The scariest thing about the so-called "gaffe" by Delaware Republic Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell in the last debate between her and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons wasn't her questioning the presence in the constitution of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. It was that there seems to have been a room full of law students who don't really know or understand the First Amendment.
It was like walking into a room full of retarded people and saying "well, I see there aren't exactly any Einsteins in here"-and being greeted by howls of laughter.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is arguably the most flawed statement in the constitution, and has caused a lot of problems, due to the inherent fact that it was, on the face of it, somewhat short-sighted. When it was first written, this was an entirely Christian nation, but of multiple denominations. The clause was meant to insure, simply, that no single one of these Christian denominations would ever be granted status as THE state religion. It was an attempt to insure there would never be a "Church of America" that would predominate and potentially oppress other Christian denominations.
Thus, if you were a Catholic, or a Baptist, etc., the government could not, on behalf of any other denomination, prohibit your freedom to exercise your religious beliefs-in public or in private. Nor could it prohibit any church or denomination from meeting, holding services, taking tithes, or proselytizing, or from performing any other generally understood and accepted function of a religious denomination.
That was the whole extent of it, and it applied solely to the limits of the power of the federal government over this matter, as indeed was and is the case with all of the Bill of Rights. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions were further extended to the states in regards to the rights of its individual private citizens, or in the case of this amendment, religious organizations.
But nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" occur. This was a phrase first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in the way of explaining one aspect of the clause, to wit, that the government could not interfere with their rights.
Of course, things have changed in ways the founders could not have envisioned. Now we have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Pagans, and the clause now also applies to any of them to the extent that they are American citizens. Neither the state of Kentucky nor the federal government, nor my present hometown, has no more of a legitimate right to prevent me from participating in public rituals, or conducting my own private ones, than it does to prohibit Catholics from performing devotions to the Blessed Virgin, or to prevent Jews from conducting the next Passover celebration.
Naturally, there has been some chipping around the margins of religious expressions due to the unexpected influx of religions from then foreign cultures. As such, laws against polygamy have come into play, advocacy for women's rights and the protection of children have become predominant over the rights of religious expression, when those things have the potential to come into conflict. Other than these kinds of exceptions, however, owing solely to the extent they do come into conflict with the laws of society, government has no legitimate right to limit, restrict, or to ban religious expression, of any faith, whether it pertain to the majority Christian, or to the smallest minority sect.
Ironically, the same people that loudly trumpet the first part of the clause-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-seem to conveniently gloss over the corresponding portion-nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives government the right to prohibit religious expression, either on public or on private property, and it most certainly does not require, or even suggest, that the government should have the right to restrict legitimate religious expression or practice of Christian denominations for the presumed protection or other benefits of minority faiths. To imagine or to proffer that it does is turning the entire spirit of the First Amendment completely on its head. It does the exact opposite, in fact.
Not only does it prohibit such restrictions on religious expression, it actually encourages religious expressions and beliefs, of all religions. Religious expression in this country has always been a tradition. It was never restricted by the government, nor even within the government. The founders intent was quite plain on all these matters. Separation of church and state, when viewed in this context, is clearly a misnomer, and that was Christine O'Donnell's point. Separation of church and state has been used as a battering ram in order to minimize the extent of public expressions of religion. In some cases it has been used as an excuse to outright ban such religious expressions, which is not only turning the constitution on its head, its actually turning it into the very opposite of its original intent.
There is no legitimate right for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local government, to ban religious expression. In fact, it has the obligation to not do this, just as it has the further obligation to refrain from promoting or imposing a specific religious doctrine. That's the extent of it.
Again, that's what Christine O'Donnell was saying, and she was one hundred percent correct. The fact that law students in a university setting would find humor and presumably reason for derision in her remarks should give us all cause for concern. It's really quite sad, but of course, there is a political component to this.
Her opponent, Chris Coons, did not know the First Amendment as well as she did, and this is demonstrable, though of course you do not see this fact discussed by leftist bloggers and pundits. But the proof of this is a matter of public record.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said
The fact remains, no one has a legitimate reason to think that the establishment clause presupposes that no religious expression should ever be permitted in a public setting, whether such expressions are made by private citizens or by (gasp) public officials.
In fact, the right to free and open expression of religion is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and applies to all American citizens, of any and all faiths. That obligation in itself would seem to make it quite impossible for there to be "separation of church and state"-certainly to the extent that such a doctrine is defined by the left.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
It Has Been Prophesied
A national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group is calling on the FBI to investigate a message written in bacon at mosque in Florence.
Three chair members of the Islamic Center in Florence discovered the words "pig" and "chump" written in strips of bacon on the walkway along the mosque Sunday afternoon.
Mushtaq Hussain was one of the members who discovered the message after concluding a prayer gathering. He initially thought the message was a practical joke.
"Then later on, we thought seriously and we thought, ‘You know, somebody doesn't like us,'" he said.
No shit Sherlock. Who would ever imagine that people in such a laid-back, easy going state as South Carolina would harbor malicious intentions towards Muslims? Granted there might be a few hotheads anywhere that might feel badly towards them, but they are doubtless a minority. Rumor has it that any day now Alvin Greene is going to hold a press conference and blame James DeMint.
Personally, though, I wonder if it might actually be the work of a little known group of cultists, who indeed have a very jealous, vengeful god. A God who demands that no other God should come before him, and who demands the utmost loyalty and devotion. I'm talking about this guy-
You will bow down before us, Muslim infidels, and worship the great God of Materialism. You will partake of the Holy Swine Flesh. We can afford to wait. We can afford to be patient. It is only a matter of time.
Mwahahahahaaaaaaa
Three chair members of the Islamic Center in Florence discovered the words "pig" and "chump" written in strips of bacon on the walkway along the mosque Sunday afternoon.
Mushtaq Hussain was one of the members who discovered the message after concluding a prayer gathering. He initially thought the message was a practical joke.
"Then later on, we thought seriously and we thought, ‘You know, somebody doesn't like us,'" he said.
No shit Sherlock. Who would ever imagine that people in such a laid-back, easy going state as South Carolina would harbor malicious intentions towards Muslims? Granted there might be a few hotheads anywhere that might feel badly towards them, but they are doubtless a minority. Rumor has it that any day now Alvin Greene is going to hold a press conference and blame James DeMint.
Personally, though, I wonder if it might actually be the work of a little known group of cultists, who indeed have a very jealous, vengeful god. A God who demands that no other God should come before him, and who demands the utmost loyalty and devotion. I'm talking about this guy-
You will bow down before us, Muslim infidels, and worship the great God of Materialism. You will partake of the Holy Swine Flesh. We can afford to wait. We can afford to be patient. It is only a matter of time.
Mwahahahahaaaaaaa
Monday, October 18, 2010
Barney Frank Going Down
Yeah I know that post title makes me an awful person, and its really not original, but bear with me as I explain just how clever the title really is. For you see, Barney Frank is indeed going down in at least two different ways, and maybe even three.
Granted, the first one is an assumption as to his own personal peccadilloes, but lets assume its a given that he has, maybe is at any given time, and at some point in the future is likely to go down. I wouldn't care about that, except for the simple obvious fact that it is not only a reflection of who Barney Frank is and the kind of person he is-it has affected his overall judgment and defines his ethics as a member of the House of Representatives, a position he has held for going on thirty years.
As the first openly gay member of Congress, Frank came close to being kicked out of the House for engaging in an affair with a male prostitute named Steve Gobi, who ran a brothel out of the basement of Frank's Washington home. Frank got out of a jam over the affair by simply feigning ignorance, but there was no denying the myriads of strings he pulled on behalf of his then male lover, running the gamut from fixing parking tickets (more than thirty of them) to interceding on his behalf with the man's probation officer.
Only in the Democratic Party could an office-holder parlay such a history into power as a committee chairman, but in Franks case, his ultimate triumph over adversity seems to have paved the way for what has followed since. Over time, he eventually became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
By the time of the advent of the Clinton presidency, Frank had begun a relationship with a man named Herb Moses, who was a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae, a company that, along with Freddie Mac, Frank had a good deal of influence over. He interceded on their behalf numerous times throughout both the Clinton and Bush eras, and though his relationship ended in the late nineties, Frank still maintained close connections to the company, in addition to Freddie Mac, and received a great amount of money from them in the way of campaign donations, even though Frank's committee was charged with overseeing both of these companies.
Yet all the while, Frank was at the forefront of resisting any calls to more closely regulate and monitor the two companies activities, insisting that they had no problems that warranted any undue federal oversight over and above what was already established.
In effect, Frank not only set the stage for the housing bubble and subsequent crash that followed, he was to all practical intents and purposes, one of the main architects of the disaster.
Let's be clear about this-Frank was not the lone offender here, but he was certainly one of the most powerful and influential members of Congress involved in the debacle. Even former President Clinton said as much.
That Frank's action's leading to the collapse of the housing market are criminal, and actionable, is almost beyond dispute, and he knows it. Which would probably explain his unusual actions over the last few weeks. He has so far engaged in five debates with his opponent, Sean Bielat, who has actually raised more money than Frank in the last three weeks. Ordinarily, Frank would not be concerned enough to engage in more than maybe one obligatory show debate, if that, but five?
Even though Bielat more than likely will not defeat Frank, who typically wins re-election by well over twenty-five percentage points, he may well do enough to register as a decent opponent. I would not be surprised if he were defeated by a mere five or six points. But I am not getting my hopes up too greatly that he will win, and I find it hard to believe that Frank is inordinately worried about such a prospect.
But, Frank is worried about something.
In one debate, it came out that Frank and his current boyfriend were flown by jet to a island resort owned by a man big in the securities market, which of course Frank's committee is supposed to oversee. Of course he denied a conflict of interest, but the story is now out at any rate.
Then, in what has to be one of the most bizarre incidents of this or any campaign season (and that's really saying something) Sean Bielat, in the course of a local interview, was verbally harassed by a man holding a camera to his face who told him "you're not funny".
The man turned out to be-Barney Frank's boyfriend.
Below is a video of the incident.
Such behavior can only mean one thing. Frank knows that, even if he does win re-election, he is going to be returning to a house with an entirely different made-up from the one he knows now. He's not merely going to be a minority member of a House of Representatives with an overwhelming Republican majority, but many of those members are going to be Tea-Party Republicans-and they are going to be out for blood. And Barney Frank is already saddled with, ironically, a great big target on his ass.
For now, the least he can do-really the only thing he can do-is try to get out in front of it while he has a chance, try to make his case and possibly set up some kind of way out. Right now, I can't think of any other reason for this kind of oddball public behavior.
Despite these and whatever other desperate tactics he might try to cover his ass, or to excuse his past actions, he could very well, and more than likely will, find himself the object of a House Ethics investigation that in all likelihood will lead to his censure, possibly his expulsion from the House, and maybe even a prosecution somewhere down the line.
So yes, indeed, Barney Frank could very well go down, and maybe even spend the remainder of his years in prison orange, an old queen in a cell of his own making.
But hey-this is Barney Frank. I'm sure he'll figure out a way, as usual, to make the best of a bad situation.
Granted, the first one is an assumption as to his own personal peccadilloes, but lets assume its a given that he has, maybe is at any given time, and at some point in the future is likely to go down. I wouldn't care about that, except for the simple obvious fact that it is not only a reflection of who Barney Frank is and the kind of person he is-it has affected his overall judgment and defines his ethics as a member of the House of Representatives, a position he has held for going on thirty years.
As the first openly gay member of Congress, Frank came close to being kicked out of the House for engaging in an affair with a male prostitute named Steve Gobi, who ran a brothel out of the basement of Frank's Washington home. Frank got out of a jam over the affair by simply feigning ignorance, but there was no denying the myriads of strings he pulled on behalf of his then male lover, running the gamut from fixing parking tickets (more than thirty of them) to interceding on his behalf with the man's probation officer.
Only in the Democratic Party could an office-holder parlay such a history into power as a committee chairman, but in Franks case, his ultimate triumph over adversity seems to have paved the way for what has followed since. Over time, he eventually became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
By the time of the advent of the Clinton presidency, Frank had begun a relationship with a man named Herb Moses, who was a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae, a company that, along with Freddie Mac, Frank had a good deal of influence over. He interceded on their behalf numerous times throughout both the Clinton and Bush eras, and though his relationship ended in the late nineties, Frank still maintained close connections to the company, in addition to Freddie Mac, and received a great amount of money from them in the way of campaign donations, even though Frank's committee was charged with overseeing both of these companies.
Yet all the while, Frank was at the forefront of resisting any calls to more closely regulate and monitor the two companies activities, insisting that they had no problems that warranted any undue federal oversight over and above what was already established.
In effect, Frank not only set the stage for the housing bubble and subsequent crash that followed, he was to all practical intents and purposes, one of the main architects of the disaster.
Let's be clear about this-Frank was not the lone offender here, but he was certainly one of the most powerful and influential members of Congress involved in the debacle. Even former President Clinton said as much.
That Frank's action's leading to the collapse of the housing market are criminal, and actionable, is almost beyond dispute, and he knows it. Which would probably explain his unusual actions over the last few weeks. He has so far engaged in five debates with his opponent, Sean Bielat, who has actually raised more money than Frank in the last three weeks. Ordinarily, Frank would not be concerned enough to engage in more than maybe one obligatory show debate, if that, but five?
Even though Bielat more than likely will not defeat Frank, who typically wins re-election by well over twenty-five percentage points, he may well do enough to register as a decent opponent. I would not be surprised if he were defeated by a mere five or six points. But I am not getting my hopes up too greatly that he will win, and I find it hard to believe that Frank is inordinately worried about such a prospect.
But, Frank is worried about something.
In one debate, it came out that Frank and his current boyfriend were flown by jet to a island resort owned by a man big in the securities market, which of course Frank's committee is supposed to oversee. Of course he denied a conflict of interest, but the story is now out at any rate.
Then, in what has to be one of the most bizarre incidents of this or any campaign season (and that's really saying something) Sean Bielat, in the course of a local interview, was verbally harassed by a man holding a camera to his face who told him "you're not funny".
The man turned out to be-Barney Frank's boyfriend.
Below is a video of the incident.
Such behavior can only mean one thing. Frank knows that, even if he does win re-election, he is going to be returning to a house with an entirely different made-up from the one he knows now. He's not merely going to be a minority member of a House of Representatives with an overwhelming Republican majority, but many of those members are going to be Tea-Party Republicans-and they are going to be out for blood. And Barney Frank is already saddled with, ironically, a great big target on his ass.
For now, the least he can do-really the only thing he can do-is try to get out in front of it while he has a chance, try to make his case and possibly set up some kind of way out. Right now, I can't think of any other reason for this kind of oddball public behavior.
Despite these and whatever other desperate tactics he might try to cover his ass, or to excuse his past actions, he could very well, and more than likely will, find himself the object of a House Ethics investigation that in all likelihood will lead to his censure, possibly his expulsion from the House, and maybe even a prosecution somewhere down the line.
So yes, indeed, Barney Frank could very well go down, and maybe even spend the remainder of his years in prison orange, an old queen in a cell of his own making.
But hey-this is Barney Frank. I'm sure he'll figure out a way, as usual, to make the best of a bad situation.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Rand Paul-Pride And Petulance
Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the Senate, debated tonight with his opponent, Democratic candidate Attorney General Jack Conway. Although I have endorsed Paul, and continue to do so, I have to admit, he did not acquit himself well tonight. Oh, for the most part, it was the typical debate, the kind that would change no one's mind, the kind geared towards winning over the relative handful of undecideds. Unfortunately, if those undecideds end up deciding the race, I am afraid Paul is in trouble.
This is due mainly to his response to one charge leveled by Conway early in the debate, a charge that has been the subject of a recent attack ad leveled against Paul. He supposedly while in college belonged to a secret society which ridiculed Christianity and the Bible. Additionally, he allegedly at one point tied a woman up and forced her to bow down to his god, which Conway described as a "false idol" named "Aqua Buddha".
Paul denied the charge, lambasting Conway for leveling untrue charges from his college days thirty years ago. I can see why. If there is any truth at all to the charge, Paul knows it would not exactly play well in conservative Kentucky. But if it is true, he should own up to it.
My guess-if there is anything to this story, it probably involves not so much a serious religious belief as a secret society, Skull-And-Bones type ritual initiation.
The name of the woman involved in the charge was never given (Paul referred to her as an anonymous accuser), but if it really happened I suspect she was a part of the ritual and the words attributed to her have been edited and taken completely out of context.
Still, Paul knows what is at stake here, and can't take the chance this late in the game, when most polls put the race at too close to call, with Paul holding a slim lead just within the margin of error.
There were other things, other charges, leveled against both candidates, and they both did a good job of answering them, despite the unmistakable hint of political snake-oil that pervaded the overall atmosphere coming from both camps.
Notably, charges that Paul wished to impose a two-thousand dollar Medicare deductible (which he has been recorded saying numerous times), as well as the charge that he did not take Kentucky's drug problem with sufficient seriousness. The charge that he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, mining safety rules, even Social Security, etc., were all par for the course insofar as charges typically leveled against conservative Republicans and especially Tea-Party favorites such as Paul. Paul did an adequate job of defending himself from these accusations, for the most part, while pointing out that under Attorney General Conway's watch, meth labs and drug related crimes were on the rise. At one point, he even suggested Conway return his salary for the month of September due to his absence from the state to raise mo0ney for his campaign, citing alleged meetings with Nancy Pelosi in California.
Conway responded that it was Paul who derived the majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.
The most notable charges against Conway were that he accepted donations from utility companies, who have lately raised their rates, and that he supported Obama's agenda in full, especially Obamacare, which he refused to challenge in the courts at the side of various other states Attorney's General that have done so.
Conway scored one major point in his own defense, however. He claims to have challenged the EPA in court when it tried to impose Cap And Trade. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it might be enough to sway some independents in its own right. It certainly is strange however that I was not aware of it.
Overall, however, the night ended on a sour note, when Paul in his closing statement declared that he would not shake hands with Conway, due to his accusations and slurs against his faith-making sure at the end the audience understood that he and his wife were Christians. At the very end, he all but stormed off the stage, past Conway, who just stood there.
Paul might have thought this was a matter of principle, but it looked more to me like a matter of petulance.
I still hope he wins, and I think he will still pull it out, but if he does not, you can trace his downfall to his performance this night.
This is due mainly to his response to one charge leveled by Conway early in the debate, a charge that has been the subject of a recent attack ad leveled against Paul. He supposedly while in college belonged to a secret society which ridiculed Christianity and the Bible. Additionally, he allegedly at one point tied a woman up and forced her to bow down to his god, which Conway described as a "false idol" named "Aqua Buddha".
Paul denied the charge, lambasting Conway for leveling untrue charges from his college days thirty years ago. I can see why. If there is any truth at all to the charge, Paul knows it would not exactly play well in conservative Kentucky. But if it is true, he should own up to it.
My guess-if there is anything to this story, it probably involves not so much a serious religious belief as a secret society, Skull-And-Bones type ritual initiation.
The name of the woman involved in the charge was never given (Paul referred to her as an anonymous accuser), but if it really happened I suspect she was a part of the ritual and the words attributed to her have been edited and taken completely out of context.
Still, Paul knows what is at stake here, and can't take the chance this late in the game, when most polls put the race at too close to call, with Paul holding a slim lead just within the margin of error.
There were other things, other charges, leveled against both candidates, and they both did a good job of answering them, despite the unmistakable hint of political snake-oil that pervaded the overall atmosphere coming from both camps.
Notably, charges that Paul wished to impose a two-thousand dollar Medicare deductible (which he has been recorded saying numerous times), as well as the charge that he did not take Kentucky's drug problem with sufficient seriousness. The charge that he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, mining safety rules, even Social Security, etc., were all par for the course insofar as charges typically leveled against conservative Republicans and especially Tea-Party favorites such as Paul. Paul did an adequate job of defending himself from these accusations, for the most part, while pointing out that under Attorney General Conway's watch, meth labs and drug related crimes were on the rise. At one point, he even suggested Conway return his salary for the month of September due to his absence from the state to raise mo0ney for his campaign, citing alleged meetings with Nancy Pelosi in California.
Conway responded that it was Paul who derived the majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.
The most notable charges against Conway were that he accepted donations from utility companies, who have lately raised their rates, and that he supported Obama's agenda in full, especially Obamacare, which he refused to challenge in the courts at the side of various other states Attorney's General that have done so.
Conway scored one major point in his own defense, however. He claims to have challenged the EPA in court when it tried to impose Cap And Trade. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it might be enough to sway some independents in its own right. It certainly is strange however that I was not aware of it.
Overall, however, the night ended on a sour note, when Paul in his closing statement declared that he would not shake hands with Conway, due to his accusations and slurs against his faith-making sure at the end the audience understood that he and his wife were Christians. At the very end, he all but stormed off the stage, past Conway, who just stood there.
Paul might have thought this was a matter of principle, but it looked more to me like a matter of petulance.
I still hope he wins, and I think he will still pull it out, but if he does not, you can trace his downfall to his performance this night.
Code Pink-Their Mission Was Clear
Code Pink was out in the open insofar as their goals in Iraq, and everyone in Congress knew about it, or should have known. That would especially include Congressmen like Henry Waxman, whose district many Code Pink members called home. Yet, Wzxman, through his office, denied any knowledge of the true extent of Code Pink's activities in Iraq.
In September 2004, Code Pink participated in and endorsed the Beirut communique, which supported “the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations” and called for “the unconditional withdrawal of US and “coalition” forces from Iraq.”
Waxman was not the only Democrat to send a letter for Code Pink’s ‘Fallujah aid’. According to a report by Islam Online published January 4, 2005, (and mysteriously removed this past week) diplomatic letters were also provided to Code Pink/Global Exchange by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH).
Big Government first reported about the letters last year in an expose about the ties between Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson wrote last Friday at Big Peace about Waxman’s letter.
In 2009, Democrats Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Rep. Sonny Carson (IN) provided similar letters for Code Pink’s delivery of aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Where to begin? Powerful members of the House and Senate, including a former presidential candidate, colluding with internal domestic enemies of the nation engaging in the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to not just any enemy, but an enemy insurgency (which Code Pink referred to repeatedly as "freedom fighters") that was engaged in the process of attacking and killing American soldiers on the field of battle.
As aptly demonstrated, Code Pink made no secret of their beliefs and their objectives in making the trip.
If this was Talk Like A Pirate Day I would say "AAARRRGGGHHH Hang 'Em From The Highest Yardarm!"
But since its not Talk Like A Pirate Day, I'll just keep it simple and succinct-
Hang the miserable bastards.
In September 2004, Code Pink participated in and endorsed the Beirut communique, which supported “the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations” and called for “the unconditional withdrawal of US and “coalition” forces from Iraq.”
Waxman was not the only Democrat to send a letter for Code Pink’s ‘Fallujah aid’. According to a report by Islam Online published January 4, 2005, (and mysteriously removed this past week) diplomatic letters were also provided to Code Pink/Global Exchange by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH).
Big Government first reported about the letters last year in an expose about the ties between Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson wrote last Friday at Big Peace about Waxman’s letter.
In 2009, Democrats Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Rep. Sonny Carson (IN) provided similar letters for Code Pink’s delivery of aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Where to begin? Powerful members of the House and Senate, including a former presidential candidate, colluding with internal domestic enemies of the nation engaging in the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to not just any enemy, but an enemy insurgency (which Code Pink referred to repeatedly as "freedom fighters") that was engaged in the process of attacking and killing American soldiers on the field of battle.
As aptly demonstrated, Code Pink made no secret of their beliefs and their objectives in making the trip.
If this was Talk Like A Pirate Day I would say "AAARRRGGGHHH Hang 'Em From The Highest Yardarm!"
But since its not Talk Like A Pirate Day, I'll just keep it simple and succinct-
Hang the miserable bastards.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California)-Traitor
From Babalu
In December 2004 a group led by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, founders of Code Pink traveled from Amman, Jordan into Fallujah, Iraq to provide “humanitarian” supplies to Iraqi insurgents who, at that time, were fighting and killing American Marines. 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War at that time in Fallujah.
Code Pink, a radical leftist group that reviles American troops as terrorists and assassins while praising their enemies as freedom fighters, brought $600,000 in cash and supplies to enemies of the United States at the end of 2004, while war was fiercely waging. For years, Code Pink has viciously harassed wounded veterans and their families outside Walter Reed Hospital, even telling the mother of a slain Navy Seal that her son “deserved to die.” Code Pink actively supports terror groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
Who was this sole Senator that provided a letter of request for diplomatic courtesy to the US Embassy in Jordan to allow safe passage for the group organized by Code Pink to travel from Jordan into Iraq. None other than the leftist Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who, it seems, will do anything for Benjamin, Evans and their leftist Code Pink group.
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
I don't know where to begin. It's one thing to give aid to displaced families who are war time refugees, but its something else again to give material support to the enemy, during a time of war, when our soldiers were at the time already facing severe hardships and many were sacrificing life and limb.
Of course, you look at groups like Code Pink, and you know that kind of thing is par for the course. It enrages me that they are not prosecuted for such activities. But then you look at the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer, and you see why. She is an enabler and a supporter in more ways than one. If anyone tried to prosecute this group, Boxer would be in their corner, protecting their fictitious rights to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of rendering aid to victims of war.
But then, to go so far as to write a letter requesting diplomatic privilege to this group of low-lifes, actually puts her on the same level. Whatever Code Pink did in the course of this trip, Boxer might as well have been right there with them, in person.
And the really sad thing? She might actually be re-elected as the Senator from California. To be sure, she's in trouble, and she might very well lose, but the fact that the race is so close its impossible to make a clear prediction one way or another tells you all you need to know as to why California is in such sorry shape.
Is Fiorina, Boxer's opponent, a RINO? I don't know, but she probably is. That seems to be the only kind of Republican who has a shot of winning a statewide election in California. But at least she's probably not a traitorous cunt, so I hope she pulls it out. I do hold firm to my last endorsement of Governor Moonbeam over Meg Whitman. Yes, technically, I would hands down prefer Whitman to win. But I know enough to realize that if she does, she is going to have to deal with a California legislature that is predominantly Democrat, and they will fight her every step of the way. The only way she can get anything accomplished will be by compromising, which means California's problems will never be solved. At best, it would be like the effect of Vicadin on a raging cancer. It might deaden the pain, but the final result will be inevitable. And when it happens, any Republican in a position of power is going to take the lion's share of the blame in the public mind. Let the Moonbeam take that blame, while he and his lunatic legislature brings California to the point of fiscal destruction.
Fiorina though is a different kettle of fish. Even if she is a RINO she will caucus with the GOP in the Senate and I think she will avoid any tendencies to compromise unnecessarily, although I worry mightily about any potential Cap And Trade and Immigration bills and how she might come down on them. But we will just have to wait and see about that. There's no way at least that she would be as big a leftist loon as Boxer, who has already shown her traitorous stripes.
And while were on the subject of Code Pink and their past forays into traitorous infamy, I will go ahead and point out that Boxer was not their only treasonous enabler from within the halls of Congress.
Letters were also provided by Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Waxman of course is as vile a creature as ever drew breath, hut this surprised even me. Kucinich is a pure bred nutcase, so no surprises there. As for Grijalva, I just recently became aware of this creature, who is in trouble in his own bid for election to the House of Representatives from Arizona.
One reason for that might be that he, a House member representing a district in Arizona, encouraged a boycott, against-Arizona, his own freaking state.
Yet, he signs a letter encouraging diplomatic recognition for the Code Pink sojourn into Iraq during a time of war?
And liberal Democrats wonder why so many non-liberal Americans question their patriotism.
In December 2004 a group led by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, founders of Code Pink traveled from Amman, Jordan into Fallujah, Iraq to provide “humanitarian” supplies to Iraqi insurgents who, at that time, were fighting and killing American Marines. 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War at that time in Fallujah.
Code Pink, a radical leftist group that reviles American troops as terrorists and assassins while praising their enemies as freedom fighters, brought $600,000 in cash and supplies to enemies of the United States at the end of 2004, while war was fiercely waging. For years, Code Pink has viciously harassed wounded veterans and their families outside Walter Reed Hospital, even telling the mother of a slain Navy Seal that her son “deserved to die.” Code Pink actively supports terror groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
Who was this sole Senator that provided a letter of request for diplomatic courtesy to the US Embassy in Jordan to allow safe passage for the group organized by Code Pink to travel from Jordan into Iraq. None other than the leftist Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who, it seems, will do anything for Benjamin, Evans and their leftist Code Pink group.
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
I don't know where to begin. It's one thing to give aid to displaced families who are war time refugees, but its something else again to give material support to the enemy, during a time of war, when our soldiers were at the time already facing severe hardships and many were sacrificing life and limb.
Of course, you look at groups like Code Pink, and you know that kind of thing is par for the course. It enrages me that they are not prosecuted for such activities. But then you look at the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer, and you see why. She is an enabler and a supporter in more ways than one. If anyone tried to prosecute this group, Boxer would be in their corner, protecting their fictitious rights to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of rendering aid to victims of war.
But then, to go so far as to write a letter requesting diplomatic privilege to this group of low-lifes, actually puts her on the same level. Whatever Code Pink did in the course of this trip, Boxer might as well have been right there with them, in person.
And the really sad thing? She might actually be re-elected as the Senator from California. To be sure, she's in trouble, and she might very well lose, but the fact that the race is so close its impossible to make a clear prediction one way or another tells you all you need to know as to why California is in such sorry shape.
Is Fiorina, Boxer's opponent, a RINO? I don't know, but she probably is. That seems to be the only kind of Republican who has a shot of winning a statewide election in California. But at least she's probably not a traitorous cunt, so I hope she pulls it out. I do hold firm to my last endorsement of Governor Moonbeam over Meg Whitman. Yes, technically, I would hands down prefer Whitman to win. But I know enough to realize that if she does, she is going to have to deal with a California legislature that is predominantly Democrat, and they will fight her every step of the way. The only way she can get anything accomplished will be by compromising, which means California's problems will never be solved. At best, it would be like the effect of Vicadin on a raging cancer. It might deaden the pain, but the final result will be inevitable. And when it happens, any Republican in a position of power is going to take the lion's share of the blame in the public mind. Let the Moonbeam take that blame, while he and his lunatic legislature brings California to the point of fiscal destruction.
Fiorina though is a different kettle of fish. Even if she is a RINO she will caucus with the GOP in the Senate and I think she will avoid any tendencies to compromise unnecessarily, although I worry mightily about any potential Cap And Trade and Immigration bills and how she might come down on them. But we will just have to wait and see about that. There's no way at least that she would be as big a leftist loon as Boxer, who has already shown her traitorous stripes.
And while were on the subject of Code Pink and their past forays into traitorous infamy, I will go ahead and point out that Boxer was not their only treasonous enabler from within the halls of Congress.
Letters were also provided by Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Waxman of course is as vile a creature as ever drew breath, hut this surprised even me. Kucinich is a pure bred nutcase, so no surprises there. As for Grijalva, I just recently became aware of this creature, who is in trouble in his own bid for election to the House of Representatives from Arizona.
One reason for that might be that he, a House member representing a district in Arizona, encouraged a boycott, against-Arizona, his own freaking state.
Yet, he signs a letter encouraging diplomatic recognition for the Code Pink sojourn into Iraq during a time of war?
And liberal Democrats wonder why so many non-liberal Americans question their patriotism.
Friday, October 15, 2010
October Surprise? The Coming Storm Pt. 2
We all know how Obama and the Democrats went all out, against every obstacle put up against them, to enact the Health Care Reform Bill known as The Affordable Care Act, euphemistically deemed "Obamacare". What many are not so much aware of is the extent to which the Administration and Congressional Democrats have been willing to go, and have gone, to protect the bill and to build support for it after the fact. This may well include, but is not necessarily limited to, an all out assault on any who might oppose important elements of the bill, including people within the private sector.
The following story is significant because it might well point to an example of the extent to which Obama and his supporters might be willing to go, including abuse of power. I'll just set forth a more or less condensed version of the controversy. To get the full scope, with all its implications, you might want to read the full story at The American Spectator.
The gist of the story involves a woman who on the surface appears to be nothing more than a lowly nun. But oh, what a nun she is! You may have heard of her. Her name is Sister Carol Keehan, and she is also the CEO of a charitable organization called Catholic Health Services, which is a lobbying group for Catholic Hospitals. Her prominence in this story however is based on her support for Obama's health care initiative, and how she brought that support to bear.
You might well remember the story of Representative Bart Stupak, the Michigan House member who initially opposed Obamacare, and then, after much pressure, finally agreed to support it. When he did so, despite his initial objections based on concerns about abortion coverage, it set the stage for other Blue Dog Democrats to fall in line behind him, like so many dominoes.
Sister Carol Keehan is, in fact, the major factor behind Bart Stupak's final decision to vote for Obamacare. For this reason, Sister Carol was one of the guests in attendance at the signing ceremony for the bill, and received as a memento one of the twenty-two ink pens President Obama used to sign the bill into law. She was such an important factor in the final passage of the bill into law, she was written up in Time Magazine, in an article about the 100 most influential people of 2010, by the widow of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, Victoria Reggie Kennedy. Kennedy was another guest at the signing ceremony, and she described Sister Carol's contribution in the most glowing of terms-not just for this particular endeavor, but for her years of work in health care, work that in 2007 put her at the top of the list of important people in health care.
Yes, because of Sister Carol Keehan primarily, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak relented and agreed to vote for the bill, as did numerous other Blue Dog Democrats-most of whom are now fighting for their political survival to no small extent due to their vote on this bill.
But Sister Carol's contributions don't end there. Before we go into that though, we have to muddle through what amounts to the immediate impact of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, as described in The American Spectator article linked at the start of the post-
Almost immediately -- it didn't take two months much less six -- the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by the Wall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; "multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others"; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald's, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.
In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh -- compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.
The corporate writedowns -- done in compliance with federal law -- resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO's and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated -- at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.
Unfortunately, many people involved at the receiving end of Obama's "reforms" have opted for the easy way out-by doing just that, getting out and cutting their losses while they still can.
Such seems to be the case of Mercy Health Partners decision to sell three Scranton Pennsylvania area hospitals, all of which comprise parts of two different Congressional districts, with seats currently being held by two gravely embattled House Democrats-Kanjorski and Carney. The three hospitals up for sale are-Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke; and the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock.
The announcement of the pending sale was release by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook. And here is where it just starts to get interesting. Back to the linked article.
The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 -- 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.
WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that "one big" reason for the sale "is the health care reform bill signed into law this year." Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:
"Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."
To make a long story short, this statement by Cook led to a second statement by him which amounted to a clarification. There were many factors involved in the decision, and though he listed some, The Affordable Care Act this time around did not make the cut. It was not even mentioned in the second statement. But even this wasn't the end. A few days later, Cook released yet a third statement, in which he stated, unequivocally, that the decision to sell the three Scranton area hospitals had nothing whatsoever to do with the Affordable Care Act, or any of its provisions, in any way.
The amazing thing about this post-retraction clarification was, it was preceded by a statement, issued by Sister Carol Keehan, to the effect that any claims made involving the Affordable Care Act in any decision to sell the three hospitals was nothing but an attempt to politicize the process. Again, from The American Spectator-
Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?
Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.
In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that "false motives" have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."
It was after this that the CEO issued first his second, and then his third statement, the later of which was an out-and-out retraction of the first statement.
Why? We can only conjecture at this point, but its fairly easy to connect the dots. Scranton is a heavily Catholic district, and home to three Catholic Hospitals, founded by the Sisters of Mercy, which date back to 1917. These three hospitals, which do not provide abortion services, are now on the auction block and may well be purchased by an entity or entities that might well provide such services. Scranton is also the home to not only two embattled House Democrats, but also to Senator Bob Casey, another Democrat who was elected on the strength of his pro-Life conservative credentials, and who is up for re-election himself in two years. Finally, it looks like the problems with these three hospitals can be traced in large measure back to the unintended consequences of the passage of The Affordable Care Act, which both House members as well as Senator Casey supported.
What is not known yet is what kind of pressure was brought to bear on CEO Kevin Cook and his associates, or how it was brought to bear on him, or by who. Sister Carol Keehan seems to be the front woman for someone else, the public face who is supposed to assuage the concerns of a Catholic constituency, while other shadowy forces lurk in the background pulling her strings.
If this story does break wide open, however, it might have far-ranging implications beyond just the Scranton area. It might explode onto the national scene as a harbinger of things yet to come, and lead to the crushing defeat of yet more congressional, and possibly Senate Democrats.
The American Spectator has been getting so many hits over this story, they have been crashing. You can also read the story, reprinted in its entirety by Pat Dollard.
You can also read of the controversy caused by Sister Carol's involvement in the health care bill in this piece by the Catholic News Agency.
The following story is significant because it might well point to an example of the extent to which Obama and his supporters might be willing to go, including abuse of power. I'll just set forth a more or less condensed version of the controversy. To get the full scope, with all its implications, you might want to read the full story at The American Spectator.
The gist of the story involves a woman who on the surface appears to be nothing more than a lowly nun. But oh, what a nun she is! You may have heard of her. Her name is Sister Carol Keehan, and she is also the CEO of a charitable organization called Catholic Health Services, which is a lobbying group for Catholic Hospitals. Her prominence in this story however is based on her support for Obama's health care initiative, and how she brought that support to bear.
You might well remember the story of Representative Bart Stupak, the Michigan House member who initially opposed Obamacare, and then, after much pressure, finally agreed to support it. When he did so, despite his initial objections based on concerns about abortion coverage, it set the stage for other Blue Dog Democrats to fall in line behind him, like so many dominoes.
Sister Carol Keehan is, in fact, the major factor behind Bart Stupak's final decision to vote for Obamacare. For this reason, Sister Carol was one of the guests in attendance at the signing ceremony for the bill, and received as a memento one of the twenty-two ink pens President Obama used to sign the bill into law. She was such an important factor in the final passage of the bill into law, she was written up in Time Magazine, in an article about the 100 most influential people of 2010, by the widow of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, Victoria Reggie Kennedy. Kennedy was another guest at the signing ceremony, and she described Sister Carol's contribution in the most glowing of terms-not just for this particular endeavor, but for her years of work in health care, work that in 2007 put her at the top of the list of important people in health care.
Yes, because of Sister Carol Keehan primarily, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak relented and agreed to vote for the bill, as did numerous other Blue Dog Democrats-most of whom are now fighting for their political survival to no small extent due to their vote on this bill.
But Sister Carol's contributions don't end there. Before we go into that though, we have to muddle through what amounts to the immediate impact of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, as described in The American Spectator article linked at the start of the post-
Almost immediately -- it didn't take two months much less six -- the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by the Wall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; "multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others"; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald's, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.
In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh -- compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.
The corporate writedowns -- done in compliance with federal law -- resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO's and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated -- at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.
Unfortunately, many people involved at the receiving end of Obama's "reforms" have opted for the easy way out-by doing just that, getting out and cutting their losses while they still can.
Such seems to be the case of Mercy Health Partners decision to sell three Scranton Pennsylvania area hospitals, all of which comprise parts of two different Congressional districts, with seats currently being held by two gravely embattled House Democrats-Kanjorski and Carney. The three hospitals up for sale are-Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke; and the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock.
The announcement of the pending sale was release by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook. And here is where it just starts to get interesting. Back to the linked article.
The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 -- 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.
WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that "one big" reason for the sale "is the health care reform bill signed into law this year." Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:
"Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."
To make a long story short, this statement by Cook led to a second statement by him which amounted to a clarification. There were many factors involved in the decision, and though he listed some, The Affordable Care Act this time around did not make the cut. It was not even mentioned in the second statement. But even this wasn't the end. A few days later, Cook released yet a third statement, in which he stated, unequivocally, that the decision to sell the three Scranton area hospitals had nothing whatsoever to do with the Affordable Care Act, or any of its provisions, in any way.
The amazing thing about this post-retraction clarification was, it was preceded by a statement, issued by Sister Carol Keehan, to the effect that any claims made involving the Affordable Care Act in any decision to sell the three hospitals was nothing but an attempt to politicize the process. Again, from The American Spectator-
Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?
Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.
In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that "false motives" have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."
It was after this that the CEO issued first his second, and then his third statement, the later of which was an out-and-out retraction of the first statement.
Why? We can only conjecture at this point, but its fairly easy to connect the dots. Scranton is a heavily Catholic district, and home to three Catholic Hospitals, founded by the Sisters of Mercy, which date back to 1917. These three hospitals, which do not provide abortion services, are now on the auction block and may well be purchased by an entity or entities that might well provide such services. Scranton is also the home to not only two embattled House Democrats, but also to Senator Bob Casey, another Democrat who was elected on the strength of his pro-Life conservative credentials, and who is up for re-election himself in two years. Finally, it looks like the problems with these three hospitals can be traced in large measure back to the unintended consequences of the passage of The Affordable Care Act, which both House members as well as Senator Casey supported.
What is not known yet is what kind of pressure was brought to bear on CEO Kevin Cook and his associates, or how it was brought to bear on him, or by who. Sister Carol Keehan seems to be the front woman for someone else, the public face who is supposed to assuage the concerns of a Catholic constituency, while other shadowy forces lurk in the background pulling her strings.
If this story does break wide open, however, it might have far-ranging implications beyond just the Scranton area. It might explode onto the national scene as a harbinger of things yet to come, and lead to the crushing defeat of yet more congressional, and possibly Senate Democrats.
The American Spectator has been getting so many hits over this story, they have been crashing. You can also read the story, reprinted in its entirety by Pat Dollard.
You can also read of the controversy caused by Sister Carol's involvement in the health care bill in this piece by the Catholic News Agency.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Coming Storm
This post is a work in progress, so consider this brief little bit s preview. I just don't have time to go into it now, but suffice it to say, if this news breaks, it could blow whatever slim chance Democrats have of avoiding total electoral catastrophe. I'm talking about the loss of close to a hundred house seats, and potentially enough Senate seats to put the Senate firmly in the control of Republicans.
I don't know if its true or not, which is why I don't want to venture too far down this road tonight without taking the time to do some basic fact checking. But, if it is true, it is really big. Think in terms of the voters as a big ocean, and the impact of this news, if it is true, as an earthquake below the surface, resulting in a tsunami at the polls. It could be that bad.
And it has to do with ObamaCare or, as Democrats like to call it, the "Affordable Health Care Act". It could have a major impact especially in Pennsylvania and the Mid-West in general. It could impact far beyond that, however, and since Delaware is a neighboring state, might be the news that puts Christine O'Donnell over the top.
Yes, it involves Joe Biden in a very big way, by virtue of the fact that the epicenter of the coming quake is in Scranton, his hometown. But it also involves Joe Sestak, Obama, and quite likely significant players within his Administration, as well as other congressional Democrats.
Okay, enough for now. More tomorrow.
I don't know if its true or not, which is why I don't want to venture too far down this road tonight without taking the time to do some basic fact checking. But, if it is true, it is really big. Think in terms of the voters as a big ocean, and the impact of this news, if it is true, as an earthquake below the surface, resulting in a tsunami at the polls. It could be that bad.
And it has to do with ObamaCare or, as Democrats like to call it, the "Affordable Health Care Act". It could have a major impact especially in Pennsylvania and the Mid-West in general. It could impact far beyond that, however, and since Delaware is a neighboring state, might be the news that puts Christine O'Donnell over the top.
Yes, it involves Joe Biden in a very big way, by virtue of the fact that the epicenter of the coming quake is in Scranton, his hometown. But it also involves Joe Sestak, Obama, and quite likely significant players within his Administration, as well as other congressional Democrats.
Okay, enough for now. More tomorrow.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Christine O'Donnell Kicks Coons Ass
I was going to blog about something else tonight, but after I saw the Delaware Senate debate on C-Span between O'Donnell and Coons, I had to make a comment on a number of points. First off, O'Donnell more than just held her own. To any objective observer, she handily won the debate. Coons was on the defensive almost through the entire debate, or at least through the last part of it (I missed most of the first half of the debate, so I can't fairly comment on that part).
There was one point where I thought O'Donnell had unwittingly stepped into a mine field, when she made the statement that China had plans to take over the US, plans that she was privy to by way of classified briefings. I thought to myself "okay, its over".
But then she explained that this briefing came about in the course of a trip to China which she undertook as part of some charitable group (I'm just going to assume this was some religious group, but I don't know). She went on to detail numerous ways where China has stood in opposition to our foreign policies, or has otherwise been a hindrance, on such matters as Iran and North Korea, while also pointing out the Chinese own a large part of our debt, something she went on to point out is an aspect of Democrats spending habits, stating quite pointedly that Coons as a Senator would almost certainly support this.
Coons in his attempt to rebut this started out derisively, as was his stance often through the debate, but amazingly went on to affirm that China was a real menace, economically. Of course, this was O'Donnell's major point to begin with-their main threat was economic, not military. It's almost like she baited the hook, and Coons swallowed it whole.
But even that, as bad as it was for Coons, was not the worse part. That would be when O'Donnell stated flatly that Coons and his family business stood to profit from the implementation of any Cap And Trade legislation. How? Well, the business manufactures hydrogen fuel cells, according to her.
Again, more dismissive derision from Coons, who nevertheless went on to explain that, no, his business does not manufacture hydrogen fuel cells-they merely make parts for them, but it would be years before they could stand to benefit from any type of alternative energy tax credits from the government.
Yeah, right. This affirms what I've always-well, not suspected, known. Most of these alternative energy lords are just as much out to profit from any potential energy policy as any oil company CEO. Global Climate Change is nothing more or less than a pretty clever sales pitch.
In the meantime, O'Donnell stated her own position, that it should be the states-Delaware, Virginia, etc., who decides on whether there should be off-shore drilling off their respective coasts, while pointing out further that the US is too energy and resource rich to stand for being held hostage by foreign oil under the control of potentially hostile nations.
There were multiple other points along these same lines, and I didn't always agree with her. I had to suppress a groan when she repeated the standard conservative cliche about embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cells. But then again, even here, she made a great point. If embryonic cells were valid forms of potentially profitable medical research, private companies wouldn't need government subsidies in order to engage in the research, which, remember, is perfectly legal with private capital. It is only federal funds which are banned from use for such research.
She hit all the right notes about abortion, DADT, etc. Everything she said was right on the money. Overturning Roe v Wade, she reminded the audience, would not make abortion illegal, it would merely turn the decision over to the individual states. DADT should be decided solely by the military. Admittedly, Coons made his one valid point of the night here when he compared a potential change in the law regarding gays in the military to Truman's integration of the armed forces. But it was his one and only moment of sanity.
The rest of the night, he spent acting like an arrogant toad for the special interests of Washington and bleeping about bi-partisanship, something that might well play in Delaware sufficiently for him to win the election, but on the other hand, when you listen to this guy you get the distinct impression that, to him, like so many other Democrats, bi-partisanship is when Republicans agree to give Democrats most of what they want. That song has gotten so old you just can't dance to it anymore without feeling like an idiot.
O'Donnell deserves to win this race, but I'm afraid she more than likely will not. That's just too bad. She proved tonight she could stand up to Coons, or anybody else, and more than hold her own. She is nobody's fool, while Coons, she reminded the audience, is so beholden to special interests that Harry Reid even referred to Coons once as his pet.
"I don't know why Harry Reid said that" whined Coons.
There was one point where I thought O'Donnell had unwittingly stepped into a mine field, when she made the statement that China had plans to take over the US, plans that she was privy to by way of classified briefings. I thought to myself "okay, its over".
But then she explained that this briefing came about in the course of a trip to China which she undertook as part of some charitable group (I'm just going to assume this was some religious group, but I don't know). She went on to detail numerous ways where China has stood in opposition to our foreign policies, or has otherwise been a hindrance, on such matters as Iran and North Korea, while also pointing out the Chinese own a large part of our debt, something she went on to point out is an aspect of Democrats spending habits, stating quite pointedly that Coons as a Senator would almost certainly support this.
Coons in his attempt to rebut this started out derisively, as was his stance often through the debate, but amazingly went on to affirm that China was a real menace, economically. Of course, this was O'Donnell's major point to begin with-their main threat was economic, not military. It's almost like she baited the hook, and Coons swallowed it whole.
But even that, as bad as it was for Coons, was not the worse part. That would be when O'Donnell stated flatly that Coons and his family business stood to profit from the implementation of any Cap And Trade legislation. How? Well, the business manufactures hydrogen fuel cells, according to her.
Again, more dismissive derision from Coons, who nevertheless went on to explain that, no, his business does not manufacture hydrogen fuel cells-they merely make parts for them, but it would be years before they could stand to benefit from any type of alternative energy tax credits from the government.
Yeah, right. This affirms what I've always-well, not suspected, known. Most of these alternative energy lords are just as much out to profit from any potential energy policy as any oil company CEO. Global Climate Change is nothing more or less than a pretty clever sales pitch.
In the meantime, O'Donnell stated her own position, that it should be the states-Delaware, Virginia, etc., who decides on whether there should be off-shore drilling off their respective coasts, while pointing out further that the US is too energy and resource rich to stand for being held hostage by foreign oil under the control of potentially hostile nations.
There were multiple other points along these same lines, and I didn't always agree with her. I had to suppress a groan when she repeated the standard conservative cliche about embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cells. But then again, even here, she made a great point. If embryonic cells were valid forms of potentially profitable medical research, private companies wouldn't need government subsidies in order to engage in the research, which, remember, is perfectly legal with private capital. It is only federal funds which are banned from use for such research.
She hit all the right notes about abortion, DADT, etc. Everything she said was right on the money. Overturning Roe v Wade, she reminded the audience, would not make abortion illegal, it would merely turn the decision over to the individual states. DADT should be decided solely by the military. Admittedly, Coons made his one valid point of the night here when he compared a potential change in the law regarding gays in the military to Truman's integration of the armed forces. But it was his one and only moment of sanity.
The rest of the night, he spent acting like an arrogant toad for the special interests of Washington and bleeping about bi-partisanship, something that might well play in Delaware sufficiently for him to win the election, but on the other hand, when you listen to this guy you get the distinct impression that, to him, like so many other Democrats, bi-partisanship is when Republicans agree to give Democrats most of what they want. That song has gotten so old you just can't dance to it anymore without feeling like an idiot.
O'Donnell deserves to win this race, but I'm afraid she more than likely will not. That's just too bad. She proved tonight she could stand up to Coons, or anybody else, and more than hold her own. She is nobody's fool, while Coons, she reminded the audience, is so beholden to special interests that Harry Reid even referred to Coons once as his pet.
"I don't know why Harry Reid said that" whined Coons.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Christine O'Donnell vs The Forces Of Evil
This is the kind of thing you have to put up with, I guess. Its politics, but I find it astounding all the same that a woman could be the victim of such demented rants as this. Of course, she's a "Tea-Bagger" so she deserves it. She's also an idiot, and "that's a fact", according to this guy, who strangely didn't go into a lot of detail as to why he felt that way, over than to toss around words like Tea-Bagger, conservative, and Republican. I picked this one out of numerous examples of assaults on Christine O'Donnell, just to make a point.
Imagine this woman was a Democrat (yes, I know this is an old screed in and of itself, but in this context it hits pretty close to home for me). Now imagine that a Republican supporter was to attack her and criticize her involvement in a "Satanic" religion, or call her a loony lefty earth worshiper.
Can you hear the roof blowing off from the Democrat outrage? I can. I think its pretty safe to say such a Republican attack would be greeted by charges of insensitivity and religious bigotry.
Sadly, she has in fact been attacked by Republicans, and not only by the leftist RINO Republican she beat in the Delaware Senate primary (quite handily at that), but by others of more national prominence, such as Karl Rove, who stated she needs to "explain" her involvement in witchcraft.
Frankly, I don't like it that she seems to feel on the defensive to such an extent that she began a recent televised ad with the heartfelt statement "I am not a witch". I don't know who advised her to make that ad, but frankly they should be fired from her campaign. A woman who quite plainly was involved at most at the fringes of what may or may not have been a Wiccan or Pagan coven, or more than likely a mere teen-age period of exploration and bullshit fun and games, owes no one an explanation, nor for that matter should she be required to explain herself even if she was, or even still is, actually involved in such a path. It would be her right, a right that is, after all, protected by the constitution.
Of course, she was not then nor was she ever a Wiccan, a Druid, a Pagan, an Asatruer, a Voudoun, or anything else in the way of a non-traditional religious path, so its really a moot point. Or it should be. Nevertheless, not only is she being mercilessly attacked by Democrats and liberals, which should really come as no surprise to any familiar with leftist hypocrisy, but sadly, protests from the leftist mainstream of the Wiccan/Pagan movement are few and far between. What there is appears mainly focused on criticisms of O'Donnell for seeming to equate witchcraft and paganism in general with Satanism-which is in fact a pretty good indication that she was never involved other than very tangentially at most with any pagan path.
Of course, as the majority of Pagans, especially Wiccans, are leftist in their political orientation, this might be understandable to a point. But this is putting the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" on a whole new level.
Here we have a case of Democrats and liberals condescendingly pointing to expressions of prior involvement in witchcraft as the sign of a deranged individual who is unfit for public office. And you have Pagans and Wiccans, many of whom are practicing witches, tacitly agreeing by way of their silence.
Thus, you have a mindset which proffers that such a woman is either incompetent, or crazy, or evil, and for that reason, she might and probably will lose an important election to a man who is a Democrat-in my own personal opinion lately, the personification of evil if ever there was one.
O'Donnell's opponent, Coons, is a man who over the course of several years has raised property taxes in Delaware by 48%, and supported numerous other kinds of tax hikes, seemingly as naturally as one might draw breath.
So just who again is the devil worshiper here?
I heard rumors to the effect that O'Donnell might be gaining support. I hope so and I hope she wins, regardless of her true religion-she is evidently a very conservative Christian, in reality, which might well explain the deafening silence of leftist pagans towards the derision she has faced as someone who allegedly experimented with witchcraft.
What matters to me is how she will vote in the Senate if she is elected. Who she prays to, and how she lives her personal, private life-now or in the past-is incidental at best, so long as she currently lives an ethical life of integrity, which is all that really matters.
But let's be clear about something that has been steadily overlooked. Delaware, while a blue state, is a state that is controlled by banking and corporate interests. If O'Donnell pulls this out, it won't be by way of help from them. Take that how you will.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Crying Game-3 and 4
Previously-British soldier Jodi while off-duty was taken captive by members of the Irish Republican Army and held for ransom. Told he would be killed if the British did not accede to their demands for a hostage exchange, he was then befriended by Fergus.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Lennon-If He Were Seventy
Today is the day John Lennon would have turned seventy years old were he still alive, and many now are wondering what he would be like. How would he look at our world today. As I feel that I know him as well as anybody who never actually met the man, I can speak with some certitude about this individual who came to be seen as one of the most important voices of his generation.
Make no mistake about it. Lennon was very much an anti-war social liberal, revolutionary, and activist, but he was also complicated. He expressed once that he was an economic conservative. To many, that seems contradictory, but not to me. I would imagine his more conservative economic leanings might have arisen from a glance at his first paycheck. He was appalled as anyone at government abuse and bureaucratic malfeasance, and it made not one whit of difference to him whether this was born of liberal or conservative philosophy.
However, it is unwise to make too much of this. Without a doubt, Lennon would have been dismayed by the current state of the world's economies, and doubtless would have been a vocal critic of both of this decade's US led wars, in Afghanistan every bit as much as Iraq. At the same time, I can't see him as being an apologist for radical Islam, and probably not even traditional, mainstream Islam, for that matter.
And I personally have no doubt that he would have hailed the candidacy of Barak Obama as a watershed moment not only in US but in world history. He would have supported him, and in fact Obama might have even been the first politician to win his personal endorsement.
Having said that, I honestly believe Lennon would have been personally dismayed at the almost messianic tone of much of Obama's campaign, and would have looked at the greater mass of Obama supporters as sheep, and as outright fools. To be sure, much of this might well have been borne of jealousy.
Be that as it may, Lennon's feelings about American politics was fairly straight-forward. In his view, every four years Americans elected a "big daddy" to yell and scream at, at the end of which they often times kick him out of office, whereupon they would proceed to elect another daddy on whom to repeat the process. He would probably surmise that Obama would come to a sad end politically. No doubt, he would take a moderate view towards any resultant criticisms of him, or any politician.
I don't know how he would view the Tea-Party. While I am sure he would be opposed to most of their views, I like to think he would at least study the movement and come to an independent conclusion as to their sincerity, without jumping to the conclusion they were all or mostly racists and/or regressive reactionaries. He would almost certainly appreciate their opposition to ever expanding government control over so many sectors of society.
On certain policies, its harder to judge. He would probably jump on the Global Climate Change Bandwagon, but would probably look with suspicion on government mandates, preferring instead to encourage private individual action and initiative whenever possible or practical. He had that kind of faith. As a Brit, he probably would have seen universal health care as a no-brainer, but would probably view the current recently enacted American system with a great deal of skepticism. I can just hear him saying "what the fuck is this mess?"
More importantly, from a creative standpoint, I can't see Lennon as ever retiring as long as he lived so long as he maintained his health. I think he would have embraced modern technology. He would gladly and gleefully have released songs over the internet, for free. He would probably feel he had an obligation to reach as many as possible, and would have expressed his views on many of the topics of the day. With the wealth he would have by now accumulated, he would have no reason not to do so, for one thing, and for another, he would have seized the opportunity as a promotional gimmick. He would have been right at home over the net. In fact, if both he and Harrison had lived on and all four Beatles yet lived today, I can envision the prospect of a Beatles reunion and concert taking place live over the Internet, at John's instigation.
Another thing about Lennon that is noteworthy. He was no fan of political correctness, which is one reason I think he would have judged the Tea-Party folks more fairly than most on the left. At the same time, he would have almost certainly and consistently adopted and used the term Tea-bagger to describe them, if for no other reason than he would have thought it was funny (which, frankly, it is), and if the term had not been coined, Lennon would in all probability have coined it himself.
Lenno0n was dismayed when his song "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" was banned from most radio airwaves due to inclusion of the word "Nigger" in the title and lyrics. The thought that the word might be too offensive to be used publicly, even in a symbolic way, never occurred to him.
And then there were his merciless jibes at former Beatles manager Brian Epstein, a known homosexual.
From his Wikipedia entry-
Lennon delighted in mocking Epstein for his homosexuality and for the fact that he was Jewish, often ridiculing him with sarcastic remarks.[111] When Epstein invited suggestions for his autobiography title, Lennon offered Queer Jew.[112] On learning of the eventual title, A Cellarful of Noise, he said to a friend, "More like A Cellarful of Boys".[113] He demanded of a visitor to Epstein's flat, "Have you come to blackmail him? If not, you're the only bugger in London who hasn't."[111] And he taunted Epstein with twisted Beatles lyrics, changing "baby, you're a rich man too" to "baby, you're a rich fag Jew".[1
Of course, this means nothing, as Lennon had a deep and abiding respect and even love for Epstein, though I am pretty certain he would take exception to later day theories about any "love affair" many wishfully think happened between the two of them.
All in all, Lennon was a man who seized the moment, and when he found himself in too deep, he stopped digging that hole, and then he pulled himself out, and then he started digging all over again. He made the most out of his situation at any given time. Or at least he tried to do so. And, as oftentimes happens when a person finds himself in a position of fame and notoriety, he arrived at the point where he thought he should make it count for something. But there were times when his heart obviously wasn't in it. He found his real true calling when he and Yoko Ono rebuilt their relationship, and started their own family. His muse was reborn, and he recaptured the moment, up until the moment of his untimely demise.
I can easily understand why he has maintained such a strong degree of affection even today. But frankly, I would not feel at home with the majority of his admirers when they gather at the various parks, such as near the Dakota, in order to mark the anniversary of his birth, or death, while playing his music, and pushing their views of what John probably would have had to say about first one or another leftist cause. I would definitely be as much of an outsider around most Lennon fans as I would be at a Democratic Party candidate's rally.
On the other hand, I think I could almost feel Lennon's spirit, playfully suggesting-
"Ah, come on mate, I know its all a load of crap, but you know, it might be a right load of fun too, right? You might even get laid."
Make no mistake about it. Lennon was very much an anti-war social liberal, revolutionary, and activist, but he was also complicated. He expressed once that he was an economic conservative. To many, that seems contradictory, but not to me. I would imagine his more conservative economic leanings might have arisen from a glance at his first paycheck. He was appalled as anyone at government abuse and bureaucratic malfeasance, and it made not one whit of difference to him whether this was born of liberal or conservative philosophy.
However, it is unwise to make too much of this. Without a doubt, Lennon would have been dismayed by the current state of the world's economies, and doubtless would have been a vocal critic of both of this decade's US led wars, in Afghanistan every bit as much as Iraq. At the same time, I can't see him as being an apologist for radical Islam, and probably not even traditional, mainstream Islam, for that matter.
And I personally have no doubt that he would have hailed the candidacy of Barak Obama as a watershed moment not only in US but in world history. He would have supported him, and in fact Obama might have even been the first politician to win his personal endorsement.
Having said that, I honestly believe Lennon would have been personally dismayed at the almost messianic tone of much of Obama's campaign, and would have looked at the greater mass of Obama supporters as sheep, and as outright fools. To be sure, much of this might well have been borne of jealousy.
Be that as it may, Lennon's feelings about American politics was fairly straight-forward. In his view, every four years Americans elected a "big daddy" to yell and scream at, at the end of which they often times kick him out of office, whereupon they would proceed to elect another daddy on whom to repeat the process. He would probably surmise that Obama would come to a sad end politically. No doubt, he would take a moderate view towards any resultant criticisms of him, or any politician.
I don't know how he would view the Tea-Party. While I am sure he would be opposed to most of their views, I like to think he would at least study the movement and come to an independent conclusion as to their sincerity, without jumping to the conclusion they were all or mostly racists and/or regressive reactionaries. He would almost certainly appreciate their opposition to ever expanding government control over so many sectors of society.
On certain policies, its harder to judge. He would probably jump on the Global Climate Change Bandwagon, but would probably look with suspicion on government mandates, preferring instead to encourage private individual action and initiative whenever possible or practical. He had that kind of faith. As a Brit, he probably would have seen universal health care as a no-brainer, but would probably view the current recently enacted American system with a great deal of skepticism. I can just hear him saying "what the fuck is this mess?"
More importantly, from a creative standpoint, I can't see Lennon as ever retiring as long as he lived so long as he maintained his health. I think he would have embraced modern technology. He would gladly and gleefully have released songs over the internet, for free. He would probably feel he had an obligation to reach as many as possible, and would have expressed his views on many of the topics of the day. With the wealth he would have by now accumulated, he would have no reason not to do so, for one thing, and for another, he would have seized the opportunity as a promotional gimmick. He would have been right at home over the net. In fact, if both he and Harrison had lived on and all four Beatles yet lived today, I can envision the prospect of a Beatles reunion and concert taking place live over the Internet, at John's instigation.
Another thing about Lennon that is noteworthy. He was no fan of political correctness, which is one reason I think he would have judged the Tea-Party folks more fairly than most on the left. At the same time, he would have almost certainly and consistently adopted and used the term Tea-bagger to describe them, if for no other reason than he would have thought it was funny (which, frankly, it is), and if the term had not been coined, Lennon would in all probability have coined it himself.
Lenno0n was dismayed when his song "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" was banned from most radio airwaves due to inclusion of the word "Nigger" in the title and lyrics. The thought that the word might be too offensive to be used publicly, even in a symbolic way, never occurred to him.
And then there were his merciless jibes at former Beatles manager Brian Epstein, a known homosexual.
From his Wikipedia entry-
Lennon delighted in mocking Epstein for his homosexuality and for the fact that he was Jewish, often ridiculing him with sarcastic remarks.[111] When Epstein invited suggestions for his autobiography title, Lennon offered Queer Jew.[112] On learning of the eventual title, A Cellarful of Noise, he said to a friend, "More like A Cellarful of Boys".[113] He demanded of a visitor to Epstein's flat, "Have you come to blackmail him? If not, you're the only bugger in London who hasn't."[111] And he taunted Epstein with twisted Beatles lyrics, changing "baby, you're a rich man too" to "baby, you're a rich fag Jew".[1
Of course, this means nothing, as Lennon had a deep and abiding respect and even love for Epstein, though I am pretty certain he would take exception to later day theories about any "love affair" many wishfully think happened between the two of them.
All in all, Lennon was a man who seized the moment, and when he found himself in too deep, he stopped digging that hole, and then he pulled himself out, and then he started digging all over again. He made the most out of his situation at any given time. Or at least he tried to do so. And, as oftentimes happens when a person finds himself in a position of fame and notoriety, he arrived at the point where he thought he should make it count for something. But there were times when his heart obviously wasn't in it. He found his real true calling when he and Yoko Ono rebuilt their relationship, and started their own family. His muse was reborn, and he recaptured the moment, up until the moment of his untimely demise.
I can easily understand why he has maintained such a strong degree of affection even today. But frankly, I would not feel at home with the majority of his admirers when they gather at the various parks, such as near the Dakota, in order to mark the anniversary of his birth, or death, while playing his music, and pushing their views of what John probably would have had to say about first one or another leftist cause. I would definitely be as much of an outsider around most Lennon fans as I would be at a Democratic Party candidate's rally.
On the other hand, I think I could almost feel Lennon's spirit, playfully suggesting-
"Ah, come on mate, I know its all a load of crap, but you know, it might be a right load of fun too, right? You might even get laid."
Friday, October 08, 2010
A Conservative Novelist Wins The Nobel Prize For Literature
In a move that is likely to send shock waves though the western literary establishment, The Nobel Committee has made a daring move towards the right. The latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature is Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian born author currently living in Spain, and a writer who has himself turned to the right as an advocate of free-market principles and conservative politics.
The Committee has been accused of favoring leftist writers in the past, but has stated that its awards are based on literary merit alone. Its tempting to think this particular award might have been made in order to prove that point, but on the other hand, this is no quiet, mealy-mouthed, genial conservative.
If you argue politics with him, he might well punch you out. In fact, he has done just that, some decades ago, in the course of an argument with a leftist writer with whom he had been friends. That was just the beginning of a long and distinguished career as a basher of leftists.
His writing is almost universally admired in Latin America but his gradual shift from the left toward an embrace of free-market capitalism has put him at odds with much of the hemisphere's intellectual elite.
Vargas Llosa has feuded with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez and often tosses barbs at Cuba's Fidel Castro. He irritated his centrist friend Paz, the late Mexican Nobel literature laureate, by playfully describing Mexico's political system — which was dominated at the time by a single party — as "the perfect dictatorship."
In a famous 1976 incident in Mexico City, Vargas Llosa punched out former friend Garcia Marquez, whom he would later ridicule as "Castro's courtesan." It was never clear whether the fight was over politics or a personal dispute and the two have reportedly not spoken in decades.
Llosa has been the recipient of many other prizes prior to the Nobel, and the Committee which awarded this latest jewel in the crown was quite explicit about his qualifications.
The Swedish Academy said it honored him for mapping the "structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat." Its permanent secretary, Peter Englund, called him "a divinely gifted storyteller" whose writing touched the reader.
"His books are often very complex in composition, having different perspectives, different voices and different time places," Englund said. "He is also doing it in a new way, he has helped evolve the art of the narration."
Peru's president, Alan Garcia, praised Vargas Llosa for his "eminent intelligence" and "libertarian and democratic spirit."
So congratulations to Senor Llosa. Who knows, this might be the start of a new trend. It might even be the start of something big. One of these days, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee might make a similarly unusual and unexpected move-it might actually award the Nobel Peace Prize to somebody who has actually done something to further the cause of peace.
The Committee has been accused of favoring leftist writers in the past, but has stated that its awards are based on literary merit alone. Its tempting to think this particular award might have been made in order to prove that point, but on the other hand, this is no quiet, mealy-mouthed, genial conservative.
If you argue politics with him, he might well punch you out. In fact, he has done just that, some decades ago, in the course of an argument with a leftist writer with whom he had been friends. That was just the beginning of a long and distinguished career as a basher of leftists.
His writing is almost universally admired in Latin America but his gradual shift from the left toward an embrace of free-market capitalism has put him at odds with much of the hemisphere's intellectual elite.
Vargas Llosa has feuded with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez and often tosses barbs at Cuba's Fidel Castro. He irritated his centrist friend Paz, the late Mexican Nobel literature laureate, by playfully describing Mexico's political system — which was dominated at the time by a single party — as "the perfect dictatorship."
In a famous 1976 incident in Mexico City, Vargas Llosa punched out former friend Garcia Marquez, whom he would later ridicule as "Castro's courtesan." It was never clear whether the fight was over politics or a personal dispute and the two have reportedly not spoken in decades.
Llosa has been the recipient of many other prizes prior to the Nobel, and the Committee which awarded this latest jewel in the crown was quite explicit about his qualifications.
The Swedish Academy said it honored him for mapping the "structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat." Its permanent secretary, Peter Englund, called him "a divinely gifted storyteller" whose writing touched the reader.
"His books are often very complex in composition, having different perspectives, different voices and different time places," Englund said. "He is also doing it in a new way, he has helped evolve the art of the narration."
Peru's president, Alan Garcia, praised Vargas Llosa for his "eminent intelligence" and "libertarian and democratic spirit."
So congratulations to Senor Llosa. Who knows, this might be the start of a new trend. It might even be the start of something big. One of these days, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee might make a similarly unusual and unexpected move-it might actually award the Nobel Peace Prize to somebody who has actually done something to further the cause of peace.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
10:10 Join Us Or Die
If I were the head of an environmentalist organization and hired somebody to produce a video promoting something like the 10:10 cause, and they came up with something like the video "No Pressure", I would suspect them of being a secret plant working to sabotage the movement. If you have never seen the video, here it is. If it is taken down, have no fear. It will be re-uploaded to YouTube by those who want you to see just what we are dealing with here.
True enough, the British have a strange sense of humor, to put it lightly, but this is beyond the pale even for them. This is so in your face and over the top, its hard to imagine what they could have been thinking. And remember, this is a professionally produced video, written in fact by Richard Curtis (Blackadder and Love, Actually).
I want to point something out, however. Everybody is so focused on the violent aspects of the video, they have inadvertently missed what might actually be the most subversive part of the message.
In all of the little skits which make up this compilation, one thing beyond the obvious blood and gore stands out. Those portrayed as being against the environmentalist agenda are seen as being a very small minority of naysayers, so small in fact that they can be seen in a sense as completely out of the mainstream of civilized thought.
Just a couple of schoolchildren out of an entire classroom. Only three salaried employees out of an entire company executive's seminar. One lone football player whose old-fashioned views stand out as an anachronism in the face of the team's more modern and "responsible" stand against Global Climate Change.
The underlying message is meant to be even more intimidating than the initial shocking murderous purge of the unbelievers. It can be summed up as follows-
"You are not important. If you choose not to support us, you will be one of a very few, a group whose numbers are so small and insignificant, they are of no true consequence whatsoever. And, when you are all finally gone, no one will mourn your passing, nor will it be noted by history. You will be missed by no one-not by your peers, nor your friends and associates, not even your family, or those who might have once looked up to and admired you. After an initial period of natural human shock and grief, they will quickly forget you. Before long, your very existence will be forgotten."
In other words, those who are against the cause should be seen as not only on the wrong side of the issue but, perhaps more importantly, on the wrong side of history. They should be seen as unimportant, so unimportant that they are not really worth trying to convince. If they cannot see the rightness of the environmentalist cause, they are themselves a lost cause.
Before long, their memories will and should be wiped from human memory-purged, if you will, from history, with all the sentimentality and consideration one might give to the wanton slaying of cockroaches.
Of course, the outward violence was meant to disguise this more subtle and almost subliminal message. However, although attempts were later made to explain the bloody purge of unbelievers as nothing more sinister than quirky humor, the outrageous nature of the violence displayed backfired on the producers, and on the environmentalist group involved in its production.
But the meaning is all too clear. If you are against the movement to combat Global Climate Change, you are, to their way of thinking, a part of the mindset that has not only created the problem, but would seek to perpetuate it.
Is it any wonder that dramatizations of the wanton destruction of the opponents of the environmentalist movement should be presented in such a cavalier fashion? The question should be asked, if they really believe in their cause, how could they honestly feel any differently?
True enough, the British have a strange sense of humor, to put it lightly, but this is beyond the pale even for them. This is so in your face and over the top, its hard to imagine what they could have been thinking. And remember, this is a professionally produced video, written in fact by Richard Curtis (Blackadder and Love, Actually).
I want to point something out, however. Everybody is so focused on the violent aspects of the video, they have inadvertently missed what might actually be the most subversive part of the message.
In all of the little skits which make up this compilation, one thing beyond the obvious blood and gore stands out. Those portrayed as being against the environmentalist agenda are seen as being a very small minority of naysayers, so small in fact that they can be seen in a sense as completely out of the mainstream of civilized thought.
Just a couple of schoolchildren out of an entire classroom. Only three salaried employees out of an entire company executive's seminar. One lone football player whose old-fashioned views stand out as an anachronism in the face of the team's more modern and "responsible" stand against Global Climate Change.
The underlying message is meant to be even more intimidating than the initial shocking murderous purge of the unbelievers. It can be summed up as follows-
"You are not important. If you choose not to support us, you will be one of a very few, a group whose numbers are so small and insignificant, they are of no true consequence whatsoever. And, when you are all finally gone, no one will mourn your passing, nor will it be noted by history. You will be missed by no one-not by your peers, nor your friends and associates, not even your family, or those who might have once looked up to and admired you. After an initial period of natural human shock and grief, they will quickly forget you. Before long, your very existence will be forgotten."
In other words, those who are against the cause should be seen as not only on the wrong side of the issue but, perhaps more importantly, on the wrong side of history. They should be seen as unimportant, so unimportant that they are not really worth trying to convince. If they cannot see the rightness of the environmentalist cause, they are themselves a lost cause.
Before long, their memories will and should be wiped from human memory-purged, if you will, from history, with all the sentimentality and consideration one might give to the wanton slaying of cockroaches.
Of course, the outward violence was meant to disguise this more subtle and almost subliminal message. However, although attempts were later made to explain the bloody purge of unbelievers as nothing more sinister than quirky humor, the outrageous nature of the violence displayed backfired on the producers, and on the environmentalist group involved in its production.
But the meaning is all too clear. If you are against the movement to combat Global Climate Change, you are, to their way of thinking, a part of the mindset that has not only created the problem, but would seek to perpetuate it.
Is it any wonder that dramatizations of the wanton destruction of the opponents of the environmentalist movement should be presented in such a cavalier fashion? The question should be asked, if they really believe in their cause, how could they honestly feel any differently?
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
You Seriously Don't Want To Mess With Daniela Gaskie
If you give this woman, Daniela Gaskie, the former Miss Kentucky Latina, any shit, or piss her off in any way, especially if she's been drinking, she's liable to beat the living shit out of you. That's what she did to one woman, Mary McKinney, a pharmacist, who took exception to Gaskie assaulting her vehicle, which Gaskie apparently mistook for her own and attacked because it was locked. When McKinney objected, Gaskie kicked and gouged her repeatedly.
Earlier in the same evening she attacked a convenience store clerk, stabbing him in the neck-with a sharpie.
Mrs. Gaskie was arrested, and with charges pending, has been relieved of her crown by the Miss Latina pageant organization. Although the pageant organizers expressed a wish to help her with her problems, they stated she wasn't the role model they wanted to represent the pageant. Also, the fact that she turned out to be married, which she apparently hid from them at first, further disqualifies her as a bearer of the Miss Latina title.
Gaskie's reaction to all this? She is a victim of profiling, because she is a Mexican.
I kind of understand her anxiety. No one should be subjected to profiling. For example, there are bigoted people in this world who think beautiful woman who participate in beauty pageants are dumb, stupid, air-headed, self-centered bitches who think they should skate in life based solely on their beauty, but who otherwise have no worthwhile, redeeming qualities whatsoever.
First Amendment Perversions
Snyder versus Phelps is being heard today in the Supreme Court, and who knows how long the arguments will go on, but Margie Phelps, father of Fred Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, will be arguing on the side of the Church, and its supposed right to protest at military funerals, even those that are ostensibly and technically private affairs.
The issue to me is privacy, and I'm hoping Snyder prevails. No one should have to endure the likes of Fred Phelps and his ilk of in-bred donuts even for the sake of the First Amendment, at least not at a private family funeral.
I'm thinking ScotusBlog will be on top of this, so they might be the best choice to check for updates.
The issue to me is privacy, and I'm hoping Snyder prevails. No one should have to endure the likes of Fred Phelps and his ilk of in-bred donuts even for the sake of the First Amendment, at least not at a private family funeral.
I'm thinking ScotusBlog will be on top of this, so they might be the best choice to check for updates.
The Cincinnati Pinkos
Here's just another example of why hatred of Democrats and RINOs is never misplaced, and why in fact hatred of such people is something one should nurture in ones bosom
The Cincinnati Health Department is investigating the Cincinnati Reds for potentially violating the state’s smoking ban during the club’s National League Central-clinching celebration Tuesday night, Cincinnati.com reported Thursday.
Reds owner Bob Castellini passed out cigars to players and coaches amongst the champagne showers inside the clubhouse at the Great American Ballpark after seeing his team earn its first postseason berth in 15 years.
Five people watching the celebration on television reportedly called the statewide smoking ban complaint hotline.
Got that? If not, let me interpret it for you. Five leftist stooges had the good fortune to be invited into the Red's locker room for a post-season celebration. You know automatically that their presence means they were VIPs of one stripe or another, possibly county or city officials, or maybe well-connected business people, or possibly they were connected to some non-profit scam or another.
Just like the Russian kid in the communist era USSR who was honored by the state for informing on his parents by having a statue erected in his memory, these liberal bleeding hearts took exception to the private violation of a public smoking ban that had been imposed on the people of Cincinnati by decree of a bought and sold city council.
So what do they do? They call the Health Department, and now there will be an investigation, possibly fines, and at some point a public statement in the way of an apology to the "people of Cincinnati", who in reality would have never approved such a ban in the first place had it been left up to them. The Reds owner will be expected to make public service announcements denouncing the evils of smoking and might be threatened with a boycott if he will not play along. He probably will, not because such a boycott could be any kind of a threat, but because he will cave into the pressure from his peers to set an example "for the good of the public and the kids", yada, yada, yada.
People talk about tea parties, but in reality, tobacco is the modern equivalent of tea, speaking in American Revolutionary terms. One of my most hopeful fantasies is that one day I will wake up to the news that every leftist politician and bureaucrat in the country has been found dead with a pouch of tobacco crammed down their throats.
Hat Tip-The Fat Guy
The Cincinnati Health Department is investigating the Cincinnati Reds for potentially violating the state’s smoking ban during the club’s National League Central-clinching celebration Tuesday night, Cincinnati.com reported Thursday.
Reds owner Bob Castellini passed out cigars to players and coaches amongst the champagne showers inside the clubhouse at the Great American Ballpark after seeing his team earn its first postseason berth in 15 years.
Five people watching the celebration on television reportedly called the statewide smoking ban complaint hotline.
Got that? If not, let me interpret it for you. Five leftist stooges had the good fortune to be invited into the Red's locker room for a post-season celebration. You know automatically that their presence means they were VIPs of one stripe or another, possibly county or city officials, or maybe well-connected business people, or possibly they were connected to some non-profit scam or another.
Just like the Russian kid in the communist era USSR who was honored by the state for informing on his parents by having a statue erected in his memory, these liberal bleeding hearts took exception to the private violation of a public smoking ban that had been imposed on the people of Cincinnati by decree of a bought and sold city council.
So what do they do? They call the Health Department, and now there will be an investigation, possibly fines, and at some point a public statement in the way of an apology to the "people of Cincinnati", who in reality would have never approved such a ban in the first place had it been left up to them. The Reds owner will be expected to make public service announcements denouncing the evils of smoking and might be threatened with a boycott if he will not play along. He probably will, not because such a boycott could be any kind of a threat, but because he will cave into the pressure from his peers to set an example "for the good of the public and the kids", yada, yada, yada.
People talk about tea parties, but in reality, tobacco is the modern equivalent of tea, speaking in American Revolutionary terms. One of my most hopeful fantasies is that one day I will wake up to the news that every leftist politician and bureaucrat in the country has been found dead with a pouch of tobacco crammed down their throats.
Hat Tip-The Fat Guy
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The Exorcist-The Infamous Spider Walk
When The Exorcist was originally released, the Spider-Walk scene was cut from the film, not because it was considered too graphic, or sick, but simply because at the time they couldn't hide the wires they had to attach to Linda Blair in order to achieve the proper effect.
Now, more than three decades later, with releases on VHS and DVD, film editing techniques have sufficiently advanced to the point where the wires used are no longer visible. Now we have the current, just released version of The Exorcist on Blue Ray.
I don't know though, something still doesn't seem quite right.
Now, more than three decades later, with releases on VHS and DVD, film editing techniques have sufficiently advanced to the point where the wires used are no longer visible. Now we have the current, just released version of The Exorcist on Blue Ray.
I don't know though, something still doesn't seem quite right.
When All Else Fails
Charlie Crist is now running in the Florida Senate election as an independent candidate against a weak Democratic candidate, and against Republican Marco Rubio, who beat Crist in the earlier GOP primary, and who now enjoys a solid lead in most polls.
However, there might be one small, slim opportunity for Crist to pull off an upset. As Crist is the current Florida Governor, he is the target of a drive to posthumously pardon Jim Morrison, the deceased lead singer of the sixties rock group The Doors. Sometime in 1969 Morrison was charged, tried, and convicted of an obscenity charge-specifically, indecent exposure. Morrison was also accused of trying to foment a riot at the same concert where the obscenity charge originated, at a Dade County auditorium.
Although Crist has expressed some sympathy for the effort on the part of some obscure memorabilia vendors and sixties-era music buffs, who insist Morrison did not get a fair trial, he has thus far avoided involving himself in the effort, lately avoiding the subject.
If his poll numbers don't improve significantly, I expect this to change. In fact, I expect him to issue a posthumous pardon for the late rock singer anywhere from one to two weeks prior to the election, while simultaneously making a last ditch effort to appeal to younger Florida voters, including college/university students. In doing so, he will lurch significantly to the left, as he would be unlikely to draw much support from politically active college students-to say nothing of drug-addled nineteen sixties era stoners-by keeping to the center, even the center left. Look for him to become a staunch advocate of Cap And Trade, of improving the current ObamaCare fiasco by inclusion of a public option, ostensibly to bring down costs, and by advocating yet another version of the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill.
In doing so, he will insist that, to paraphrase Reagan, he has not left the Republican Party, the Republican Party has left him, has abandoned its core moderate principles and has been hi-jacked by right-wing extremists (for example, Rubio, whom the vast majority of mainstream GOP voters chose over Crist).
Crist is likely to do all this in the face of certain and overwhelming defeat, as an act of desperation, and because he has no shame. Sadly, under the right combination of circumstances, it could work.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Mr. Opportunity Rocks
One of my favorite commercials. It makes me want to run out and steal a new Honda.
The Crying Game-Pt. 1
A great film, which I hope to post in segments in its entirety. If you are over fifty and not much of a movie buff, you might not be aware of this film, or if you are under forty and lived in a cave during the nineties when it first came out. If you know the reveal, kindly refrain from saying anything in the post comments. I will say this much, as Halloween is up-coming, it fits the holiday in one obvious way.
It's controversial, to say the least, but it is certainly original, compelling, and definitely worth a view. I didn't realize until I uploaded these first two segments that the part of Jody is played by Forrest Whittaker in what was probably his first, or one of his first roles.
It's controversial, to say the least, but it is certainly original, compelling, and definitely worth a view. I didn't realize until I uploaded these first two segments that the part of Jody is played by Forrest Whittaker in what was probably his first, or one of his first roles.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Dastardly British Racist Toddlers Require Special Attention
If you live in Britain you can be reported for suspicion of racist inclinations, even if you are as young as three years old. It could be for things as dastardly as expressing a dislike for ethnic foods, or for displaying a preference to not play with children from certain minority groups-at any given time. This seems to be a new function of teachers in Britain. If a young child shows the slightest hint of racism-report them.
Can we close down our British military bases now? Or should we keep them there and maybe even increase them? Are the British really our allies?
Do we really want to be more like these people?
I think I'm growing to despise the Brits more with each passing day. Must be that Irish blood.
Can we close down our British military bases now? Or should we keep them there and maybe even increase them? Are the British really our allies?
Do we really want to be more like these people?
I think I'm growing to despise the Brits more with each passing day. Must be that Irish blood.
Twin Peaks
This year is the twentieth anniversary of the premiere of the David Lynch series Twin Peaks. Although its quality went down some in its second and last season, in its first year it was one of the most compelling and original series on television. Like all Lynch projects, there was a heavy emphasis on the surreal, as seen in the following clip, perhaps the most well-known segment of the entire series-the infamous Red Room dream sequence. In the scene, a dreaming Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLaughlin) meets the ghost of Laura Palmer (whose murder he has been investigating, played by Sheryl Lee)and The Man From Another Place (Michael J. Anderson), who is actually the evil spirit of Mike's arm, which took the form of a dwarf once Mike, having seen "the face of God", removed his arm in order to remove the power of evil with which he was infested and which for a time tied him to, and made him the partner in crime of "BOB", a malevolent, lower level demon, who possessed the mortal form of Laura's murderer.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
As California Prepares To Slide Into The Ocean
I'm on the verge of making my first Democratic endorsement of the year.
Ah, to hell with it, I'll come right out and do it.
The Pagan Temple herewith endorses Jerry Brown for Governor of California.
No, I'm not mad at Meg Whitman for hiring an illegal immigrant and/or mistreating her in the process. I'm even somewhat ambivalent about the Democrats shady campaign tactics involving Gloria AllRed
But let's face it, Meg Whitman has spent an obscene amount of her considerable fortune on this election, and a large portion of that has been toward outreach to the Latino community.
It's a safe bet she's not campaigning on a promise to militarize the border and send all illegals back to Mexico. It's also no accident that hers was one of the names John McCain floated as a potential running mate in his doomed to fail from the start presidential bid, before he realized he needed an actual conservative and chose Palin instead.
Meg Whitman, to be perfectly blunt, is Arnold Schwarzenegger in drag. Like him, and McCain, she is the only kind of Republican that can be elected in California-a RINO. If elected, she will surely take the lion's share of the blame for any future and likely calamity that would befall the sunshine state due to the continuing malfeasance of the Democratic Legislature.
Governor Moonbeam, on the other hand, might do one of two things. He might actually improve conditions in California, or he might help send the state hurtling off the precipice with the speed of a nuclear projectile. My guess is the latter, but the point is, let the Democrats take the full blame for the disaster that is more than likely to ensue. They deserve it. And, like it or not, they own the mess.
With this in mind, The Pagan Temple herewith heartily endorses Jerry Brown for Governor of California.
Hollywood-Kentucky awaits. Just kindly leave your more insane political leanings where they belong-in the state you helped in no small measure to destroy.
Ah, to hell with it, I'll come right out and do it.
The Pagan Temple herewith endorses Jerry Brown for Governor of California.
No, I'm not mad at Meg Whitman for hiring an illegal immigrant and/or mistreating her in the process. I'm even somewhat ambivalent about the Democrats shady campaign tactics involving Gloria AllRed
But let's face it, Meg Whitman has spent an obscene amount of her considerable fortune on this election, and a large portion of that has been toward outreach to the Latino community.
It's a safe bet she's not campaigning on a promise to militarize the border and send all illegals back to Mexico. It's also no accident that hers was one of the names John McCain floated as a potential running mate in his doomed to fail from the start presidential bid, before he realized he needed an actual conservative and chose Palin instead.
Meg Whitman, to be perfectly blunt, is Arnold Schwarzenegger in drag. Like him, and McCain, she is the only kind of Republican that can be elected in California-a RINO. If elected, she will surely take the lion's share of the blame for any future and likely calamity that would befall the sunshine state due to the continuing malfeasance of the Democratic Legislature.
Governor Moonbeam, on the other hand, might do one of two things. He might actually improve conditions in California, or he might help send the state hurtling off the precipice with the speed of a nuclear projectile. My guess is the latter, but the point is, let the Democrats take the full blame for the disaster that is more than likely to ensue. They deserve it. And, like it or not, they own the mess.
With this in mind, The Pagan Temple herewith heartily endorses Jerry Brown for Governor of California.
Hollywood-Kentucky awaits. Just kindly leave your more insane political leanings where they belong-in the state you helped in no small measure to destroy.
Sanchez Sacked Somewhere Just Off The Road To Damascus
Who does Ricky Sanchez think he is? A better question-what does he think liberals are?
CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was fired Friday by the news network after he went on a tirade during a radio interview calling Jon Stewart a “bigot” and accusing the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals” of labeling him as “second-tier” because of his Cuban-American background, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company," the statement from CNN said. "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well," it added.
The TV host, who was born in Cuba and raised outside Miami, said that racism in the media comes "not just [from] the right," but also at the hands of the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals," during a Thursday interview on the "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" SiriusXM radio show.
"Deep down, when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier, and not the top tier," the 52-year-old said.
That pretty much says it all. Too bad he had to become a victim of leftist hypocrisy before he grew the balls to call it like it is. But let's enjoy it for what it is-the poster boy for the left's ideal Cuban American pretty much performed the equivalent of walking into the boss's office and calling him a stupid fucking price in front of the secretary, the visiting family, and a potential client. He had to have known there was a chance he would be sacked. After all, he's not black. Or Jewish. Speaking of which, he also stated without much equivocation that the northeastern liberal establishment is pretty much dominated by Jews.
I learned quite a long time ago, anytime anyone on the left screams racism or any similar type ism at conservatives, Republicans, or the Tea Party, its nothing more or less than a simple case of projection.
Hat Tip to Babalu
CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was fired Friday by the news network after he went on a tirade during a radio interview calling Jon Stewart a “bigot” and accusing the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals” of labeling him as “second-tier” because of his Cuban-American background, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company," the statement from CNN said. "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well," it added.
The TV host, who was born in Cuba and raised outside Miami, said that racism in the media comes "not just [from] the right," but also at the hands of the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals," during a Thursday interview on the "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" SiriusXM radio show.
"Deep down, when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier, and not the top tier," the 52-year-old said.
That pretty much says it all. Too bad he had to become a victim of leftist hypocrisy before he grew the balls to call it like it is. But let's enjoy it for what it is-the poster boy for the left's ideal Cuban American pretty much performed the equivalent of walking into the boss's office and calling him a stupid fucking price in front of the secretary, the visiting family, and a potential client. He had to have known there was a chance he would be sacked. After all, he's not black. Or Jewish. Speaking of which, he also stated without much equivocation that the northeastern liberal establishment is pretty much dominated by Jews.
I learned quite a long time ago, anytime anyone on the left screams racism or any similar type ism at conservatives, Republicans, or the Tea Party, its nothing more or less than a simple case of projection.
Hat Tip to Babalu
Friday, October 01, 2010
A Hiccup From Ecuador
Ecuador has just recently gone through what appears to have been a coup attempt, its president temporarily a guest of the nation's police force. The coup seems to have been swiftly contained and defeated, however, which is not really such a surprise, seeing as how the attempt seems not to have had any wide-spread popular support to speak of.
The whole attempt was the result of austerity measures aimed primarily at the police force, who naturally rebelled at the prospect of benefits cuts, doubly resenting the idea that the budget of the nation should be balanced on the backs of those charged primarily with keeping the peace. Social services were not cut, apparently, nor was the military budget, nor it is safe to assume was the bureaucracy.
As such, the coup was destined to fail-the military put it down quickly. Nor is there is any need in looking towards the United States for a scapegoat here. If anything, the US State Department and the CIA were probably, at most, disinterested observers. If they were involved at all, it would be just as likely on the side of the leftist junta as against it, but I repeat, as of now, there is no credible evidence of US involvement one way or another.
Of course, the day is still young. What is most certain is that, after the coup plotters have had their day in kangaroo court and are sent packing to Ecuadoran Club Med (Gitmo without the bells and whistles) things will probably settle back to "normal", and the Ecuadoran leftist regime, which has ties to Hugo's Venezuela and Morales's Bolivia, can get back to the business of planning and building a new socialist state, manned at some indeterminate date in the future by the new Socialist Man.
Of course, this will take a couple of centuries at the very least, during which time, as is almost always the case, this artificially planned offshoot of homo sapiens will be superseded by the more natural evolutionary offspring of almost all such experiments-
Bureaucratic Man.
The whole attempt was the result of austerity measures aimed primarily at the police force, who naturally rebelled at the prospect of benefits cuts, doubly resenting the idea that the budget of the nation should be balanced on the backs of those charged primarily with keeping the peace. Social services were not cut, apparently, nor was the military budget, nor it is safe to assume was the bureaucracy.
As such, the coup was destined to fail-the military put it down quickly. Nor is there is any need in looking towards the United States for a scapegoat here. If anything, the US State Department and the CIA were probably, at most, disinterested observers. If they were involved at all, it would be just as likely on the side of the leftist junta as against it, but I repeat, as of now, there is no credible evidence of US involvement one way or another.
Of course, the day is still young. What is most certain is that, after the coup plotters have had their day in kangaroo court and are sent packing to Ecuadoran Club Med (Gitmo without the bells and whistles) things will probably settle back to "normal", and the Ecuadoran leftist regime, which has ties to Hugo's Venezuela and Morales's Bolivia, can get back to the business of planning and building a new socialist state, manned at some indeterminate date in the future by the new Socialist Man.
Of course, this will take a couple of centuries at the very least, during which time, as is almost always the case, this artificially planned offshoot of homo sapiens will be superseded by the more natural evolutionary offspring of almost all such experiments-
Bureaucratic Man.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
A Great Man Helps A Great Cause
I've had my problems in the past with Bengals Wide Receiver Chad Ochocinco. He's a great receiver and all around player, but he comes across as full of himself. He seems to be one of these guys who is obviously out for himself, a master of self-promotion. He has appeared on Dancing With The Stars, is a showboat on and off the field, and not too long ago introduced his own line of condoms.
Although he was born Chad Johnson, he had his name legally changed to Chad Ochocinco, which is the Spanish language spelling of his team number-85. Lately, he has publicly mused about changing his name yet again, to reflect the number on his team jersey in Japanese.
These are the kinds of antics, in addition to his gregarious nature on the field, that lends many to view him as-well, a show-off. It leads you to wonder how he could possibly get along with such a person as Terrell Owens, who recently joined the Bengals. Talk about a clash of personalities.
But now I have come to think I might have misjudged the man. He has lately come out with his own brand of breakfast cereal, named, of course, Ochocinco's. My initial reaction was, "there he goes again". But come to find out, a portion of the proceeds from sales of the cereal will go to benefit the Feed The Children Foundation.
Now I have to admit, I am impressed. And, having taken the time to call the toll-free number of the foundation, I am also quite touched.
And believe it or not, if you take the time to call the number of this fine organization, I promise you that, unless you have a heart of stone and ice-water coursing through your veins, you will also be touched and impressed.
1-800-HELP-FTC
You will be under no obligation whatsoever. But I promise, you will be moved.
Although he was born Chad Johnson, he had his name legally changed to Chad Ochocinco, which is the Spanish language spelling of his team number-85. Lately, he has publicly mused about changing his name yet again, to reflect the number on his team jersey in Japanese.
These are the kinds of antics, in addition to his gregarious nature on the field, that lends many to view him as-well, a show-off. It leads you to wonder how he could possibly get along with such a person as Terrell Owens, who recently joined the Bengals. Talk about a clash of personalities.
But now I have come to think I might have misjudged the man. He has lately come out with his own brand of breakfast cereal, named, of course, Ochocinco's. My initial reaction was, "there he goes again". But come to find out, a portion of the proceeds from sales of the cereal will go to benefit the Feed The Children Foundation.
Now I have to admit, I am impressed. And, having taken the time to call the toll-free number of the foundation, I am also quite touched.
And believe it or not, if you take the time to call the number of this fine organization, I promise you that, unless you have a heart of stone and ice-water coursing through your veins, you will also be touched and impressed.
1-800-HELP-FTC
You will be under no obligation whatsoever. But I promise, you will be moved.
Clean Air And Poverty
Moonbattery has a report that is so hard to believe, I can't really vouch for it at face value. But it wouldn't really surprise me to learn that the EPA is poised to initiate a series of regulations that might well result in the elimination of potentially 800,000 American manufacturing jobs. There could never be a good time for something like this to happen, and as of right now, there could not be a worse time. I really hope they don't go through with this, that somebody somewhere sees reason and reins them in.
But if they don't, and if they do go through with this insanity, I damn sure hope it happens now, so people can feel the effects long enough before the election to make a new GOP congressional majority not merely a probability, but a foregone conclusion, and in the meantime swell those Republican numbers far more than what they might ordinarily be.
After all, the best thing Democrats can do to help Republicans is simply be Democrats, proudly and openly.
The proposed rule has to do with emission standards. Old furnaces and boilers will have to be retrofitted, retooled in order to meet the new standards and guidelines. What this means is there will be layoffs in some cases, a near freeze on new hiring in others, and in some instances, no more nor less than a complete halt in production.
Way to lead us into the Third World, EPA. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.
But if they don't, and if they do go through with this insanity, I damn sure hope it happens now, so people can feel the effects long enough before the election to make a new GOP congressional majority not merely a probability, but a foregone conclusion, and in the meantime swell those Republican numbers far more than what they might ordinarily be.
After all, the best thing Democrats can do to help Republicans is simply be Democrats, proudly and openly.
The proposed rule has to do with emission standards. Old furnaces and boilers will have to be retrofitted, retooled in order to meet the new standards and guidelines. What this means is there will be layoffs in some cases, a near freeze on new hiring in others, and in some instances, no more nor less than a complete halt in production.
Way to lead us into the Third World, EPA. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Outlaw
Outlaw is one of those television series that will tell you exactly what the liberal media thinks about conservatives. Or, perhaps more succinctly, it will tell you what they want you to think about them.
It's really simple. Not all conservatives are bad people. Sometimes, they are just deluded, and always wrong, about everything. Many if not most of them, however, are pure evil incarnate. In the world of Outlaw, you can't become a conservative leader without being evil. If you are not outright evil, then you are at least amoral, or at the very best, ambivalent.
Then there is Cyrus Garza who, as portrayed by Jimmy Smits, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court. When he is not spending his time upholding conservative legal precedent-for no other reason than the curious belief that no former Supreme Court decision should ever be overturned (how this squares with the many established liberal legal precedents is fairly unclear)-he spends his days and nights drinking, gambling (while getting kicked out of casinos for cheating, and running up massive debts), and womanizing. This will in all likelihood eventually be revealed as a means ofattracting lonely, fantasy-craving, sex starved middle-aged female viewers numbing his raging conscience, which has been nagging and torturing his innermost soul. Despite all his best efforts, of course, his conscience is winning. Which means, by definition, there is no way he can possibly remain a conservative.
The turning point comes when he decides to chuck his Supreme Court position and re-enter the legal profession to fight for the little guy. In doing so, he has earned the ire of his highly placed former conservative supporters and backers, who are already thoroughly pissed at him for, in the series premiere episode, his vote to allow a retrial of a Black Criminal who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Why does this piss them off so much? Apparently, conservatives are so ideologically attached to the death penalty, they don't care if a condemned man is or is not innocent. He has been found guilty, and so must die. Period, end of story. Smits character is a turncoat, and now, the conservative movement is out to destroy him. After all, if Cyrus Garza has the temerity to rule that a Black Man should be granted a retrial, who's to say he might not one day vote to overturn the death penalty all together? They should be glad that he left the Court, but remember-in addition to evil, conservatives are fairly stupid.
But you would think even they would not be so stupid as to miss the disturbing signs of Garza's nascent liberal leanings. His late father was a liberal attorney, who loved him and nurtured him, while reminding him daily what a schumck he was. It even turns out that Garza has a Black Friend, also a liberal attorney, who was responsible for involving him in the case of the condemned felon previously mentioned. The Black Friend also has a Black Teenage Daughter who hates conservatives and openly calls Garza a Fascist-to his face. He has a vaguely Gothish, somewhat whorish assistant who makes life difficult for his squeaky clean conservative assistant. He even has a younger, liberal admirer who blurts out her feelings of love to him.
The only thing that has kept Garza hanging on to his conservative credentials by the skin of his teeth is his amoral lifestyle. But even here, the handwriting is on the wall. After all, if he were really a conservative, he would be an accomplished hypocrite and expert at hiding his personal flaws, like all true conservatives.
Of course, the entire premise of the series is nonsense. For just one example, even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty would be loathe to see an innocent man sentenced to die, as this gives the anti-death penalty movement their most legitimate complaint. They should be at the forefront in demanding fairness for all defendants, and in demanding not only fair trials, but in seeing unjust verdicts overturned whenever one turns up.
This series unfortunately was not intended as a thoughtful exposition of competing American political philosophies, it was meant pure and simply as liberal propaganda.
Jimmy Smits probably has a year or two left on his NBC contract. What better way to burn it out than to give him a vehicle on a Friday night at ten pm, a night and time when the television viewer demographic is dominated by those middle aged and elderly voters, many of whom might be on the fence politically and who might well be swayed by a popular television actor portraying a character in the midst of finding his soul by turning from his past indiscretions and fighting for what is right.
Which is, to be sure, all that is left. I watched this show hoping for the best, but fearing the worse. My fears were well founded. The only surprise this show might offer is if, at some point, Garza's father does not turn out to have been murdered by his, and now his son's, conservative enemies.
There are some things in life you just can't make up. Then there are things like this you just shouldn't bother to watch.
It's really simple. Not all conservatives are bad people. Sometimes, they are just deluded, and always wrong, about everything. Many if not most of them, however, are pure evil incarnate. In the world of Outlaw, you can't become a conservative leader without being evil. If you are not outright evil, then you are at least amoral, or at the very best, ambivalent.
Then there is Cyrus Garza who, as portrayed by Jimmy Smits, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court. When he is not spending his time upholding conservative legal precedent-for no other reason than the curious belief that no former Supreme Court decision should ever be overturned (how this squares with the many established liberal legal precedents is fairly unclear)-he spends his days and nights drinking, gambling (while getting kicked out of casinos for cheating, and running up massive debts), and womanizing. This will in all likelihood eventually be revealed as a means of
The turning point comes when he decides to chuck his Supreme Court position and re-enter the legal profession to fight for the little guy. In doing so, he has earned the ire of his highly placed former conservative supporters and backers, who are already thoroughly pissed at him for, in the series premiere episode, his vote to allow a retrial of a Black Criminal who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Why does this piss them off so much? Apparently, conservatives are so ideologically attached to the death penalty, they don't care if a condemned man is or is not innocent. He has been found guilty, and so must die. Period, end of story. Smits character is a turncoat, and now, the conservative movement is out to destroy him. After all, if Cyrus Garza has the temerity to rule that a Black Man should be granted a retrial, who's to say he might not one day vote to overturn the death penalty all together? They should be glad that he left the Court, but remember-in addition to evil, conservatives are fairly stupid.
But you would think even they would not be so stupid as to miss the disturbing signs of Garza's nascent liberal leanings. His late father was a liberal attorney, who loved him and nurtured him, while reminding him daily what a schumck he was. It even turns out that Garza has a Black Friend, also a liberal attorney, who was responsible for involving him in the case of the condemned felon previously mentioned. The Black Friend also has a Black Teenage Daughter who hates conservatives and openly calls Garza a Fascist-to his face. He has a vaguely Gothish, somewhat whorish assistant who makes life difficult for his squeaky clean conservative assistant. He even has a younger, liberal admirer who blurts out her feelings of love to him.
The only thing that has kept Garza hanging on to his conservative credentials by the skin of his teeth is his amoral lifestyle. But even here, the handwriting is on the wall. After all, if he were really a conservative, he would be an accomplished hypocrite and expert at hiding his personal flaws, like all true conservatives.
Of course, the entire premise of the series is nonsense. For just one example, even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty would be loathe to see an innocent man sentenced to die, as this gives the anti-death penalty movement their most legitimate complaint. They should be at the forefront in demanding fairness for all defendants, and in demanding not only fair trials, but in seeing unjust verdicts overturned whenever one turns up.
This series unfortunately was not intended as a thoughtful exposition of competing American political philosophies, it was meant pure and simply as liberal propaganda.
Jimmy Smits probably has a year or two left on his NBC contract. What better way to burn it out than to give him a vehicle on a Friday night at ten pm, a night and time when the television viewer demographic is dominated by those middle aged and elderly voters, many of whom might be on the fence politically and who might well be swayed by a popular television actor portraying a character in the midst of finding his soul by turning from his past indiscretions and fighting for what is right.
Which is, to be sure, all that is left. I watched this show hoping for the best, but fearing the worse. My fears were well founded. The only surprise this show might offer is if, at some point, Garza's father does not turn out to have been murdered by his, and now his son's, conservative enemies.
There are some things in life you just can't make up. Then there are things like this you just shouldn't bother to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)