Wednesday, September 30, 2009

How Democrats Treat Black Conservatives

I am pleased to cross-post an article by Dr Frances Rice, Director of the National Association of Black Republicans, who sent this to me via e-mail. It expresses a point I have made before on these pages.

Be Civil?
By Frances Rice

It’s a sure sign that Republicans are winning a debate on issues when Democrats, aided by well-meaning civility police pundits and activists, demand that Republicans stop showing their passion and “be civil”.

I am still waiting for those with such a keen sense of civility to demand that Democrats cease their unrelenting and uncivil, even racist, attacks on black Republicans. I won’t hold my breath.

High on the Democrats’ list of those to be denigrated are accomplished black Republicans who do not toe the Democrats’ liberal agenda line. Shamefully, Democrats do not want poor black children to have as role models any black person who does not engage in victim mongering and works hard to become prosperous rather than become dependent on government handouts.

The message that Democrats gives to poor blacks is despicable. If you remain poor, uneducated and vote for Democrats, we will celebrate your victimhood. If you get a good education, get a good job and vote for Republicans, we will denigrate you as "acting white”, a "sellout”, an "Uncle Tom”, a "House Negro”, a "House N-word", a "Lawn Jockey”, and worse..


Brazenly, on the left-wing Internet website called "The News Blog," Democrats posted a doctored photograph of then Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele (now chairman of the RNC) when he was running for a Senate seat, depicting Steele as a "Simple Sambo" with a blackened minstrel-style face, nappy hair and big, think red lips. The cartoon caption read: “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house”.

This contemptible racist stereotype is the same one Democrats used to demean black men during the era of slavery and segregation.

In addition to other outrageous racist images of Dr. Condoleezza Rice produced by several Democrats, cartoonist Jeff Danziger depicted Dr. Rice as an ignorant, barefoot "mammy", reminiscent of the stereotyped black woman in the movie “Gone with the Wind” about the slave era black woman who remarked: "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies". This is the type of racist stereotype Democrats used to demean black women during the era of slavery and segregation.

Democrats now love Gen. Colin Powell, but spewed out racist attacks on Powell before he endorsed Obama and embraced the liberal agenda of higher taxes and a bigger government to provide poverty producing handouts to blacks.

A video was shot by WKRN Video Journalist Beau Fleenor at Tennessee State University in Nashville, Tennessee that shows Al Sharpton demeaning Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice, when Sharpton was asked to give his opinions about whether Powell and Rice were “House Negroes". That video can be found on the Internet.

An article that appeared in a Portland, Oregon paper was one of many exposing how hardly a ripple of protest was made by black Democrats when Harry Belafonte publicly denounced Gen. Powell as a "House Negro".

With impunity, the late Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy called black judicial nominees, including Judge Janice Rogers Brown, “Neanderthals”. Democrat Senator Harry Reid slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English. “Slap at Thomas stinks of racism,” was the headline of the New York Daily News’ December 7, 2004 editorial.

Even black Democrats will be maligned if they dare step off of the Democratic Party’s political plantation. When black Democrat Juan Williams wrote his book entitled "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-end Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America" that exposed the deplorable conditions in black communities caused by the Democrats running those communities, Williams was denounced on national TV by another black Democrat as a "Happy Negro".

For details about how Democrats during the 1960’s even smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican, see the article posted on the NBRA website.

“Civility, Ours and Theirs” is an article that provides more details about how Democrats vilify black Republicans while wagging their finger at Republicans about being civil.

Our political discourse can be elevated to the high standards demanded by the civility police only when Democrats are also required to play by the rules of civility.

Frances Rice, a retired lawyer and US Army Lieutenant Colonel, is chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: www.NBRA.inf


Fousesquawk comment: As an older white person, it doesn't take that much courage for me to voice my opinions on racial issues. At my age, I figure out what it is I think, say it and let the chips fall where they may. (That is not to understate white fear of being called a racist.) It is much harder for black conservatives to speak out because of what is described above. People like Dr Frances Rice, Dr Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and others are called "Uncle Toms" everyday. They are my heroes because they are the ones who truly possess courage. Their voices must be heard-not silenced.

Roman Polanski-The Grand Jury Testimony

For all you Roman Polanski supporters-Whoopi Goldberg, Debra Tate, Harvey Weinstein and all the film directors in France and the US who have signed a petition demanding that Roman Polanski be released, here is the original grand jury transcript of the testimony of the victim, Samantha Gailey. In addition, I urge some of my own readers who have questioned the wisdom of prosecuting Polanski to read these transcripts. Then come back and tell me that Polanski should be released.

Remember, Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

(Hat tip to The Smoking Gun)

Part 1
Part 2

Film Makers Start Petition for Release of Polanski

(Hat tip to Hot Air)

"How dare they arrest our Roman for some silly 'morals charge'?"

A petition demanding the release of convicted child-rapist (yes, convicted child-rapist) Roman Polanski has been initiated in France by an outfit called the SACD, an organization which represents performance and visual artists. It appears to be a joint French-American (Hollywood) venture. Here is the letter and names of those who have signed thus far.

Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski’s arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians—everyone involved in international filmmaking—want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

Polanski petition signatories, as of September 29th:

Fatih Akin
Stephane Allagnon
Woody Allen
Pedro Almodovar
Wes Anderson
Jean-Jacques Annaud
Alexandre Arcady
Fanny Ardant
Asia Argento
Darren Aronofsky
Olivier Assayas
Alexander Astruc
Gabriel Auer
Luc Barnier
Christophe Barratier
Xavier Beauvois
Liria Begeja
Gilles Behat
Jean-Jacques Beineix
Marco Bellochio
Monica Bellucci
Djamel Bennecib
Giuseppe Bertolucci
Patrick Bouchitey
Paul Boujenah
Jacques Bral
Patrick Braoudé
Andre Buytaers
Christian Carion
Henning Carlsen
Jean-Michel Carre
Patrice Chereau
Elie Chouraqui
Souleymane Cisse
Alain Corneau
Jerome Cornuau
Miguel Courtois
Dominique Crevecoeur
Alfonso Cuaron
Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne
Jonathan Demme
Alexandre Desplat
Rosalinde et Michel Deville
Georges Dybman
Jacques Fansten
Joël Farges
Gianluca Farinelli
Jacques Fansten
Etienne Faure
Michel Ferry
Scott Foundas
Stephen Frears
Thierry Fremaux
Sam Gabarski
René Gainville
Tony Gatlif
Costa Gavras
Jean-Marc Ghanassia
Terry Gilliam
Christian Gion
Marc Guidoni
Buck Henry
David Heyman
Laurent Heynemann
Robert Hossein
Jean-Loup Hubert
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Gilles Jacob
Just Jaeckin
Alain Jessua
Pierre Jolivet
Kent Jones
Roger Kahane,
Nelly Kaplan
Wong Kar Waï
Ladislas Kijno
Harmony Korine
Jan Kounen
Diane Kurys
Emir Kusturica
John Landis
Claude Lanzmann
André Larquié
Vinciane Lecocq
Patrice Leconte
Claude Lelouch
Gérard Lenne
David Lynch
Michael Mann
François Margolin
Jean-Pierre Marois
Tonie Marshall
Mario Martone
Nicolas Mauvernay
Radu Mihaileanu
Claude Miller
Mario Monicelli
Jeanne Moreau
Sandra Nicolier
Michel Ocelot
Alexander Payne
Richard Pena
Michele Placido
Philippe Radault
Jean-Paul Rappeneau
Raphael Rebibo
Yasmina Reza
Jacques Richard
Laurence Roulet
Walter Salles
Jean-Paul Salomé
Marc Sandberg
Jerry Schatzberg
Julian Schnabel
Barbet Schroeder
Ettore Scola
Martin Scorcese
Charlotte Silvera
Abderrahmane Sissako
Paolo Sorrentino
Guillaume Stirn
Tilda Swinton
Jean-Charles Tacchella
Radovan Tadic
Danis Tanovic
Bertrand Tavernier
Cécile Telerman
Alain Terzian
Pascal Thomas
Giuseppe Tornatore
Serge Toubiana
Nadine Trintignant
Tom Tykwer
Alexandre Tylski
Betrand Van Effenterre
Wim Wenders

Fousesquawk comment:

"A case of morals"

First of all, the obvious conclusion is that this group of French, American and other film-makers have no concern for the fact that Polanski pled guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl then fled the US to escape incarceration. It is part and parcel of the coursening of western culture and the idea that children can be sexually exploited.

Secondly, it appears these people think that international film festivals are some sort of sanctuary from the law. How dare they arrest this great director en route to a film festival!

If this arrest puts the relationship between France and the US at risk then so be it. France has shown repeatedly ever since the end of World War II that they are a nation of ingrates who scorn the US and our "out of date values". If this fragile relationship should collapse over a convicted child rapist who happens to be a French citizen, who cares?

There is only one standard being used by these film makers: Polanski is a great film maker, a great artist; thus, leave him alone. It reminds me in a way of the mentality that allowed OJ Simpson to be acquitted of murder charges: "He's 'the Juice", "He's one of us", etc, etc.

I don't know the names of the great majority of these characters, though I do note the presence of Woody Allen on the list (how ironic). Yet, it seems to me that people who think like me might want to seriously consider spending their money in places other than the movie theatre. For too many years now, we have been outraged by the antics and loopy statements coming from Hollywood elites who think they should tell us ordinary folks how to live.

Now this.

In the coming days, weeks and perhaps months, we shall see how many other segments of French society will rise in defense of the child-rapist Polanski. Will President Sarkozy and/or his foreign minister attempt to intervene with President Obama and our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as with Swiss authorities? If so, then its time to stop buying French products again and make the Parisiennes wonder where all the American tourists went.

Dan Rather Lawsuit Against CBS Tossed

Dan Rather

Mary Mapes

The worst in American journalism

Although I am no fan of CBS News, I am gratified to hear that a court has tossed out Dan Rather's lawsuit against the network for 70 million dollars. Rather was involved in one of the most disgraceful episodes in American journalism history in 2004 when he and reporter Mary Mapes broke a story about George W Bush's service in the National Guard that relied on forged documents. As a result, CBS shortened his tenure as anchor.

Not only did the Bush story center around forged National Guard documents, Rather and CBS had been alerted to their suspect nature by document examiners. They still stood behind the documents and ran with the story.

Not only that, but Mapes, a highly-partisan reporter like Rather, turned the story over to the Kerry campaign in the run up to the 2004 presidential election. Thus, the breaking of a negative story about Bush, given to the Kerry campaign and timed to break shortly before the November 2004 election, was a blatant attempt to affect the outcome of said election. Once the facts came out, an embarrassed and discredited CBS decided to replace Rather as their anchor-though he had planned to retire in the coming year. They put him on a show that was better suited to his "talents", namely "60 Minutes" and continued to pay him a hefty salary.

Still, Rather decided to sue.

It might also be pointed out that the untruthfulness of the story had to be uncovered by conservative bloggers-a harbinger of things to come-as the Main Stream Media proved unwilling or incapable of cleaning its own house and rooting out fact from fiction in its reporting. (Mapes still claims that she was unfairly done in by the right-wing".)

The Rather/Mapes episode should be standard textbook fare in journalism schools as how not to break a news story. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that the scandal is probably downplayed or ignored in journalism classrooms around the country. Hopefully, yesterday's decision will again shine the spotlight on this disgrace.

Glenn Beck Day

This past Saturday, conservative Fox News commentator Glenn Beck was honored for his success by his hometown of Mt Vernon, Washington and presented with the keys to the city by the mayor. No big deal, right?


Apparently, the symbolic act of giving a day to a local son made good didn't sit well with the local (and not-so-local) liberal activists who don't like Beck and what he stands for. They turned out by the hundreds with their posters to protest the event and slam Beck, as well as their favorite bug-a-boo, Fox News. Apparently, the small town of Mt Vernon was invaded by out-of-towners and out-of-staters, mostly from Oregon, according to one account.

And what is Beck's sin? Overall, being a conservative, but more specifically, he has made some controversial comments questioning President Obama's racial attitudes (toward whites), an issue I take no position on. More important, Beck took the lead in bringing attention to the fact that there was a radical, self-proclaimed Marxist in the White House (Van Jones), something our vaunted main-stream media had decided to ignore. As a result of the furor, Jones was forced to resign. That apparently inspired a lot of folks in the ultra-liberal state of Oregon to cross state lines to join their liberal brothers and sisters in protesting Beck's appearance in Mt Vernon, Washington.

Let me make it clear; as long as the protesters were peaceful and obeyed the law, they had every right to turn out-same as the folks who have turned out to the tea parties. Yet, this demonstration was clearly directed against one man because of his conservative beliefs-still entirely legal on the part of the demonstrators.

Here is the test which I applied to myself in mulling over this issue; had some small town in the US, whether it be my own town or a town in another state, decided to have a similar day and event in honor of a famous son-say Keith Olbermann- whom I hold in utter distaste, would I turn out to protest? The answer is an emphatic no. If Irvine, California or New York City-wherever he is from-wants to honor him, I say, "have a nice day". First of all, I would not deign to travel to another state and another town to tell them who they can or cannot honor. Even were it my town, I would not cross the street to interfere with the right to honor a native son who made "good" (Olbermann).

Surely, my critical interlocutors will quickly reply with a litany of conservatives who violated the Fouse rule. Yet, I will maintain that the tactic employed in the Beck Day protests is a specialty of the intolerant left. If you don't believe me, visit a university campus when a conservative speaker shows up-a rare enough event to start with. There is a curious tendency on the left to want to prevent conservative voices from being heard by the masses. It is that attitude that turned out hundreds of Beck-bashers to Mt Vernon on Saturday.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The Olympics in Chicago?

It is easy to criticize President Obama for his planned trip to Copenhagen Thursday to appeal to the Olympic Committee to choose Chicago as the site for the 2016 Olympics. After all, are there not more important things on the President's plate right now, you know, things like the Iranian nuclear issue, health care, terrorism, talking to your general in Afghanistan and deciding whether to send more troops to that country, etc.? To be honest, if he asked me to go in his stead, I would be happy to oblige and go to Denmark for a couple of days. In between the Tuborg, Tivoli Gardens and the exciting nightlife, I could find five minutes to drop in and say, "Choose Chicago", then it's back to the bars before they have the time to ask me about the Cubs.

On a more serious side, there are things in Chicago much more important than getting the Olympics. Things like the beating death of Derrion Albert (16), an honor student caught in the middle of a gang fight a few days ago. (Warning: this video is graphic).

The first question that came to my mind was, "where were the adults?"

I would respectively suggest that the city of Chicago (a city I love) turn its attention away from the Olympics and start concentrating on saving its south side. There are too many Derrion Alberts out there getting killed and maimed. Besides, surely the city fathers-and President Obama- are hoping against hope that the Olympic officials won't see this video. They surely won't see such videos coming out of other finalists Tokyo or Madrid. (Rio de Janeiro, I'm not so sure about.)

So good luck, Mr President. I just have a feeling that instead of Copenhagen, maybe you belong in Chicago.

(I didn't mean it that way.)

California Schools and Islamic Indoctrination

I am cross-posting an editorial that has appeared in Investor Business Daily on how California schools are forcing a biased view of Islam down the throats of schoolkids-notwithstanding the protests of parents. Pay attention, as goes California-so goes the nation. (Tip of the hat to ACT for America)
IBD Editorials
Schoolhouse Shariah

Posted 09/24/2009 06:53 PM ET

"Multiculturalism: California's educrats have put out new rules for teaching Islamic studies to seventh-graders in public schools, and they are as biased as ever. They'll also likely spread eastward.

The lesson guidelines adopted by the bellwether state whitewash the violence and oppression of women codified in Islamic law, or Shariah. And they're loaded with revisionist history about the faith.

For example, the suggested framework glorifies Shariah as a liberal reform movement that "rejected" the mistreatment of women that existed in Arabia before Muhammad and his successors conquered the region, according to Accuracy in Academia. The guidelines claim that Islamic law established for the first time that men and women were entitled to equal "respect."

Not so, says Islamic scholar and author Nonie Darwish, who grew up Muslim in Egypt.

"I am shocked that that is what they teach," she said. "Women had more rights in Arabia before Shariah."

In fact, "wife beating is allowed under Shariah" today, she added. "It allows a woman seen without a headdress to be flogged, punishes rape victims, and calls for beheading for adultery."

California's course on world religions also omits Islam's long history of jihadist violence, while portraying Christianity as an intolerant and bloodthirsty faith.

Christianity isn't given equal time, either. It's covered in just two days — as opposed to up to two weeks for Islam — and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities like the Islam unit.

Students do get a healthy dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other people.

Islam, in contrast, gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," not waging holy war.

"California schools are pushing an unbalanced religious agenda that favors Islam and minimizes Christianity and Judaism," Accuracy in Academia warns in its latest Campus Report.

Who helped build the California Education Department's framework for Islamic studies? Islamist "scholars" with the Council on Islamic Education, or CIE, a Saudi-tied activist group.

The consultancy changed its name after former IBD Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," exposed that its chief researcher and textbook consultant for years taught social studies at a Saudi madrassa just outside Washington.

The Islamic Saudi Academy is a breeding ground for terrorists, including the valedictorian-turned-al-Qaida agent recently sentenced to life for plotting to assassinate President Bush.

Recently, Fox News reported that the head of CIE — now known as the Institute on Religion and Civic Values — misled California education authorities about his academic credentials. For one, Shabbir Mansuri never received a USC degree in chemical engineering as he has claimed, Fox says.

The group's Web site no longer includes the claim. These are the folks who are teaching your children about Islam in public schools. Parents have protested, even sued, but to no avail.

For example, parents of seventh-graders in the San Francisco area, who after 9/11 were taught pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment.

They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam by mandating that their kids participate in Muslim role-playing exercises such as designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Children also were told to recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful," and memorize the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God, and Muhammad is his messenger."

But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told parents in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."

California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that it was OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The decision was a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like — with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity.

You can't teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. But teaching the five pillars of Islam is A-OK."

Monday, September 28, 2009

The Roman Polanski Case- A Test for Justice

Convicted child-rapist Roman Polanski-Extradict the rat.

"But he's a great artist."

The news of Roman Polanski's recent arrest in Zurich on an LA County arrest warrant is going to put a lot of people to the test when it comes to meting out justice. Polanski, a native of France, has lived in that country, immune from extradition back to the US since 1978 when he fled our country prior to sentencing after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. Finally, after all these years, one country (Switzerland) has lived up to its responsibility to enforce an international arrest warrant. Now the question is whether our own law enforcement and diplomatic officials will demand Polanski's extradition to be sentenced for what he has already pleaded guilty to.

Of course, Hollywood is in a predictable uproar and charging to Polanski's defense. ("Hey! what's the big deal about having sex with a 13-year-old? He's a great director".)

Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has joined a campaign by Cannes Film Festival Director Thierry Fremaux and French film-makers calling on US authorities not to extradite Polanski.

"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation," Weinstein said.

(Polanski pleaded guilty.)

Polanski's allies in Hollywood maintain that there were flaws in the case against the director.

(He pleaded guilty.)

In addition, Samantha Geimer the girl Polanski raped when she was 13, has called on the authorities to dismiss the charges.

With all due respect, assuming she has not been "prevailed upon" by Polanski's friends, this is out of her hands. She has no right to stop this case since he has already pleaded guilty and could repeat the offense against other under-age girls (which possibly he already has in the last three decades in France).

And then there's an article written in the LA Times by film columnist Patrick Goldstein, who questioned the ethics of spending taxpayer's money to extradite Polanski in the face of so many California budget cuts!!??!

"At a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you'd hope that LA County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor [sic] by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski's victim wants to put it behind her," Goldstein wrote. He went on to say this:

"Whether the LA County district attorney's office has its way or not, it is not a story that can have a happy ending. I think Polanski has already paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions. The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn't enough."

(He pleaded guilty. He fled before sentencing.)

Then there is this pearl from Washington Post writer Anne Applebaum: "To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system."

(He pleaded guilty-to having sex with a 13-year-old girl.)

Finally, there are the conspiracy theorists who speculate that "political motives" may be behind the whole thing. According to these voices, the Swiss are trying to score points with US authorities in the face of the Union Bank of Switzerland banking scandal involving US tax evaders, something that has no basis in fact and has already been denied by Swiss authorities.

Now it is up to the LA District Attorney's Office to ignore the voices of Hollywood and the Frenchies and demand that the US Justice Department proceed through diplomatic channels with a formal extradition request. Polanski stands convicted of a heinous crime. The Statute of Limitations is not at issue since it doesn't toll once the defendant becomes a fugitive. It goes without saying that flight is an element of evidence of a guilty mind. Polanski is guilty of this crime under the law and should be sent back to the US for sentencing that has only been delayed 31 years because he fled.

We should all be following this case to see if US authorities do their duty.

Let's Play, "Name That Conspiracy!"

As a follow-up to my last post on the "vast, right-wing conspiracy", bandied about by the Clintons, I thought it might be fun to play a little game identifying true conspiracies from fake ones (like the VRWC). Ready? Here we go. The answers are below. (Names and identities have been disguised to protect the innocent.)

1 One night in Mid-town Manhattan, Stanley Schemer and Dudley Nightshade are at a bar drinking straight shots of Jose Cuervo.

Along about the 43rd round, they see a news clip on TV of Moammar Ghaddafi speaking at the UN. Suddenly, they agree that the next morning, they will hijack a ship in New York Harbor, storm the UN, and take the entire General Assembly hostage, load them on the ship, sail to Haiti and dump them all on a deserted beach. The next afternoon, they wake up and cannot remember a thing.


2 Handsome Harvey and Marvelous Mary, both card-carrying, right-wing, rock-ribbed, knee-jerk conservatives, decide to organize a tea party to protest rising taxes, government health care and increasing government control over their lives. Harvey starts making up posters reading, "The president is a socialist" while Mary starts spreading the word on the Internet that a rally will take place the following week at a specific location.


3 President Schmolinsky's wife, First Lady Brunhilde Schmolinsky, is running for US Senator representing Idaho, a state she has never even visited.

Brunhilde Schmolinsky-(photo altered to protect the innocent)

In order to be elected, she needs the support of the Idaho potato-growers, who have never before voted for her party. They meet with Mrs Schmolinsky and agree to support her candidacy, but only if their director, Mr Potatohead, currently serving 20 years for embezzlement, is pardoned by the president during his final week in office. The agreement is made.

Are you still with me all you Columbia law students?


In the election, Mrs Schmolinsky is elected Senator of Idaho as the potato-growers give her 99% of their vote. Subsequently, President Schmolinsky pardons Mr Potatohead.

President Schmolinsky (photo altered to protect the innocent)


4 Senator Louie Lickspittle (D-WY)is holding a town hall meeting in Bullsnuts, Wyoming to support government health care. About 100 members of the local Republican Party in Bullsnuts meet and decide to attend the town hall meeting to challenge the Senator. Several of the individuals purchase poster boards to carry to the town hall meeting. During the town hall meeting, several of the protesters shout, "No to government health care".


5 President Schmolinsky has been meeting with a voluptuous lady named Long-Legged Sally, the ex-wife of a RICH fugitive financier on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted list. Sally wants the president to pardon her RICH ex-husband.

Long-legged Sally-(photo altered to protect the innocent)

RICH financier (photo altered to protect the innocent)

In exchange, Sally arranges a gift of $250,000 to the president's planned presidential library. The money is given and the RICH fugitive is pardoned.

Schmolinsky Presidential Library (photo altered to protect the innocent)


6 Rebecca from Sunnybrook Farm, a liberal Democrat and part-time university professor at UC Santa Cruz, walks into an upscale Santa Cruz bistro, where she orders a cafe latte and poppyseed bagle with diced prunes. As she sits down at a table, she notices two conservative-looking characters at the next table who don't appear to fit in with the local surroundings. They appear to be talking in hushed tones, but she overhears one of them say, "The president is a socialist. I can't wait to vote against him in 2012." She observes the other suspect nodding in agreement.


7, Irving Schwartz and .......Frankie "the Cockroach" Gianelli meet and agree to blow up Chicago's city hall. They bring ....Louie "the Louse" Spaghettoni into the scheme as a driver of the bomb car. Little do they know that Louie is an informant for the FBI. Irving goes out and buys the dynamite under FBI surveillance. Frankie rents a truck from U-Haul. Together, under FBI surveillance, they load the dynamite into the truck and begin driving to city hall. On the way, they are arrested by the FBI.


8 Jose Cuervo is sitting in a bar when he is engaged in a conversation by two nearby strangers who invite him to join a conspiracy by which all three will travel to Mexico and smuggle heroin into the US. Unbeknownst to Jose, the two strangers are informants for the Federal Bureau of Conspiracy (FBC)who are wearing recording devices. FBC agents are outside in their cars listening to the conversation. Jose says that he has never broken the law and refuses. After an hour of arguing, the two snitches threaten to kill Jose's family if he refuses. Finally, Jose agrees to join the conspiracy. He then, at the direction of the two snitches, goes across the street to rent a car to be used in the smuggling venture.


9 Our two friends, Stanley Schemer and Dudley Nightshade, having awakened from their previous evening's binge, return to the bar and begin drinking straight shots of Jose Cuervo.

Along about the 55th round, they decide that they will buy a spaceship, fly to the moon and smuggle Limberger cheese back into the US without paying import duties. The next day, Stanley and Dudley go out and inquire to NASA about purchasing a used space ship. NASA, in turn, reports them to the FBI.



1 No conspiracy- Even though an agreement was made to carry out an illegal (though worthy) act, no subsequent overt act was carried out by either of our two "conspirators' in furtherence of the act. Even the agreement would never hold up in court due to the 43 Jose Cuervos.

2 No conspiracy. Neither the act agreed upon nor the overt acts are illegal. They are guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

3 Conspiracy. Selling a pardon in exchange for cash or other favors is a form of bribery. You have the agreement to commit a criminal act. The potato-growers' actions in convincing their members to vote for Mrs Schmolinsky, though legal in and of itself, would be considered an overt act. (Overt acts do not have to be illegal in and of themselves.) The actual quid-pro-quo pardon would also be an overt act as well as the substantive crime. Of course, to prove the crime in court, you would want to have the testimony of say, one of the potato-growers who negotiated with Mrs Schmolinsky plus independent, corroborating evidence to support his/her testimony.

4 No conspiracy. The acts agreed upon are legal and guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

5 Conspiracy. The criminal act is bribery and selling of a pardon. The agreement between President Schmolinsky and Sally, of course would have to be proven either by say, Sally testifying or other independent evidence. The overt acts would be the gift of $250,000 to the library and the pardon itself.

6 No conspiracy. Criticizing a president is not a crime.

7 Conspiracy. Frankie and Irving have agreed to commit a crime. Louie can testify as to the agreement, which hopefully would be corroborated by independent evidence, such as FBI surveillance and taped conversations. Buying the dynamite and renting the trucks are overt acts. Of course, the dynamite itself would be...."dynamite" evidence. The crime is complete-even though the objective (the bombing) was not actually carried out. (Did you Columbia law students think the FBI was supposed to let them bomb the building before a crime was committed?)


8 No conspiracy. The only "co-conspirators" you have are the two informants. In fact, this is a clear case of entrapment since Jose had no pre-disposition to commit such a crime until approached by the informants who threatened his family to get him to agree. In a case like this, the federal agents should break off all connections with these two informants.

9 No conspiracy. The object of the crime must be reasonably possible to commit.

Well, how did we do? If you got all nine correct, you have half-a brain. If you missed four or more, you are a Columbia Law School student. If you missed all nine, you are a UC Santa Cruz Community Studies major.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

The Clintons and Their "Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy"

"Yes, Virginia, it really was a vast right-wing conspiracy."

For Bill and Hillary Clinton, they don't know when to shut up and let go of ridiculous statements. When Bill got caught in the Lewinsky scandal, Hillary tried to brush it all off as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy". She became a laughing stock (at least to half the nation) when it was revealed that the scandal was based in fact. Soon enough, the nation realized that not only was the Lewinsky story true, but that the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" had nothing to do with assigning Ms Lewinsky to the White House or putting her into a relationship with the president. The term has haunted Mrs Clinton ever since-much as if she had professed belief in flying saucers and Martians.

Well, apparently, at least one half of the Clinton team still believes. On NBC's Meet the Press this week, Bill was asked about that "vast, right-wing conspiracy". Does it still exist in regards to President Obama, given the resistance to his policies? Bill should have looked for a polite way to change the subject. Instead, he dove right in affirming that the old VRWC is still out there.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Leaving aside any mention of a "vast, left-wing conspiracy" that dogged George Bush for 8 years and the fact that no one called it anything of the sort, it seems that this term is the Democratic talking point to any criticism or resistance to their whole Democratic platform. First, it was the VRWC that was used to try and obscure the sad fact that a president was using the Oval Office as a short-time motel. Now it is used as a convenient excuse to apply to those of us who have the temerity to oppose Obama's policies. At least Bill didn't go down the path of that other embarrassing ex-president, Jimmy Carter, and call it a "vast, racist, right-wing conspiracy" or VRRWC.

I note the fact that Bill Clinton is a lawyer-or was one until he was disbarred for having committed perjury. He should know what the definition of a conspiracy is-at least in American legal terms. A conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and at least one of those persons conducts an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

For you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors and future community organizers, I will give an example. Pay attention; you may need to know this someday. Let's say John and Joe agree to travel to Mexico and smuggle heroin into the US by private aircraft. Joe, a pilot, then goes to a small airport and rents a plane (overt act), with which to fly to Mexico and transport the heroin. The conspiracy is complete, and a crime has been committed whether or not the smuggling venture is ever accomplished.

That, Mr and Mrs Clinton, is (in simple terms) a conspiracy. Opposing the policies of the current president is not a conspiracy. Speaking out is not a conspiracy. Tea parties are not conspiracies. Conservative bloggers are not engaged in a conspiracy. Nor are talk radio hosts when they criticize you or President Obama. The Republican Party is not a conspiracy. No, Mr and Mrs Clinton, there is only one conspiracy out there that I am aware of which wants to do personal harm to the President. That would be Al-Qaeda. For you to continue to give credence to the idea of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" only makes you the object of ridicule.

Keep talking, Bill. Your legacy is sealed.

The Obama/Clinton Foreign Policy-Please Our Adversaries-Screw Our Friends

The latest developments in American foreign policy being carried out by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can only leave me shaking my head. It makes one wonder who are friends really are and who our enemies really are. Our new administration doesn't seem to know the difference.

In Latin America, we witness tiny Honduras remove a would-be Hugo Chavez from office for trying to circumvent the Honduran constitution as it pertains to election law in order to set himself up as a dictator. The Honduran Supreme Court and Congress followed the constitution and ordered the military to remove Manuel Zelaya, who was flown to Costa Rica. Here in North America, we may not like the method, but it was done according to Honduran law. Yet, what do we do? We join hands with the likes of Chavez in supporting Zelaya. We condemn the removal of Zelaya, call it illegal, recall our ambassador, meet with Zelaya and finally, cut off all aid to Honduras. In other words, we are working to re-install Zelaya to power.

That leads me to wonder; what if the North Koreans had a coup and overthrew Kim Jong Il? Would we declare it illegal and demand that Kim be returned to power? What about the restive Iranians? Suppose they managed to rise up and overthrow Ahmadinejad and the mullahs? Would Obama and Clinton demand that they be returned to power as well? And what about Hugo Chavez? If he were thrown out by the Venezuelan military/people, would we also rush to his defense?

In the old days (meaning from the birth of the republic till today) we would be happy. Granted, if the US were involved in the overthrow, that would invite international condemnation. However, let's assume that the above three revolutions were carried out strictly by the North Koreans, Iranians and Venezuelans-without any US involvement. Normally, we would quickly recognize the new governments and re-establish normal diplomatic ties. Under this administration, who knows what we would do?

Another controversial development was the administration's decision to cancel defensive missile shields in the Czech Republic and Poland. Now I am no defense or weapons expert, and I would not deign to argue about where such defense shields should be located in the world. We are taking the position that such a defense system is not intended as a defense against Russia, rather against rogue regimes that get their hands on nuclear missiles (like Iran). Yet, it is clear that this move was done to appease Russia-for whatever agreement they may or may not have quietly made to help the US in other areas, such as Iran. Aside from mere practicality, there was a symbolic importance to having those defensive shields in the Czech Republic and Poland. In the eyes of the Czechs and Poles, the defense shield was valuable to them due to their fears of an irredentist Russia. So now we have two former East-bloc countries who were very receptive to good American relations now being slapped in the face by the US.

In the case of Libya, again, the US (and the UK) are behaving quite strangely. We still don't know if our country quietly acquiesced in the release of the Pan Am 103 bomber. It appears that our State Department has demanded that the Scottish authorities not release any correspondence between our two countries. Obviously, we know the cowardly British Government was anxious to make an oil deal and try to somehow placate its restive Muslim population. The American public has an absolute right to know what the role of our own government was in this shameful episode. To add insult to injury, at the same time that Moammar Ghaddafi is standing on US soil and addressing the UN, the administration has now announced a grant of $2.5 million dollars to Libya as well as $400,000 to foundations owned by the Ghaddafi family-all in the name of supporting democracy!

Finally, no matter how much Obama and his followers assure Israel that we are still committed to her defense, does any serious observer really believe that should Israel be overrun or hit with Iranian nukes that we would go to war to save her and her people from another Holocaust? I don't. Should that come to pass, I believe Obama, Clinton and the whole gang in Washington would stand by, wring their hands, call for peace and cry crocodile tears as that "inconvenient nation" and her "inconvenient" people (Jews) were wiped off the face of the map-just as Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah all promise as we speak.

I'm all for using diplomacy to improve relations with our adversaries, but throwing our friends and allies overboard to appease the tyrants and terrorists of the world strikes me as abject weakness. We will pay for it down the road.

The Latest UN Circus

"New York, here we come."

Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moammar Ghaddafi. Once again, these thugs come marching into New York City and launch into their tirades-on our soil. How is it that the man who gave the order to bomb Pan Am 103 is allowed to step onto our soil with impunity and spread his poison? (I know, diplomatic immunity.) This latest example of watching the clowns come piling out of the proverbial Volkswagen at the circus just further illustrates what a feckless organization the UN is and why decent and democratic nations need to look for an alternative.

There was Ahmadinejad repeating his loony assertion that the Holocaust was a myth. There was Ghaddafi, looking like one of Michael Vick's abused fighting dogs, blaming the free world for the shortcomings of fetid, failed Third World nations like his own Libya.

A tequila hangover

And there was Barack Obama talking about the things that bind us as nations, as if Libya and Japan were just two co-equals as nations. They are not. How naive is this new American president? At the same time that this cage au folles is underway in New York, our State Department is announcing that we are giving $2.5 million dollars to Libya plus $400,000 to foundations run by the Ghaddafi family. And for what? To support democracy! So we support democracy by giving money to a dictator who brought down an American jet over Scotland!! This, of course, is the same president and same State Department that takes the side of would be Honduran dictator Manuel Zelaya over the current government that removed him under the Honduran constitutional process for trying to circumvent the nation's election law. So we join forces with none other than Hugo Chavez in trying to bring poor little Honduras to its knees and re-install a two-bit thug like Zelaya.

I also noticed that the hapless Gordon ("Oil in our time") Brown was there-fresh off his own diplomatic triumph with Libya. Enjoy the oil, Gordie. You now preside over a washed-up dhimmi state that will soon be publishing new banknotes with Neville Chamberlain on their face.

The only voice of sanity was that of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Of course, he was treated like the skunk at the garden party by the assembled collection of corrupt nosepickers who congregate at the UN.

By the way, did you see the shots of the Secretary of State sitting behind Obama at the UN? (That's Hillary Clinton for you UC-Santa Cruz Community Studies majors.)She was looking a little haggard, wouldn't you say-as truly befitting one who has been flying around the world for the last several months-apparently without ever landing-just flying around the world. Judging by the scowl on her face, one would think someone had asked her what Bill thought about some international issue-like that unfortunate chap in the Congo did last month.

Apparently, Obama and Hillary are bent on throwing out the old friends and bringing in the new. Perhaps a state visit to Sudan is now in the offings-you know-a "new relationship built on trust, mutual respect, cooperation and equality."

What would Churchill say?

"Right on!!!"

Wrong Churchill. Wrong speech. (Was he there too?)

Saturday, September 26, 2009

The "Obama Youth" in Burlington Township NJ

Here is the video (hat tip to Hot Air) of schoolkids in B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey being led on a ditty, whose title I believe is "Barack Hussein Obama". Didn't I write something about this a couple of weeks back when Obama addressed the nation's schoolkids and DOE sent out "suggested" lesson plans (later withdrawn) that advised schools to assign writing projects on the topic, "How I can help President Obama"? Wasn't I accused of overreacting?

Well, MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell sure didn't overreact. Her response was, "After all, he is the President."

I hate to be repetitive, but this is the type of leader worship that has been practiced in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and more recently, North Korea and Turkmenistan, to name a few. It is the technique of dictators, not of a free democratic (small case d) society.

"We love you, Stalin. Oh yes, we doooo."

Monument to Turkmen dictator Sarpermurat Niyazov

President Obama should get the word out to his minions to knock it off. It's getting ridiculous.

Al Gore's Movie- A Tribute to Al Gore

"Hey Dad! Who is Al Gore?"

"Some boob down in Tennessee that thinks we're not cold enough."

Eyewitness News "meteorologist" Al Gore

"See these here clouds, inversion layers, funnels, currents?"

While I was in Mexico this past week, I didn't watch a lot of TV, and never got to a computer. Last night, however, I did watch a fascinating science-fiction thriller-the much bally-hooed "An Inconvenient Truth" starring Al Gore. Aside from the obvious theme of the movie, there was also a sub plot: Al Gore as the Great Man.

The basic thread is Gore giving his "The world is coming to an end" slide show presentation before a hall full of adoring people-apparently none of whom dared The Great Man a question. It was reminiscent at times of the 11 o'clock news when the local news "meteorologist" comes on for 5 minutes standing in front of a screen with white clouds blowing every which-way representing wind fronts and temperatures-stuff I can never fathom (Just tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow.) Added to that were charts showing sea levels, currents, melting glaciers and all kinds of smoke and mirrors. What made me wonder was whether Gore (who is no scientist) was reading from a screen behind the camera. I can't believe that this was all completely off the cuff-with no much as a single "uh" or any other verbal tic. Just Big Al droning on like he was the chief departmental science chair at MIT. (Or was this filmed over several days, take by take?)

As is his wont, Gore dismissed anybody out there who has a different view of Global Warming. No Sir, 100% of scientists agree that there is global warming and it is man's fault. Anyone who disagrees is not a serious scientist or is obviously
"bought off" by the energy companies.

At this point, I should stop and point out that I missed the first 20-30 minutes. Maybe that was the part where Gore made the case that Global Warming is man-made (though it wouldn't have been a very sensible sequence in his lesson plan). All that I got were scenes of the smog in China and some charts showing the the USA was the chief culprit in carbon emissions. But then again, I may have missed it. I'm kinda slow in these things-as the last anonymous commentator has pointed out-"moron" I think was the term he used (one of the biggest morons this planet HAVE to offer, in fact).

But I once again digress. I now come to the sub theme-or perhaps the main theme of the film-Al Gore as The Great Man. Interspersed with Gore's "lecture" are scenes of Big Al traveling the globe-to some 100 or so destinations- to give his power point presentation. In some scenes, Big Al is seen traipsing through airports, going through security checks with everybody else and schlepping his carry-ons through the economy class section of an airplane. (Forget the fact that Al usually flies in his own private jet.)In one scene, Al leans against the back wall of an elevator-clearly exhausted by his herculean humanitarian efforts. In several other scenes, the camera catches Al looking pensively out at the ruined landscape, zooming in so close we can count the whiskers on the side of his face.

Then, out of nowhere, the story drifts back to those infamous days-the 2000 election, the Florida re-count and the inauguration of George W Bush. The events are depicted in grainy scenes-with sinister sounding music playing in the background-reminiscent of old newsreels of Auschwitz or Buchenwald. Gore describes how hard it was for him to lose, but that it enabled him to dedicate himself to his life's work (making Al look good.) The camera once again pans in closely to The Great Man's face as he contemplates what might have been-for the world, of course.

Then, along with the end credits, there are suggestions as to what WE can do to save the Earth. Mundane things like walk to work or ride a bike to work-while Big Al flies around the world in private jets and lights up foul-smelling stogies in London restaurants (yes, he does). Of course, nothing is said about the humongous house that Al lives in that soaks up more carbon whatevers than any of the common folks' homes. (Oh yeah, he has fixed up up so now it looks like Tarzan's dream tree house.) The film also didn't suggest that we all purchase carbon emissions credits from that company called Generation Investment Management-founded and co-owned over by none other than Al Gore. Of course, nothing was said about Al's net worth going from about 2 million dollars to about 10 million dollars since his failed presidential bid. Aside from Generation Investments Management, how much do you get paid for all those slide show presentations around the world, Al?

So did watching this "block-buster", Oscar-winning, Emmy-winning, Nobel-winning film change my attitude about Global Warming? No. I still don't know what the truth is, but I don't think that Mr Gore's viewpoint is the final, conclusive answer. It certainly has not changed my opinion about Al Gore. He is still a big bag of wind.

Friday, September 18, 2009

I'm Off For a Few Days

Don't bother me. I'm drinking in Mexico.

Citizen Olbermann

It is the year 2060. Keith Olbermann, long retired from MSNBC and at the age of 97, lies dying in a nursing home. With his last ounce of strength, he utters his last words:

"It is now 97,654 days since President Bush proclaimed, 'mission accomplishhhhhhhhh....'"

Town Halls and Tea Parties-Where Do We Go From Here?

No matter what the news media would have us believe, the ordinary, working, tax-paying Americans have won some significant battles in the past few months. From the town hall meetings to the tea parties, the videos and the blogs show that we have let our voices be heard-and in a responsible and lawful way. In spite of the labels that the Democrats and their media allies have attached to us, we have given a clear demonstration how everyday Americans can let their government know that they are heading in the wrong direction. Yes, the media has joined with the Democrats in saying that the town hall protests and tea parties are a sign of dangerous, violent and racist forces threatening civil discourse-a false charge if there ever was one. In the handful of town hall protests where some violence broke out, it was instigated and committed by pro-government health care goons. In one Arizona event, much was made of one citizen who showed up armed in order to make a 2nd amendment statement. Yet, it is hard to find the gentleman's picture in the media-because he happened to be black.

I could go on and on about the hypocrisy and lies of the Democrats and the media in portraying the people's backlash to President Obama's policies. However, what I want to focus on here is the question of where do we go from here.

Now that Congress is back in session, the town halls have concluded, and the march on Washington has been a great success, albeit underplayed by the media, we must press ahead with our goal of defeating the socialization of America. Presently, we are in the middle of the debate over government health care. We are winning that debate, but we still might lose that battle due to the Democratic majority both in the House and the Senate. But we can't lose sight of the other battles that are coming down the road; amnesty for illegal aliens, government takeover of many aspects of our lives, forced unionization through the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act", and the shutting down of conservative talk radio through the "Fairness Doctrine". What these issues require is the same level of intensity in tea parties across the nation and the attention of the conservative blogosphere and talk radio.

Conservatives must also face down the phony charges of racism that are being expounded by people like MSNBC, Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd, the latter who wrote that what Joe Wilson really meant to say was , "You lie, boy." He did not say that, and Dowd is disingenuous in implying that was his true meaning.

Americans are not rebelling against President Obama because he is black or part-black. Were he a conservative black along the lines of say, Condoleeza Rice or Michael Steele, we would be supporting him-while liberals would be castigating him as an "Uncle Tom" or a "sell-out". Ask black conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Sowell and others what kind of treatment they get from the left for their beliefs. The fact is that we oppose President Obama because of his policies, which are leading the country into socialism and economic bankruptcy. We cannot let the "racist" accusation silence our voices.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele. In his last campaign for senator they threw oreo cookies in his path.

Racist cartoon portraying Condoleeza Rice as Aunt Jemima (one of many)

Tea parties must continue beyond the health care issue. They should be held to protest any attempt to silence the voices of those who speak for us, whether it be Fox News, talk radio or the conservative blogosphere.

Another issue that must be in the forefront of our protests is government corruption, which is becoming worse every day. We must speak out against it whether it involves Democratic politicians or Republican politicians. We must be honest that several Republicans have been caught with their hands-or other body parts- in the cookie jar lately. Therefore, as we demand the removal of crooked politicians like William Jefferson, we must also demand the removal of the John Ensigns, Mark Sanfords, David Vitters' and other Republicans who have betrayed the public trust. If we do not, then we are hypocrites. There are few things worse than public corruption and the abuse of power. That is a major problem today in America, and it should be a focus of future protests.

If the Republican Party asks for our votes in future elections to reverse the trend in Washington and at the state level, then we must demand that they hold to their promises. In 1994, the Republicans swept into power in Congress based on a promise to reverse the corruption and left-ward drift in government. They went to Washington and joined the system-forgetting the pledges they had made. As a result, they are out of power-and deservedly so. If they want to come back into power, they need to know that we will hold their feet to the fire.

Whatever happens to the present health care debate, the protests that have shaken this land must continue. The health care issue will likely be settled-for better or worse-in the coming months. But there are other important battles ahead. From President Obama's speech Wednesday to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, it is readily apparent that "immigration reform" is coming back and once accomplished, will place present-day illegal aliens under the government health care umbrella notwithstanding Obama's pledge in his address to Congress, which sparked Joe Wilson's outburst. We can't allow the momentum to spend itself now. It must continue into the 2010 elections and the next presidential election.

We also must continue to call out the media, which has become a national joke. Rush Limbaugh-half in jest- calls it the "State-Run Media". That is partially true only because the state doesn't need to run the media, rather the media is a willing and eager partner. The only thing missing here is a Josef Goebbels-only because he isn't needed. Our mission is to continue to show the public the blatant dishonesty of the mainstream media-as if it isn't right in front of their eyes. We must continue to be the alternative voice until the media either reforms itself back to what it should be or collapses-which is what is happening as we speak.

Make no mistake, we have a White House, Congress and mainstream media that ridicules the average American tax-payer and is not reluctant to apply the worst labels to us. Beyond the health care issue, we need to maintain our vigilance and speak out-legally and peacefully to be sure-but continue to speak out.

After all. What are they going to do-arrest us?

Health Care Coverage for Illegal Aliens?

Remember when Congressman Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" at President Obama last week when he told Congress that nothing in the government health care bill would provide for health care insurance for illegal aliens?

Wednesday evening, the President spoke before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and addressed the two issues of the health care bill and immigration reform, which he linked together.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else."

President Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

This is classic Bill Clinton School of How to Fool All the People All the Time. Here is the translation:

Once we pass immigration reform and get all those illegal aliens into a legal status, they will be covered under government health care.

Joe Wilson may have broken protocol last week. But he was right.

Celebrity Endorsements-Nancy Pelosi for Boniva

"Because I only have this one face. So ask your doctor if Boniva is right for you."

"Or is that Botox? Drat, I need to straighten out my medicine box."

* All you feminazis, save your cards and letters.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

"Honor Killing" in Northeast Italy

The coffin of Sanaa Dafani

This is a cross-posting of a news account of an "honor killing" that took place days ago in Italy, near Trieste. It also mentions another "honor-killing" committed earlier.

"Rome, 16 Sept. (AKI) - A Moroccan man is facing murder charges after allegedly stabbing his 18-year-old daughter to death for falling in love with an older man in a small northern Italian town. Sanaa Dafani was stabbed in the throat while she was sitting in a car with her 31-year-old boyfriend in Montereale Valcellina, northwest of Trieste, late Tuesday.

Her father, El Ketawi Dafani was later detained by police and interrogated overnight. Some Italian news reports said he had made some admissions about being present at the scene of the alleged crime but had also contradicted himself in relation to the evidence.

There is also widespread speculation that El Ketawi Dafani, believed to be a Muslim, objected to religious differences between his daughter and her boyfriend and their plans to live together.

According to media reports, the victim's father blocked the car and threatened his daughter. Her boyfriend Massimo De Biasio tried to protect her from the attack and was injured in an alleged assault from the father.

De Biasio raised the alarm and was then taken to a local hospital in Pordenone where he underwent surgery for minor injuries to his abdomen and his hands.

Meanwhile, investigators have begun searching the forest near the scene of the crime in search of the murder weapon.

Police said locating the weapon was a crucial element in their investigation because it would help to confirm several key elements in helping to reconstruct the crime.

The case has already drawn comparisons with the controversial murder of a young Pakistani girl, Hina Saleem, who was killed by male relatives in August 2006.

Hina's father Mohammed, confessed to slitting 20-year-old Hina's throat for 'dishonouring the family' because she lived with an Italian man, wore jeans and worked in a pizzeria.

After the case, the previous centre-left Italian government issued a 'charter of values' for immigrants.

Mohammed and two male relatives were each sentenced last year to 30 years in jail for Hina's murder."

So why do I cross-post this? Hopefully, somebody will get the message. These events are adding up in the West and cannot be tolerated. This is not "honor".

The Italian version of the story from the Corriere della Sera (Milan newspaper) appears below: The heading reads: "Sanaa's Mother: Forgive my husband. Maybe it was her (Sanaa's) mistake."

Washington DC Tea Party Photos-"Tens of Thousands"?

Here are some photos sent to me by a friend who attended the Washington DC Tea Party. The photos were actually taken by another individual who claims that instead of the "tens of thousands" described by the press, there must have been a couple of million there-with another million or so unable to get into the city due to jammed traffic. Of course, that is the testimony of one person-take it for what it's worth. Keep in mind, tens of thousands represents a sold-out baseball or football game. The photos you see below were taken in different parts of Washington.

University of Michigan Stadium-capacity 106,000

Isn't it more likely that the DC crowd was in the hundreds of thousands-or more? And if so, why did the media downplay the numbers?

Here's one I added off the Internet taken from the intersection of 14th and E St.

Tens of thousands?

Republicans, Tea-Parties, Racists and Harvey Milk

Tea Party in Pittsburgh

San Francisco Supervisor Dan White

Today, Nancy Pelosi spoke in front of reporters and made an "emotional" appeal for conservatives to tone down the rhetoric (in other words, shut up). In doing so, she invoked the memory of the tragic murder in San Francisco where city supervisor Dan White shot and killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978.

Rachel Maddow jumped all over that tonight on MSNBC. She pointed out that the killer (White) was a CONSERVATIVE. She showed the film of Dianne Feinstein, then head of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, announcing the killings to a shocked audience. She then interviewed activist Cleve Jones, a friend of Milk, who was present at City Hall that day. He referred back to the present-day protests and blamed "tea-baggers" and Republicans for fanning the flames of hate and intolerance that he and Maddow agreed, are on the verge of leading to another such tragedy.

I also remember the San Francisco murders though, obviously, I was not there. However, I do recall the circumstances of the case. White was an emotionally disturbed individual who resigned his post, then tried to get it back but was rebuffed by Mayor Moscone. He then got a gun and killed Moscone and Milk at City Hall. He was later found guilty of manslaughter in the infamous "Twinkie defense" claiming that he wasn't thinking clearly because he had been subsisting on a junk food diet over a long period of time. It was an outrageous defense, an outrageous verdict and stirred outrage in San Francisco. White was released a few years later and committed suicide.

My point in recounting this incident is to point out that it had nothing to do with ideology or public policy. It concerned a disturbed politician who was lashing out against those he thought had crossed him. No one defended White on any political grounds. In short, this case has nothing to do with what is happening now in the country.

What Pelosi and Maddow are trying to do is use an unrelated event to try and get their opponents to shut up and meekly accept government health care and the massive intrusion of government into our lives. They should be ashamed at drawing such a comparison.

The San Joaquin Valley Crisis

Delta Smelt

I have been following the crisis in California's San Joaquin Valley lately. The basic issue is that this valley, once America's breadbasket, has been thrown into a condition of draught and unemployment for the past several months due to the federal government's decision (Dept. of Interior) to shut off the water supply to the valley. Reason? To protect a tiny minnow fish called the Delta Smelt. As a result, tens of thousands of farmers have been thrown out of work, many are now on food lines, and the fields are barren. Appeals to the Dept. of Interior have fallen on deaf ears.

In addition, California politicians in Washington, Nancy Pelosi and George Miller, both Democrats, have acted to block any bills that would save the farmers from their plight. They need the water turned back on, but the environmentalist lobby is prevailing.

Tonight, Sean Hannity devoted his show on Fox to the issue broadcasting from the San Joaquin Valley with a large crowd of farmers as backdrop. He pointed out that unemployment among the local farmers is now around 40%. Three sympathetic local politicians, two Republicans and one Democrat were interviewed. Also interviewed via video live was Governor Schwarzenegger, who apparently has no decision-making power in this issue. (He received a very mixed reception from the crowd.) Schwarzenegger appealed to President Obama to act to get the water turned back on. Also interviewed was actor Paul Rodriguez, who has been involved in this issue, and if I am not mistaken, hails from the area. (I have previously heard Rodriguez lobbying for this issue on radio.)

This is an issue of farmers' jobs vs the Delta Smelt-and the Delta Smelt is winning due to the influence of the environmentalists, activist judges and a hostile Interior Dept (to the farmers) under Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. It represents a serious issue of tens of thousands of farmers being thrown into poverty-and Washington doesn't care, apparently.

Meanwhile, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, ironically, also devoted a segment to the Interior Department, not about the San Joaquin Valley issue, but to George W. Bush Administration Interior Secretary Gail Norton. The bit implied a conflict of interest on Norton's part over a decision she made that was favorable to Shell oil, who is now Norton's employer. Maddow added that Norton is now being investigated and pointed out that this would make Norton the first Bush cabinet secretary to come under investigation.

Very interesting. I'd say that's a pretty good record for the Bush Administration considering that about half of Bill Clinton's cabinet had special prosecutors assigned to them-while they were in office.

But I digress.

Great Ideas for ACORN Stings

Now that five videos have come out showing James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles selling their story about brothels and under-age Salvadoran prostitutes to "a handful" of ACORN's "highly-trained" counselors, it is obvious that this cover story, as ingenious as it is, is no longer able to be used.

Brilliant!! Who would have guessed?

Thus, it is necessary to come up with some new ideas and cover stories to fool the sharpies at ACORN. Clearly, new faces are now needed. In that spirit, here are a few suggestions.

"Hi! We're Philip and Nancy Garrido. We need a place with an attached back yard where we can hide this girl I kidnapped 18 years ago. Can you help us?"

"Sure. Let's see. That's a form 85F. Sign here."

"Hi! I'm Adolf and this is my squeeze Eva. We're looking for a bunker to hide out in. Can you help us?"

"Sure. Just fill out this form. Last name, please."

"Hi! I'm Mickey the Mac, and this is my prostitute friend, Minnie. We need to set up a bordello and we're bringing in underage mice from Jupiter. Can you help us?"

"Sure, just fill out this form. Just say they are fully-grown rats. Hey MIckey! Didn't I register you to vote last year?"

"Hi! I'm Porky Pimp, and this is my prostitute friend, Petunia. We need a place to set up a bordello. We're going to bring in underage piglets from Saudi Arabia. Can you help us?"

"Sure, just fill out this form. I'd recommend Tijuana instead. The pork is better, and I got friends in Tijuana"

"Hi! We're the Manson family. We need to break Charlie out of prison and need a place nearby. Can you help us?"

"Let's see. Hey Myrtle, bring me a few form 75Ds. You know, I killed someone once. Shot my husband. He died."

"Hi! I'm Donald Duck, and this is my prostitute friend, Daisy. We need a place to set up a bordello. We're going to bring in underage ducklings from Denmark. Can you help us?"

"Sure, just fill out this form. By the way, Daisy, how much do you charge?"

So, whaddya think? Do you think they'll buy it.?