio. They have a more subtle way to get it done. It's called things like "localization" and "diversity". They are going to control licensing and who owns radio stations. They are going to hit private talk radio stations with so many regulations, they will all throw in the towel and switch to country music instead of talk shows. Enter Mark Lloyd, President Obama's new head of Diversity for the FCC.

Mark Lloyd comes right out of the Marxist playbook. He doesn't care a whit about freedom of speech. What Mr Lloyd cares about is the government controlling the dissemination of political thought over the airwaves.

Here is a clip (from the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News) showing Lloyd speaking at a conference in 2008, in which he sings the praises of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media in Venezuela:

Did you catch the references to those evil property-owners in Venezuela and the US trying to oust Chavez? Does that give you some clues about Mr Lloyd's agenda?

Want more? Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Prior to joining the White House, Lloyd was a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, established by Clinton Administration henchman, John Podesta. According to Wikipedia, here is what that outfit thinks about talk radio:

"The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[15] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting."

That is exactly what Mr Lloyd wants. He wants private outlets to pay to support that insipid, liberal, and publicly financed National Public Radio.

But you liberals, of course, have nothing to worry about. You will continue to have your MSNBC, AIR America, CNN and all your liberal newspapers. Those of you whose view of life has been shaped by David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher will be just fine. But if I recall correctly, I used to hear liberals scream about freedom of speech not so many years ago. Do you really care about freedom of speech? Or only your speech? For those of you liberals who truly care about freedom of speech-for all-then you too should be concerned about what's coming down the pike. As for us conservatives, we need to stand up and scream just as loudly about this as we do about government health care.

Things are moving fast, folks.

Celebrity Endorsements-Lou Piniella for Tums

Hi, fans. I'm Lou Piniella, manager of the Chicago Cubs, here to talk about my favorite heartburn remedy, Tums.

You, know, when you're manager of the Cubs, you need a lot of Tums on hand. I keep several cartons handy in the office, plus a carton in the dugout. Let's face it. My team hasn't won a pennant since 1945 and a World Series since 1908. I understand that Tums has been a staple at Wrigley Field for a hundred years!

When I took this job three years ago, everybody figured it was just a matter of time before we broke the curse. My first year, we won the division-then were promptly swept out of the playoffs. Last year, we won the division again-with the best record in the National League! That would be the year, right?

Wrong. Swept out of the playoffs in three straight again.

Pass the Tums.

This year, we figured to be right back in there. What happened? Well, to start with, almost everybody's having a bad year. That bum, Alfonso Soriano, who our general manager, Jim Hendry, signed for 8 years for about $150 million, can't hit and can't catch the ball.

Fundamentals? Forget about it. Outside of that-he's a superstar!

"Ain't my F-#%^@* fault! Hendry's the F-@&$*& guy!

Then there is Carlos Zambrano, the most overrated pitcher in baseball.

(Make no mistake. Carlos is a fighter. Here he is fighting with our catcher.)

Every year, they talk about this flake winning 20 games and the Cy Young Award. How many wins does he have so far this year? Seven.

Then there was Hendry's trade of last year's most valuable player, Mark DeRosa, for three minor leaguers. That made sense. This year, instead of De Rosa playing second base and three or four other positions and hitting 20 homers, we have three stiffs at second hitting .220.

"Ain't my F-#%^@* fault! Hendry's the F-@&$*& guy!

Then there was the signing of volcano-head Milton Bradley. Ten homers and 35 RBIs. As is his custom, he has been thrown out of more games than he has homers.

Pass the Tums.

Then there's the injuries. We should be playing our games this year in the hospital parking lot; Ramirez, Soto, Zambrano, Lilly, Soriano, Dempster, Bradley, Johnson, the bat-boy, etc.

Pass the Tums.

So here we are, 9 games out of first place. I got one more year on my contract, and I gotta decide if I wanna come back for another year of this misery. I guess it depends how many boxes of Tums they throw into the contract.

Tums delivery truck in front of Wrigley Field

Political Correctness in Berlin

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meets Hitler in Berlin, November 28, 1941

I am attaching an article from the Jerusalem Post, which appeared this week. It concerns a current exhibit in Berlin on the theme of the Third World during World War II. A small portion of the exhibit concerned the role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini in the Holocaust. During the war, al Husseini resided for a few years as Hitler's guest in Berlin, from where he broadcast virulent, anti-Semitic radio messages to the Middle East. He also helped organize a Muslim Bosnian SS division, which participated in the killings of Jews. After the war, al-Husseini escaped prosecution only because the Allies wanted to avoid alienating the Arab world. He was allowed to return to the Middle East, where he continued his war against the Jews. The article is below.

As I have written many times, Germany (albeit belatedly) has, in the past decades, done an admirable job of facing up to its culpability in the Holocaust. It must be noted that other nations such as Austria, Ukraine, Lithuania and others had a role in the Holocaust as Germany's accessories. Many of these nations have not faced up to their involvement as has Germany. Yet, when it comes to this one aspect, the exhibit has chosen to follow the path of political correctness and not offend Muslims by pointing out the involvement of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This is a mistake. Germany continues to have a special obligation to deal with the past. While the nation is not reluctant to point the finger of blame at itself, it must not whitewash or cover up the involvement of others-no matter who they may be.

The part of the exhibition dealing with al-Husseini should never have been removed. We cannot re-write history. Or can we?

Jim (the Jerk) Moran (D-VA) Checks ID at Town Hall Meeting

Here is another clip from Jim (the Jerk) Moran's tumultuous town hall meeting in Reston, Va last week. (Yes, the same town hall attended by that other famous jerk, Howard Dean.) Moran, who also has a tendency to fly off the handle, reacted to one questioner by demanding to see his ID!

Let's set aside for a moment the arrogance of Jimmy "the Jerk". Coupled with his over-reaction to a question by a lady who apparently, spoke out of turn, doesn't this raise serious questions to even the dumbest observer about his ability to manage anything?


So if you ever plan to attend one of "Jimmy the J"'s town hall meetings, don't forget to bring your ID.


Friday, August 28, 2009

Representative Lynn Jenkins' Remark About "Great White Hope"

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)

You will note that immediately prior to this post, I posted an article on Diane Watson's claim last night in Los Angeles that President Obama's opponents are motivated by a desire to defeat him because he is black. I strongly disagree with that statement. Not that there are not some people like that out there, but that Watkin's has chosen to smear all of Obama's opponents with the same wide brush is despicable, unfair and inaccurate. Yet, at the same time, were I to ignore the news that came out today about a comment made by a Republican congresswoman, I would be intellectually dishonest.

Today, it was revealed that on August 19, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) told a crowd of her constituents in Topeka that the Republican Party needed a "great white hope" to oppose the Obama policies. For some strange reason, it has taken a few days for the remark to be publicized. A Jenkins spokesperson has said that the congresswoman apologizes for a poor choice of words, but that no racial intent was involved.

Well, I don't know, but if Jenkins didn't imagine that the left would jump all over that, she must be too stupid to hold public office in the first place. Now that the story is out, you know that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rick Sanchez and Rachel Maddow are going to beat that like a drum. "There it is, folks. Proof positive that the Republicans and their town hall stooges are all a bunch of racists."

Rep. Jenkins is going to have to do some public explaining. The cameras and the microphones will be beckoning. She should also apologize for putting her party and her supporters in a negative light. Her comment was outrageous, and she should have known the connotation it carried. Our side should be bigger than our opposition (who will never condemn Watkins for her remarks)and acknowledge it.

Diane Watson Town Hall in LA

Last night, Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-CA) held a town hall meeting at a church in her district in South Central Los Angeles. The event was tightly-controlled. There were no video cameras. There was little or no opposition to Watson's point of view. It was a friendly crowd. Guards made sure that opposition banners were precluded. One gentleman was told that he could not enter with a "Don't tread on me" flag. He had to go back and put it in his car. Nevertheless, two local reporters from KABC were able to make an audio recording of Watson's speech, which they aired on the radio last night.

Watson has a long history of being a racial divider. A great example is the remark she made in 1995 about black conservative activist Ward Conerly, who is an influential opponent of racial preferences.

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

Soon after that comment, Watson was asked by a reporter if she wished to "clarify" or retract that comment. She refused to do so.

In addition, her district includes the controversial Martin Luther King Hospital, which was closed a couple of years back amid protests. The reason? Basically, King was a place where you went to die. Poorly-run and riddled with health issues and sub-standard conditions, things hit a new low a few years back when a woman waiting in the emergency lobby was hit by seizures. As her family frantically pleaded with staff to get a doctor on the scene, they were told 9-11. They were in a hospital emergency waiting room and were told to call 9-11!!! The woman died. Yet, Diane Watson and other local politicians protested the closing of the hospital after it was deemed not worthy of remaining open. But what did they do in all those years while the hospital was deteriorating?

So with that bit of background, let me relate what Watson said last night in South Central. She spoke of Fidel Castro, who she called "one of the brightest leaders she had ever met". She also praised Cuba under Castro (and their health care system).

But when she spoke on the main subject, health care, she said this (I am paraphrasing): Watson claimed that those (like Rush Limbaugh) who were opposed to health care reform were motivated by the fact that they wanted to see the president fail. Why? Because he (Obama) looks likes her (Watson). Translation? Government health care opponents are racists. Here is the audio courtesy of KABC Los Angeles.

I am not surprised to hear Diane Watson make a statement like that. It is part of her persona. She is stuck on the politics of race and victim hood. It is despicable that she take opposition to government health care and President Obama's policies and turn them into a racial issue. Such talk can only serve to further divide us as a people.

In that crowd last night was a black gentleman, a conservative Republican who wore a yellow "Don't tread on me" T-shirt. He later called KABC and related his experience at the event. He told of the dirty looks he got and how one person turned around and said, "You're a Republican, aren't you?"

"Yes, I am. And proud of it", he responded.

Without having met the gentleman, I have a feeling that 10 Diane Watsons could not make one of him.

The Jaycee Lee Dugard Case

Phillip Garrido

By now, the whole country is talking about the bizarre kidnapping case of Jaycee Lee Dugard, who was kidnapped in 1991 in South Lake Tahoe at the age of 11 and now discovered living in Antioch, California at the age of 29. As the facts now appear, Jaycee was snatched off a bus stop by one Phillip Garrido as she waited to board a school bus. Her step-father witnessed the incident and attempted to chase the suspect vehicle up a hill on a bike, but could not keep up. He had a neighbor call 9-11, but Jaycee was never found. For the last 18 years, Jaycee's step-father had been a suspect in her disappearance and this strain caused the break-up of his marriage to Jaycee's mother.

Only now, after Garrido tried to enter the UC Berkeley campus to distribute religious literature in the company of two young girls, whom he apparently fathered with Jaycee, have the police been able to discover Jaycee and her two young daughters, all of whom had been living with Garrido and his wife, Nancy-actually residing in a tent with make-shift toilet and shower facilities in a wooded area immediately behind the back yard fence of the Garrido house.

Aside from the horrific details of the case, this could not have come at a worse time for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democrats in the California State Legislature, who are busily trying to pass a prison-release measure that would force some 37,000 prison inmates onto the public. Schwarzenegger even has the Mozart's Kugeln (that's an Austrian joke) to tell us that the release plan is all about making our streets safer.

Mozart's Kugeln-(a clue for you UC Santa Cruz students majoring in Community Studies)

Here's why the story is bad news for the governor and the legislature. Hot on the heels of a recent LA murder where a teenage girl was (allegedly) abducted and murdered by prison parolee Charlie Samuel(who should have been locked away for life under the Three-Strikes Law), comes this. Garrido was originally convicted of a 1971 kidnapping of a 25-year-old woman. In the 1980s, he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Yet, he was paroled in 1988 and subject to "life-long parole supervision".

In spite of that, Garrido (allegedly) was able to kidnap Dugard, hold her for 18 years in his backyard and father two children by her, none of whom ever attended school or saw a doctor.

So, if Governor Schwarzenegger is now assuring us that our streets will be safer with 37,000 prisoners roaming those streets instead of sitting in prison, he has a lot of explaining to do in the light of this case. Now it has admitted by the local police that in 2006, they responded to the Garrido house after a neighbor complained of strange goings on and people living in tents in the back yard. They came, took a look around and left. Furthermore, they are now trying to determine if Garrido was involved in the murders of several local prostitutes.

And what about those parole check-ups? Did the parole authorities ever stop by the Garrido residence to check up on their sex-offender parolee? If they did, they apparently didn't see anything either. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in our ability to control the behavior of parolees now, does it?

"Hello, hello, Mr Garrido. Time for your monthly parole check. Nothing seems out of order. See you next month."

Charlie Samuel, Phillip Garrido...who will be next among those 37,000 felons the governor and the state government wants to send back to our streets?

The governor has no clothes.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

In the Tank-Our News Media

Having lived in Thailand in the late 1970s, when the military was essentially in charge, I saw first-hand how it works when the news media is controlled by the government. The newspaper we read was the Bangkok Post, one of three English-language dailies in Bangkok. Sufice to say, the did not put out much, if any, criticism of whoever was in power. In one year, there was a brief coup, and the Post, now taken over by the "new government" descfribed the coup as the salvation of the nation. The only problem was that the counter-coup took back the government within 48 hours if memory serves me correctly. Of course, the Post, like all the other papers, greeted the counter-coup as the salvation of the nation and had to explain why they wrote what they had written a couple of days earlier. very messy, indeed.

Now it seems we are living in a nation under dictatorial rule, at least if you read and listen to the slobbering stuff coming out of the media (Fox News and talk radio excepted). You would almost think that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC (especially)and CNN were all arms of the government. Of course, you know they weren't under Bush, so that means they are in ideological agreement with Obama and the Democrats. Such is the case with the health care debate. This week, we have continued to witness more glaring examples of how the media is in lockstep with the current administration and the Demoocrats in general. A few examples.

Last night, I watched an hour-long special on the life of Ted Kennedy on MSNBC hosted by Lester Holt. I won't go into the fact that it was a positve portrayal of Kennedy (of course, they had to cover Chappaquiddick) out of respect for the now-deceased Senator. Let's leave that aside. What really caught my attention was the portrayal of Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy Sr. Not only was it a positive portrayal of a man who by most accounts was a scoundrel, but it left out virtually every negative fact known about him. In discussing Joe Kennedy Sr. It said nothing about his years as a bootlegger during prohibition. It said nothing about his womanizing. While mentioning in a few words that he dabbled in movie producing in Hollywood, it left out his messy affair with actress Gloria Swanson. The only negative note was the fact that as ambassador to London in the years leading up to World War II, it was stated that Kennedy had to resign because "he opposed America's entry into World War II". I'll say he did. What Mr Holt failed to say was that Joseph Kennedy (the Ambassador to London) was a fervent admirer and supporter of Nazi Germany. That was why he opposed our entry into the war on the side of the country he was serving in. For that reason, Roosevelt eventually had to get him out of London. So what was the general theme about Joseph Kennedy that Holt's special attempted to give the viewer? Joesph Kennedy wanted one of his sons to become president because "he had instilled in them the spirit of public service."

But enough said about that farce. We are talking about MSNBC, you know.

Then there was the town hall meeting held in Redding, California this week by some Republican congressman named Wally Herger. One 67-year-old gentleman named Bert Stead stood and made a sarcastic reference to himself as a "proud, right-wing terrorist". The audience understood the context of the comment and applauded. Herger also understood and called the man, "a great American." You can watch it below:

But the "journalists" at MSNBC didn't get it. They were appalled. In fact, they were horrified. First, the sycophantic Chris Matthews attacked the statement and Herger for not denouncing it.

MATTHEWS: "Next up, here's one from Republican Congressman Wally Herger of California. At his town hall meeting some guy yelled out, bragging that he was quote, "A proud right wing terrorist." To which the Congressman responded, "Amen. God bless ya! Now there's a great American." A great American. A guy who thinks it's okay, in this day and age, to call himself a right wing terrorist. This is the dangerous edge, in which these people, including some elected officials are now dancing. We've been here before. Words lead to actions, words create the national mood, the mood creates a license. People take that license and use it. I'm not spelling it out any further because I don't want to."

Then Mad Keith Olbermann took over, naming Herger one of the "Worst Persons in the World", (along with nightly winner Bill O'Reilly, of course). Here's the tape from Countdown. It's 3:17 seconds long, and if you can't take the full video, the part about Herger starts at 2:30. (We should use old "Countdown" videos as our next harsh interrogation method against terrorists.)

Just as they have attacked and demonized other common citizens like Joe the Plumber and Katy Abram, now they have discovered a "real right-wing terrorist in California", a 67-year-old guy in California, who Olbermann labeled as an "idiot" and a "buffoon".

Finally, there was the town hall meeting in Oklahoma this week held by Tom Coburn (R-OK). In this event, one attendee was a tearful lady whose husband is seriously ill, the insurance company isn't helping, and the family desperately needs assistance. Coburn's reply was to ask the lady to give her name and particulars to an aide and that he and his staff would try to organize some help, calling on the local community. He did, however, reiterate his belief that the government is not always the solution to our problems (I am paraphrasing). Since the event, he and his staff and the local community have joined together to try and render assistance to the family.

But to the media, Coburn was cold and cruel to the lady "lecturing" her about not coming to the government. CNN's Rick Sanchez, a total partisan, reported it this way:

(The above video was conveniently cut off before Coburn asked the lady to give her name and information to one of the aides.)

Yesterday, Coburn was interviewed by a CNN reporter, who tried to nail him on the issue. Once Coburn went through explaining what he and others are trying to do for the woman, the reporter asked him if he could do the same for the millions of others in similar straits. So the media spin is this: Coburn "blew the poor lady off", "lectured" her on not bothering the government, then when he tries to explain what he and his staff are doing to help, he is asked if he can do the same for millions of other needy Americans.

If you are a liberal and agree with what the media is putting out, you should ask yourself; is this really the kind of media we want in America? If we want a watch dog media that is skeptical of our leaders, fine, but it should work both ways. Instead, what we are treated to is a nightly spectacle of one network attacking another, and one announcer attacking another from another network. To make matters worse, we have media announcers attacking everyday people who happen to find themselves and their words on the news. Is that the kind of media we can be proud of? Hardly. What is needed is a cold, hard look at our media and how it has degenerated into the shambles that it is. It is not a pretty sight.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Arnold Calls Kalifornia State Assembly Gutless

Our Governor

Kalifornia Governor Katzenjammer today said that the state assembly was gutless because they still have not passed the prisoner release measure that he supports. Under this measure, the state's prison population would be cut by 37,000 inmates between now and January, either through release or other sleight of hand tricks that would keep felons out of prison. The measure is stalled in the assembly because 16 Democrats are running for state-wide office in the near future and are afraid of the voter backlash. Here is what Katzenjammer said today:

“Dey don’t haf da guts to go in der und to make the prison reform dat dey haf been talking about for two decades, vich ve need to reduce the amount of inmates in der,” Schwarzenegger stated in a webcast interview with the founders of Twitter. (How appropriate).

“Da Assembly legislators, for dem it vas easier to go und make the $10-billion cut in educatsion, but it ist impossibel fur dem to make the $1-billion cut” for prisons."

Katzenjammer insisted that he was not going to put criminals on the streets -- "No vun should be on der streets,” he said. He then went on to throw out this whopper-that the plan would enhance public safety by reducing parole supervision on low-level offenders and increasing it on high-level ones.

According to Katzenjammer, the legislators “are more vorried about deir safe seats, radder dan deir safe streets.”

So let me make sure I got this right. This plan to release 37,000 felons will make our streets safer!!!?? And if he is not going to put these bad guys on the streets, where are they going to be-on the sidewalks?

Here are a couple of "safe streets" in LA. Important to note that no one is on the street. They are on the sidewalk (=safe street, right?)

Next thing you know, this bill will be called "The Safe Streets Act".

Edward Moore Kennedy's Death

Several months ago, when we learned that Senator Kennedy had brain cancer, I wrote a short post basically wishing him a speedy recovery. It was apparent, however, that a recovery was not likely. Last night, the news we all knew was inevitable finally arrived; Senator Kennedy had died, closing out a decades-long political career in the US Senate.

Obviously, I disagreed with Senator Kennedy on almost every substantive issue. Over the years, I criticized him on countless occasions. He was an unabashed liberal and fought fiercely for what he believed in. Without question, he was a highly effective senator and will be ranked as one of the most effective and influencial in history.

Unlike his brothers, John and Robert, who used the Senate as a stepping stone, Ted Kennedy found his place in the Senate-the place where he would leave his mark. It probably wasn't the way he wanted it since he admitted at one point that he wanted to be president. Chappaquiddick effectively ended that dream although he still held out hope from time to time that the death of Mary Jo Kopechne would gradually dissipate from the public memory. His later well-publicized marital problems with his first wife, Joan, and her own drinking problems reinforced the public concerns about the Senator's private life. The final result was that Ted Kennedy would never achieve the presidency. In 1980, he challenged a sitting president from his own party (Jimmy Carter), but fizzled especially when he couldn't articulate to an interviewer why he was running.

Yet, in spite of everything, he stayed on in the Senate and became its largest figure over the years, quite an achievement since his first Senate campaign opponent told him in a debate that had his name been Moore instead of Kennedy, his candidacy would be a joke.

However, over the years, Kennedy grew into a presence in the Senate that was not a joke. Whether you agreed with his policies and ideology, you must acknowledge that he was a giant who truly fought for what he believed in.

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy and condolences to the Kennedy family.

Watch Out! The UN Wants to Teach Your Kid How to Masturbate!!

"What time is it, kids?"
"It's time to ___________, Uncle Bob!!"
"OK, kids, everybody take a seat."

If there ever was an example of how useless and feckless the UN is-
this is it. Now to combat the scourge of AIDS and rape that exists in
certain parts of the world, the UN wants to get all its member
countries to start early sex-ed for its children. This mandatory
program (according to the suggestion) would begin at age 5 and
would include teaching them how to masturbate. The news article is below:,2933,543203,00.html

Of course, this program is being run by UNESCO-that corrupt,
left-wing outfit that now has nothing better to do than teach kids
about such topics as not only masturbation, but abortion (rights),
and trans-gender awareness nonsense as well.

Of course, the UN bureaucrats at UNESCO would never stop to think
that in certain countries, sex education has been left to the parents.
Now, in a time when we have a government in Washington that is
trying to take over every aspect of our lives, we have this
international body trying to pass laws that apply to every country.
How hard do you think this administration will fight to protect our
sovreignty from the UN? Not very hard. Not that it takes a lot of
fighting to simply laugh at the UN and tell them to take their
masturbation classes elsewhere-like the middle of the Atlantic, for example.

"Ah", but my liberal friends will say, "We have mass rapes going on
in the Congo. AIDS is everywhere in Africa. We must do something!
We need to fund more programs." Here's my program:

The authorities in the Congo, Sudan and those other ass-backwards
countries can start hanging rapists publicly. Now that's what I
call effective sex education. Of course, that will never happen.
With all due respect to Ryan Jenkins, people normally don't go
hanging themselves.

As for AIDS, the basic problem is that the men in Africa aren't
wearing condoms-even though we are sending millions of them to
Africa every year. So I suggest we send all of our liberal friends
to Africa to personally put the condoms on the men before they have
sex. How's that for a solution? Where's my Nobel Prize?

"And the 2009 Nobel Prize for Common Sense goes to ............"

I could also suggest that we get out of the UN, but that's not about to happen either. Instead, we will appoint diplomats to engage in round
table discussion (no pun intended) with their UN counterparts, vote,
pass resolutions and issue 800 page reports. What a joke!

So if you see a car coming down your street with diplomatic plates, hide the kids. It just might be Uncle Bob from the UN.

Who is the real "Astroturf"?

Nancy Pelosi has used the term "AstroTurf" (among others) to describe the anti-government health care attendees at the town hall conferences. Other Democrats have accused the crowds of being organized by the Republican Party and the insurance companies. We now have seen Democrats follow up on their promise to bring in their own supporters to counter the protesters. And how! In St Louis, union goons from the SEIU assaulted an anti-government health care attendee. A similar assault occurred in Tampa. Now it is clear that SEIU and ACORN, as well as other groups are turning out to support government health care at the town halls. The question begs: Which side is orchestrated and organized? That can be largely answered by asking two questions.

First question:

If you look at the videos of the demonstrations/protests or whatever you want to call them, which side usually carries professionally made posters? Which side usually carries hand-made posters? The answer is obvious. The pro-government health care folks carry professionally-made posters while the anti-government health care folks' posters are almost always hand-made.

Second question: Which side has its supporters arriving in buses? Again, the answer is easy. It's the ACORN and SEIU folks who come in the buses.


So which side is "AstroTurf"?

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Jim Moran and Howard Dean Town Hall, Reston, VA

Tonight, Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) held a town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia, which was attended by about 3,000 people. Moran was joined by former Vermont Governor, presidential candidate, former DNC chairman and all-around jerk, Howard Dean. According to Fox News, the crowd was split about 60-40 in favor of Moran supporters. According to one account I read, the unions got their people there early before others arrived as seating was insufficient for the numbers that showed up. The opponents made their voices heard however, as the meeting was quite boisterous. I have come up so far with 4 video clips of the event.

Well, as you can see, a wonderful time was had by all. One thing I think is noteworthy and seems to be a trend. Have you noticed that most of the pro-government health care posters are professionally made while most of the anti-government posters are hand-made? What's my point? Which side do you think is really grass-roots and which side do you think is orchestrated?

Shame on Holder; Shame on Obama

Eric Holder

Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has "made his decision" to go ahead and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA "harsh interrogations" for possible criminal charges, I for one would like to explain why I think this is an outrage.

First of all, I view this as a political decision to go after person(s) and actions done in the Bush Administration. I do not view Eric Holder as a man of principle who is going against even the wishes of his boss, the President (more about that later). Holder is the same man who, as a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, rammed through two of the most questionable pardons in US history; the Marc Rich pardon, of a man who was a top ten fugitive when pardoned and with all kinds of questions of money given in return to the Clinton Library; and the pardon of the Puerto Rican FALN bombers, who had not even asked for a pardon. Now comes Holder as the law enforcement crusader, the independent who seeks justice for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds of this world.

The other thing that irks me about this process is the public posturing of President Obama and his spokespersons who loudly proclaim that the President wants to "look forward, not backward". That is meant to leave the impression that Obama is personally opposed to a prosecution of CIA interrogators and anyone else involved, but that he will not interfere with the independence of his Attorney General.


President Obama could have stopped this whole process months ago with one phone call or one word to Holder. The fact is that being the ideologue that he really is behind that moderate mask, he wants this to go forward. He wants to demoralize and emasculate the CIA. He just doesn't want to take the political heat for it. He wants to "remain above the fray". I don't see how that can work.

So where are we going with this and what will be the result? The immediate result is that many CIA interrogators, their supervisors, former Justice Department lawyers, who drew up the legal guidelines like John Woo and probably even Dick Cheney are going to go through a lot of worry in the next year or so. There will be lawyer expenses. Many CIA employees will decide it just isn't worth it to put your life and career on the line for a government that when administrations change will not stick up for you. They will retire or simply quit.

Let's review how this came about.

In the horrific aftermath of 9-11 as we began to capture al-Qaida members, Justice Department lawyers studied the question of what and what not was permissible as to incarceration and interrogation. Rightfully or wrongfully, they decided on certain procedures they thought could be performed legally. They ran it by the White House and the CIA was so advised. Those interrogators assumed they were acting within the law and according to strict guidelines.

Let's also discuss their motives. They were not acting out of motives that drove the Hitlers, Saddam Husseins and Stalins of this world-merely a desire to eliminate political enemies and stay in power, nor were they simply trying to extract confessions from criminals; they were acting to stop more 9-11s and save thousands of innocent lives.

And what were those methods? Water boarding was apparently the worst, by which they gave the prisoner the sensation of drowning. Some prisoners were slapped. Some were told their families would be killed or raped in front of them. There were apparently a couple of mock executions and sleep deprivation was also utilized. Nobody was broken on the wheel, had his fingernails pulled out or anything that resulted in serious injury. (I understand one person was beaten and later died and that the interrogator was prosecuted, but I have no further details.)

Let me interject here to reiterrate, as I have before, that as a DEA agent (who interrogated hundreds of prisoners) I would never resort to these methods. They could never be justified in normal law enforcement procedure.

The point I am coming to is that the CIA interrogators must be assumed to be honorable and patriotic persons who were under the impression they were operating within legally established guidelines and at a time of national emergency when we had no idea when the next horrific attack was coming. And it appears that those harsh interrogation methods did, in fact, thwart attacks and save lives.

So why are we going forward? Is it real politik, a gesture toward the Muslim world? It can't be a gesture toward Al-Qaida. They don't care how we treat our prisoners, good, bad or indifferent. They are going to slaughter and behead our people when they capture them no matter what. More importantly, this can only serve to emasculate and demoralize an already demoralized CIA-at a time when we need a strong and aggressive CIA. Now we see the establishment of some multi-agency task force under the supervision of and located at the FBI and reporting to the White House that will oversee terrorist interrogations. Great. As if we haven't had enough inter-agency turf wars between the CIA and FBI.

CIA Director Leon Panetta is reportedly furious and engaged in a profanity-laced argument with a White House aide at a recent White House meeting regarding this issue. I hope so. Panetta has told his employees he will fight for them. I hope so. I think Panetta is an honrable man, so I expect him to keep his word and do the right thing even if he can't influence Obama and/or Holder. As a last resort, I think a very public resignation would be in order.

This is another issue that the American people need to speak up on-just as we have on taxes and health care. We need to stand up for the people who were tasked with protecting us. If we stand silently by and allow this administration to sacrifice our intelligence operatives without a loud protest, shame on us as a people.

Kalifornia Prison Release Update

Last week, I reported that the California State Senate had narrowly passed a measure that would result in the release (or decrease in prison population ) of 27,000 inmates. As of today, the measure is stalled in the state assembly. Though the assembly is heavily dominated by Democrats, about 16 of them, who are planning runs for higher office, are afraid to vote for this controversial measure that has already resulted in an uproar. As it stand, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D) is trying to craft a bill that would pass. In addition to the 27,000 already mentioned, 10,000 more would be released in January 2010.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D)

This week, in the midst of all this controversy, out-going LAPD Chief Bill Bratton has publicly stated that if this measure is passed, LA would probably absorb about 20% of the prisoners. Bratton adds that the PD is simply not equipped to deal with that many prisoners who would be returning to a city with no job, job prospects or programs to deal with their re absorption into freedom. In other words, the only option is to commit more crimes and go back to prison.

In addition, the state is already facing an order from a 3-judge panel from the ultra-liberal 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to cut the prison population by 40,000 within two years due to "over-crowding". This order is being appealed to the US Supreme Court by the Republicans in the state legislature.

It is also interesting to note that California voters have already approved a bond measure authorizing the state to borrow money to construct new prisons. The problem is that the Dems in the legislature don't want to build them. They would rather release the prisoners. The politicians, while they talk about saving $1.2 billion by this release, also refuse to face the question of why California spends $48,000 on each prisoner per annum-more than any other state. Florida, for example, spends $18,000 on each prisoner per annum.

One positive note is that the part about establishing a sentencing commission that would be independent from the legislature has apparently been scrapped. This monstrosity not only would have contained a convicted felon as a non-voting member, but would have had the power to change certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The obvious goal would be to gut California's 3 Strikes law-without the legislature having to answer to the voters for it. Only the governor would be able to short-circuit such a decision by the sentencing commission. And don't forget, California's current governor is in favor of this bill to begin with.

Our governor (You know who)

So the battle rages on. Virtually all of California's law enforcement agencies have come out against this measure in any form. The Democrats don't need any Republicans to pass the measure; they just need to convince their willy-nilly colleagues to go along with it. To Hell with the police. To Hell with the citizens. If this measure comes to fruition, rest assured, innocent people will be robbed, raped, assaulted and killed by some of the criminals to be released. The Democrats in Sacramento could care less. This is part of their liberal ideology, which says that people in prison need to be on the streets. That's what it's all about. They would rather free the prisoners than build the prisons.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Arlen Spector Wants Hearings on VA "Death Book"

Arlen Spector

Shocked, dismayed and outraged

Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA) has announced that he wants hearings held on the controversial VA pamphlet, "Your life. Your choices" that has surfaced. The booklet, which is distributed to patients in VA hospitals, seems written to encourage severely ill or disabled patients to explore the idea of hospice or simply letting go of life.

My question to Senator Spector is why has it taken so long for Congress to find out about this pamphlet?

The 52-page pamphlet was originally published in 1997 during the Clinton Administration. In 1997, when President Bush heard about it, he ordered it pulled. Since President Obama took office, the booklet has been brought back-and seems to conform very well with Obama's ideas about end of life issues for the aged and infirm.

So this booklet is now 12 years old. Is this the first you've heard of it, Senator Spector? Did you know anything about its primary author, a gentleman named Robert Pearlman (director of the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care) who advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 and is known for his support of health-care rationing?

Senator Spector, were you unaware of the worksheet on p 21 of this pamphlet that has patients respond to a variety of questions on their medical situation with the conclusion being to ask themselves if "life was worth living"?

The full text of the book is at:

It seems that Senator Spector is shocked and outraged at the revelation of this pamphlet. That is all well and good, and I support the idea of hearings on this matter. I hope it will be accompanied by a discussion of how this kind of thinking ties in with the "end of life" counseling that the Obama administration wants to include in their bill.

And how does this latest piece of revelation affect your support of the health care bill, Senator Spector?

Finally, here's a question for us: If it took Senator Arlen Spector 12 years to learn of this booklet and its implications for health care reform, are these the people we want to entrust with running health care?

The Montana Town Hall Posting

I just got back from a few days in the desert. I am now informed that the anonymous message from one purporting to have been an eyewitness to events outside President Obama's town hall meeting in Montana has written this in the form of a chain e-mail. I had been under the imprtession when it first came out that it was a friend of a friend. At any rate, the events reported may or may not be accurate, but I have chosen to delete it from my blog until more concrete details come out. It seems to me that the writer should have no reluctance to state her name.

At any rate, as I said, the writer was anonymous so the reader should take it for what it's worth. That goes double now.

Town Hall in Washington State

It is a priviledge to post this video (as many others have done) of the recent town hall meeting in Washington state, in which former Marine David Hedrick read the riot act to Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) regarging the health care bill. Kudos to the audience, who pretty much 100% supported Hedrick's comments.

As for the reference to brownshirts, I would remind all the Democrats that in all of the town hall meetings across the country, there have only been two or three in which violence broke out. Those were all committed by the government health care supporters, union goons like SEIU. There has not been to my knowledge one incident of anti-government health care protesters initiating any physical violence.

So who are the brownshirts?

Friday, August 21, 2009

Rifqa Bary

This story has been on Fox News for several days now, but the interview of this young girl is so compelling. The girl, Rifqa Bary, is a 17-year-old girl from a Sri Lankan family in Ohio. She has converted to Christianity (from Islam) and has fled to a church in Florida because she fears that her family will kill her (honor killing). At this point, she is trying through the courts to be able to remain in Florida as her parents try to get her back to Ohio. The story pretty much speaks for itself.

I don't know how close this girl is to her 18th birthday, at which point, she is able to decide for herself where she wants to live. I pray that the Florida court allows her to stay in some sort of child welfare custody in the meantime.

Suffice to say, as I have said many times, there is no place in American society for the idea that a family would kill their children or wife in the name of honor or because they choose to follow another religion. (I understand that the family has denied having any such intentions.) It is shocking that this practice still exists in some parts of the world. I say never in America.

Where Did the Anti-War Movement Go?

Cindy Sheehan

"Enough already"- Charles Gibson

If you haven't heard much about the anti-war movement in the past seven months, there is a good reason. No, it's not because President Obama ended our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; he hasn't. It's because Barack Obama-not George Bush is our president. The media is not reporting the activities of the war protesters though they are still out there.

Since coming into office, President Obama has beefed up our effort in Afghanistan. American troops still remain in Iraq. As a result, folks like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink have soured on Obama. They are still out there, but they are not getting the press coverage they received when Bush was in the White House.

Next week, while President Obama is vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, Cindy Sheehan plans to go and protest, same as she did in Crawford, Texas when Bush was president. This time, she won't have the battery of news reporters and photographers covering her every move and recording her every wacky comment. Why is that?

Charles Gibson, anchor of the ABC Evening News, gave it all away this week while being interviewed by colleague, Don Wade, in Chicago. In response to a question about Sheehan from his chuckling news pal, Gibson, while dutifully sounding sympathetic to the mother who lost her son, pretty much dismissed Sheehan's continuing campaign and ended by saying, "enough already". Here is the full text:

"It's such a sad story. Martha Raddatz [of ABC News] wrote a terrific book about one battle that took place in Iraq, and it was the battle in which Cindy's son was killed. And you look at somebody like that and you think here's somebody who's just trying to find some meaning in her son's death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."

-Charles Gibson in WLS interview with Don Wade, August 18, 2009.

Now contrast that statement with what Gibson had to say on August 9, 2005, when he had an on-air interview with Sheehan as she was camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX.:

“Cindy Sheehan is her name,” Gibson began. “She says she's not moving until the President meets with her, and I had a chance to speak with her a few minutes ago. Cindy Sheehan, bottom line, what do you hope to accomplish with all this?”

During the ensuing days, Gibson and ABC continued to give coverage to Sheehan. On August 17, 2005, when Sheehan finally departed Crawford, Gibson reported, “We're going to turn next to the standoff that is playing out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan, you know, the mother who lost a son in Iraq, is now on the move, but she's still standing her ground. ABC's Geoff Morrell is in Crawford with the details…” On August 18, Gibson stated on ABC News, “All across the country last night, people held candlelight vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan…”

So now that Obama is president, Cindy Sheehan is a wacko. When Bush was president, she was a compelling voice. Do you see the hypocrisy? (For the record, I also consider Sheehan a wacko, but I have always considered her a wacko, who has not only attacked President Bush, but her own country as well.) What has happened to push Sheehan off the news pages in the last several months even though American troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? The difference is that Bush is no longer president. Obama is now the president; that's what happened.

The obvious reason that the media has ignored the anti-war forces for the past seven months is simply because they do not want to call negative attention to the current president-completely opposite to their agenda when Bush was president.

It's called hypocrisy. There is absolutely no other possible explanation.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Is David Axelrod Involved in Conflict of Interest?

"Dear Gary,

I'm clean."


Since the White House e-mail flap broke last week, I haven't been getting any more e-mails from White House Advisor to the President, David Axelrod. If I do, I would like to reply with a question for Mr Axelrod: Is he involved in a conflict of interest in the on-going health care issue?

It goes something like this. Axelrod is the former president of a Chicago firm called AKPD Message and Media, which he left on December 31, 2008 to take over in the Obama White House. His son still works there. The company still owes Axelrod $2 million dollars in back salary. Presently, AKPD is receiving millions of dollars to run ads pushing Obama's health care plan. The money is paid by an outfit called "Americans for Stable Quality Care, formerly "Healthy Economy Now".

The question that is raised is this: Has Axelrod been involved in any negotiations involving the use of AKPD to advertise and promote the government health plan? If so, why-to facilitate the $2 million dollar payment that he is owed? As Hugh Hewitt points out in his article, the crucial details would center around Axelrod's payment contract with AKPD. In other words, has Axelrod in any way been involved in funneling big multi-million dollar contracts to AKPD to enable or expedite the payment of those $2 million dollars? If so, would that not be a conflict of interest?

The Hewitt article can be found here:,_big_pharma_and_all_the_special_interests_funding_the_push_for_obamacare

Maybe my old pen-pal Dave will send me another unsolicited e-mail that will explain all that and set our minds at ease. In the meantime, whatever happened to Obama's promises of transparency and change? Or is it just more of the same?

I'm sure the media will launch an investigation. Maybe there will be a special prosecutor named. Maybe the Cubs will win the pennant.

Shame in Scotland

Above is the video showing the return home of Pan Am 103 bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi to Libya-to a hero's welcome. Yes, the gutless Scottish Government actually released the one person convicted of bombing the Pan Am jet that crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people.

One doesn't know where to direct the most outrage. Is it to the Scottish government and their justice minister, Kenny McAskill, who ordered the release on humanitarian grounds because al Megrahi was supposedly dying of cancer? Or to the Libyan Government and those Libyans who greeted this monster upon his arrival in Tripoli? Should we be outraged toward our own government, whose weak, tepid response almost seems to suggest quiet acquiescence?

And there are so many questions to be asked-questions that may never be answered. Let's start with the Scots. Was it really humanitarian considerations that led to this decision? Or did they bend to Libyan pressure? Was Libyan oil a consideration? Was one consideration the outrageous problem they (and the UK) face from their radical Muslim population? Was this designed to placate that population? If so, it would represent the height of cowardice.

Let's turn to Libya. What kind of barbaric mentality leads people to give a hero's welcome to a man who blew up an airliner and killed 270 people? Did the Libyan Government try to win this man's release? Remember, this is a man who was a Libyan Secret Service officer. The fact that this man was allowed to come home to that kind of welcome in Moammar Gaddafi's tightly-controlled society only reinforces the fact that he (Gaddafi) was behind this evil deed (as the Libyan Government later tacitly admitted before the UN).

And what about our own government-which spans both Republican and Democrat administrations? A few years ago, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi seemingly turned over a new leaf. He swore off terrorism and turned over whatever weapons of mass destruction he possessed or was working on. What did we give him in return? Part of the answer is diplomatic recognition and a financial settlement that involved restitution by the Libyan Government. Did someone agree that at some point, we would not do anything to prevent the release of the terrorist held in Scotland-beyond a mild protest? Why did we forever swear off getting our own hands on those who carried out the bombing? Why have we not moved heaven and earth to get our own hands on those responsible or to keep this one animal in a Scottish prison? The answer has everything to do with real-politik and little to do with justice. Frankly, I am not impressed by the pusillaminous reactions of people like Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Barack Obama. The President, for his part, "warned" Libya not to give a hero's welcome to al-Megrahi. You see the result in the video.

And what about that Senate delegation led by John McCain that met with Gaddafi just recently in Libya? Was this subject discussed? Has there been any quiet American acquiescence in this release? Don't the American people have a right to know why this outrage has happened?

I can only hope that the Scottish people are showing similar outrage. After all, 11 residents of Lockerbie were also killed on the ground when Pan Am 103 crashed. Right now, I am not feeling too kindly towards Scotland. I am not one of those boycott organizers, myself, but I seriously doubt I'll be buying any scotch or ale from Scotland anytime during the rest of my life.

This is a shame on everyone involved.

Kalifornia Set to Turn 27,000 Criminals Loose

"Hey! Where the hell is everybody?"

"They all went home."

It's happened. The California State Senate voted yesterday to cut the state prison population by 27,000 through a variety of slick measures including outright release. By a vote of 21-19, almost strictly down party lines, the measure passed the Senate and is being taken up by the Assembly this afternoon.

Only 4 Democrats voted against the measure, while almost all Republicans opposed it. It is expected to face an even tougher fight in the Assembly. Virtually all law enforcement groups are in opposition, but Governor Arnold Katzenjammer is in favor and is expected to sign the measure if passed.

In addition, and this is really the kicker, the measure, as it currently stands, would create a sentencing commission that would be able to circumvent the legislature in rewriting laws to define them as misdemeanors instead of felonies. This would effectively gut California's "Three strikes" law. Here's an example: If you steal a car that is worth less than $2,500, it is a misdemeanor. If you steal a car worth more than $2,500, it may be classified as a misdemeanor or a felony. It all depends.

But wait! This gets even better! That sentencing commission to be set up? Guess who it will consist of (as a non-voting member).

A convicted felon!!!!!

I'm not making this up, folks.

And that's just for starters. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (the three most liberal members of the most liberal court in the land) has ruled that California must release 40,000 inmates in the next two years due to over-crowding. The Republicans in the legislature are appealing this to the US Supreme Court.

To add fuel to that fire (no pun intended), Governor Katzenjammer yesterday visited the smoky ruins of Chino Prison where black and Latino inmates went after each other last week, resulting in over 100 injuries and a building burned down. The clowns who run this state want us to believe overcrowding was the reason. Not so. The reason is that authorities had ruled that the prisons could not segregate black and Latino inmates from each other (even though they wanted to kill each other). So they put them together and Voila! But "Mox Nix" says Governor Katzenjammer. He went on to proclaim during his tour that this was "the reason we need to release these people."

So get ready. Twenty-seven thousand criminals are coming to your town or neighborhood courtesy of the Democrat-controlled legislature and our wonderful governor, who calls himself a Republican.

Our governor

"Upward and onward!"