Let's be crystal clear on this. The OPEC nations don't like America or its citizens. However, they need our money in order to survive. Anyone who's up on current and world events knows they've hated our guts for a very long time. So to make an announcement to cut production to push gas prices higher is the standard M.O. for them. Don't think for one second that OPEC thugs like Ahmadinejad and Chavez have America's best interests at heart. They never will. Time and again, they've shown contempt for America and its President, regardless if it was Bush or Obama. The more Obama voters who wake up to this the better. I already know the brownshirts and Obamabots can't be counted on for anything. (HT Time):
Time: OPEC Wants You to Pay More for Gas
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
A Lack Of A Moral Order Will Undermine A Society
Just when you thought you've seen everything, we have a 14 year-old dancing at a strip club. This is right up there with Oprah encouraging a woman to get a vibrator for her 10 year-old daughter. The more people out there who lack a moral compass, the more likely our society will be undermined, and eventually broken down. (HT Houston Chronicle & Debbie Schlussel):
Houston Chronicle: Adult Nightclub Manager Arrested
Debbie Schlussel: HOprah Watch: Oprah Says, "You Need to Buy A Vibrator For Your Teen Daughter"
Houston Chronicle: Adult Nightclub Manager Arrested
Debbie Schlussel: HOprah Watch: Oprah Says, "You Need to Buy A Vibrator For Your Teen Daughter"
Another Example of 1st Amendment Rights Being Trampled On A College Campus
On the college campus, if you want to be pro-gay, pro-sex, or anti-gun, that's OK. But if your pro-military, Christian, or in this case pro-gun, that must be shouted and shut down. I take it this means 1st Amendment rights are only for liberals. And conservatives are the intolerant ones? Right. (HT FIRE.org):
FIRE.org: First Amendment Rights Trampled by Pittsburgh College after Student Advocates for Concealed Carry of Firearms on Campus
FIRE.org: First Amendment Rights Trampled by Pittsburgh College after Student Advocates for Concealed Carry of Firearms on Campus
King Hussein's Brownshirts Driving Force Behind Chrysler Dealership Closings
What has started out as right-wing rumbling, is growing into the latest scandal. It isn't enough that the White House car czar is married to a DNC fundraiser. We all know that Chrysler was being forced to close some dealerships by White House edict. What we didn't know was how they would be chosen - until now.
One example is in the states of Arkansas & Missouri, where the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor. Meanwhile, the other dealerships either didn't make any political contributions, or gave to Republicans. This means that closing these dealerships was a political decision, not an economic one.
This is what happens when you nationalize Chicago Machine Politics: Lots of back room deals, and thug like political pressure. Like the Notre Shame Scandal, if you want to know why things happen the way they do around King Hussein, just follow the money.
For the White House Brownshirts to decide which car dealerships are closing is part of a systematic effort to to deny us our liberty and our franchise. We have a government that accepts no limitations on its power, and conservatives need to work on preparing for the next election. We must take back our party and our country. (HT AtlasShrugs.com, Washington Examiner, Reuters, Chryslerdealershipshutdown.blogspot.com, & Gateway Pundit):
Atlas Shrugs: White House Car Czar Married To Democratic Fund Raiser
Atlas Shrugs: Obama Closed And Stole Republican Car Dealerships?
Washington Examiner: Furor Grows Over Partisan Car Dealer Closings
Reuters: Plan To Ax Dealers Not Chrysler's Decision -Lawyer
Chrysler Dealership Donation Information: RLJ-McLarty-Landers (Branson, MO)
Gateway Pundit: Shock! Big Dem Donor Group Allowed to Keep Their 6 Chrysler Dealerships Open ...Update: Their Local Competitors Eliminated!!
One example is in the states of Arkansas & Missouri, where the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor. Meanwhile, the other dealerships either didn't make any political contributions, or gave to Republicans. This means that closing these dealerships was a political decision, not an economic one.
This is what happens when you nationalize Chicago Machine Politics: Lots of back room deals, and thug like political pressure. Like the Notre Shame Scandal, if you want to know why things happen the way they do around King Hussein, just follow the money.
For the White House Brownshirts to decide which car dealerships are closing is part of a systematic effort to to deny us our liberty and our franchise. We have a government that accepts no limitations on its power, and conservatives need to work on preparing for the next election. We must take back our party and our country. (HT AtlasShrugs.com, Washington Examiner, Reuters, Chryslerdealershipshutdown.blogspot.com, & Gateway Pundit):
Atlas Shrugs: White House Car Czar Married To Democratic Fund Raiser
Atlas Shrugs: Obama Closed And Stole Republican Car Dealerships?
Washington Examiner: Furor Grows Over Partisan Car Dealer Closings
Reuters: Plan To Ax Dealers Not Chrysler's Decision -Lawyer
Chrysler Dealership Donation Information: RLJ-McLarty-Landers (Branson, MO)
Gateway Pundit: Shock! Big Dem Donor Group Allowed to Keep Their 6 Chrysler Dealerships Open ...Update: Their Local Competitors Eliminated!!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
California Voters Take A Stand Against Their Out Of Control State Government
This vote has sent shockwaves all across the fruited plain. This is because California is the bluest of blue states. Time and again, California voters have tried to reign in their rogue government, only to be thwarted by their politicians or a judge. This also shows what a huge failure and disappointment Arnold Schwarzenegger has been as governor there. Here's the boxscore:
— Proposition 1A would have been the most damaging to taxpayers, as it would extend tax hikes on sales, income, and vehicles for two years, to the tune of $16 billion. It was disguised as a spending cap, but that cap was weak. Voters sniffed out the tax hikes and overwhelmingly opposed them 66-34.
— Proposition 1B didn’t fare much better, as it was rejected by a 62.5 to 37.5 vote. This measure was Gov. Schwarzenegger’s bow to the all-powerful teachers unions. It would have thrown an addition $9.3 billion toward education. It hoped to draw that money from the rainy day fund 1A would have established (so much for a spending cap). Thankfully for taxpayers, both measures were defeated.
— Proposition 1C would have allowed the state to borrow against future lottery revenues, about $5 billion. You have to give state government credit for creativity — they’re tops when it comes to new and innovative budget gimmicks that ignore the reality that they consistently spend outside their means. Voters recognized that Prop 1C ignored this fundamental reality and rejected it 65-35.
— Proposition 1D would have shifted almost $2 billion from the California Children and Families Program into the general fund to close the budget gap. This is more budgetary maneuvering that would have left taxpayers on the hook when the program’s funding was inevitably restored. It lost 66-34.
— Proposition 1E failed by the same 66-34 tally. Like Prop 1D, it would have diverted funds from elsewhere in the budget to shore up general-fund overspending (about $230 million annually from Proposition 63 — a tax on the rich).
— Proposition 1F was the only measure to pass. It imposed a weak limit on pay raises for legislators, theoretically disallowing them during budget deficit years. Regardless of its actual teeth, the results show true populist outrage in California: The measure passed by a resounding 74-26.
We'll see if this sticks. If the Matrix (media) has their way, it won't. They slammed the vote. A prime example is the LA Slimes headline, California Voters Exercise Their Power and That's the Problem. My guess is King Hussein and the Feds will push to bail out California. That will guarantee a backlash from voters in the other states (myself included)that feel they shouldn't be responsible for paying for California's fiscal failures. (HT Rush Limbaugh, LA Slimes, NewsBusters, National Review, Newsmax, & HotAir):
Rush Limbaugh: The California Ballot Initiatives, Federalism and Colin Powell's GOP
LA Times: California Voters Exercise Their Power and That's the Problem.
NewsBusters: ABC Regrets California's 'Unwillingness to Raise Taxes'
National Review: California Voters Voice Outrage
NewsMax: Schwarzenegger's Pro-tax Ballot Goes Down in Flames
HotAir: California Tax Revolt: Voters Crush Schwarzenegger's Budget Proposals at the Polls
— Proposition 1A would have been the most damaging to taxpayers, as it would extend tax hikes on sales, income, and vehicles for two years, to the tune of $16 billion. It was disguised as a spending cap, but that cap was weak. Voters sniffed out the tax hikes and overwhelmingly opposed them 66-34.
— Proposition 1B didn’t fare much better, as it was rejected by a 62.5 to 37.5 vote. This measure was Gov. Schwarzenegger’s bow to the all-powerful teachers unions. It would have thrown an addition $9.3 billion toward education. It hoped to draw that money from the rainy day fund 1A would have established (so much for a spending cap). Thankfully for taxpayers, both measures were defeated.
— Proposition 1C would have allowed the state to borrow against future lottery revenues, about $5 billion. You have to give state government credit for creativity — they’re tops when it comes to new and innovative budget gimmicks that ignore the reality that they consistently spend outside their means. Voters recognized that Prop 1C ignored this fundamental reality and rejected it 65-35.
— Proposition 1D would have shifted almost $2 billion from the California Children and Families Program into the general fund to close the budget gap. This is more budgetary maneuvering that would have left taxpayers on the hook when the program’s funding was inevitably restored. It lost 66-34.
— Proposition 1E failed by the same 66-34 tally. Like Prop 1D, it would have diverted funds from elsewhere in the budget to shore up general-fund overspending (about $230 million annually from Proposition 63 — a tax on the rich).
— Proposition 1F was the only measure to pass. It imposed a weak limit on pay raises for legislators, theoretically disallowing them during budget deficit years. Regardless of its actual teeth, the results show true populist outrage in California: The measure passed by a resounding 74-26.
We'll see if this sticks. If the Matrix (media) has their way, it won't. They slammed the vote. A prime example is the LA Slimes headline, California Voters Exercise Their Power and That's the Problem. My guess is King Hussein and the Feds will push to bail out California. That will guarantee a backlash from voters in the other states (myself included)that feel they shouldn't be responsible for paying for California's fiscal failures. (HT Rush Limbaugh, LA Slimes, NewsBusters, National Review, Newsmax, & HotAir):
Rush Limbaugh: The California Ballot Initiatives, Federalism and Colin Powell's GOP
LA Times: California Voters Exercise Their Power and That's the Problem.
NewsBusters: ABC Regrets California's 'Unwillingness to Raise Taxes'
National Review: California Voters Voice Outrage
NewsMax: Schwarzenegger's Pro-tax Ballot Goes Down in Flames
HotAir: California Tax Revolt: Voters Crush Schwarzenegger's Budget Proposals at the Polls
NYC Synagogue Bomb Plot Thwarted, 4 Muslims Arrested
Let's just be honest here. Muslims hate Jews. Consequently they will try to blow them up anywhere, anytime. Thank God our law enforcement was on top of these hate filled zealots. Three other things are worth mentioning here: The 4 men arrested were American born jailhouse converts to Islam. They also wanted to shoot down a military plane. The FBI was on this case over a year. Will King Hussein fight jihad in a similar fashion? He won't acknowledge the War on Terror. Probably won't acknowledge global jihad either. (HT Atlas Shrugs):
Atlas Shrugs: 4 Muslim Terrorists Arrested In Planned Masive Bomb Attack On NYC Synagogues, National Guard Aviation
Atlas Shrugs: 4 Muslim Terrorists Arrested In Planned Masive Bomb Attack On NYC Synagogues, National Guard Aviation
Liz Cheney Provides A Blueprint To Deconstruct Liberal Arguments
Liz Cheney's blueprint to take down liberal arguments is fairly simple. Disagree and breakdown their premise. Identify them as part of groupthink, liberal conventional wisdom. Parroting the leftist talking points. Lastly, cite facts that support your point and defeat theirs. Here's some examples. On Good Morning America, The takes on left wing hack Larry O'Donnell. Regarding waterboarding, he states:
O'DONNELL: "It is torture. This government's prosecuted people in the past for doing exactly this, but Dick Cheney believes it's not torture and that's essential to his position. If it was effective, why didn't they use it on the 500 people that Bush-Cheney released from Guantanamo, 75 of whom we know now have gone back into the terrorism business. That was a failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to keep America safe by processing people correctly at Guantanamo. Is that accurate?"
LIZ: Let me go through all of the inaccuracies in what you've just said. First of all the question of whether or not enhanced interrogation is "torture" has been answered and it's been answered legally and it's not that Cheney or President Bush or anybody else "believed" it to be torture. The justice department of the United States --
O'DONNELL: (interrupting)
LIZ: Lawrence, I let you go.
O'DONNELL: Are you afraid of waterboarding, Liz?
LIZ: No. Waterboarding is not torture.
O'DONNELL: (pompous laugh)
LIZ: You know what, though? I would refer you to Attorney General Holder's testimony --
O'DONNELL: Why has this country prosecuted people for waterboarding?
LIZ: Lawrence?
O'DONNELL: Why did we do that?
LIZ: Because they did a number of other things in addition to waterboarding. Attorney General Holder had a hard time explaining exactly what the legal definition is of waterboarding that would make it torture. We've done it to our own people. Secondly, your argument about why didn't we do it to 500 other people proves our point. It was used in three cases when we had terrorists who had information about potential attacks on the United States of America. So the notion that somehow, you know, we should have waterboarded everybody? I'm surprised that that's a position you've taken.
This is how you do it - stay on offense, don't accept liberal BS, cite the facts. Regarding Attorney General Holder, He couldn't explain the legal definition of waterboarding. Louie Gohmert and Dan Lundgren was questioning him. Gohmert's a former appellate judge, and they zeroed in on Holder. Holder was destroyed in a Q&A about waterboarding and "torture" in general. It boiled down to a position that the administration has taken -- and that, by the way, is legal doctrine. It is a legal doctrine that was evolved during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has adopted it and continues to use it, and that is it can't be torture if the interrogators do not intend torture. If they're waterboarding somebody, for example, and they don't intend permanent harm or physical harm that has any lasting effect -- psychological, whatever -- if they do it then there's no torture. They pointed out to Holder that Navy SEALs go through it as training.
A lot of military people go through it as training for if they are captured. And how to resist it. And so they asked him, "Are you saying we're torturing our own people?" And Holder had said, "No, because when we waterboard SEALs we're not intending to harm 'em." Well, we weren't intending to harm Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We were trying to get information from him! We weren't trying to harm him. So Holder was totally defeated on the whole notion of torture. This was not reported in the Matrix (Media). Lawrence O'Donnell has no clue that it happened. He has no clue that Obama's own attorney general has been defeated demonstrably on the whole concept of waterboarding being torture. Liz Cheney knew, and so she hit O'Donnell with it. So the whole notion that waterboarding is torture is not even an official legal position of the Obama administration.
Another fine example. Liz Cheney on Anderson Cooper. Cooper asks: More than 100 people are known to have died in US custody, some that were ruled a homicide. If these were tightly controlled things, how come so many people are murdered in US custody?
LIZ: Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible.
COOPER: Why?
LIZ: Because you are contemplating things that aren't conflated. When somebody dies or is "murdered" in US custody then we are a great nation and we take the people who are responsible and we put them on trial as you've seen happen throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program, and to somehow suggest that those two things are the same I think willfully conflates something and ends up in a situation where we aren't able to take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened.
Anderson Cooper's there saying, "What's my next question?" Yeah, he's trying to probably figure out what "conflate" means and so forth. But what she's talking about here, he asked this loaded question, a hundred people died in US custody. And what he's implying is it happened because we waterboarded them or we tortured them. She said, "No, no, no. Your question is fallacious. The premise is irresponsible -- and whenever these kinds of things happen we have prosecuted." Liberalism is a series of mirages and images and PR -- and the truth does not need a majority to win, as Liz Cheney is illustrating. She's going on these programs solo, ganged up on by at least two and maybe more people who oppose her and she's wiping them out with something as simple as the truth. She often starts by refusing to debate their cliched, fallacious premises. Thank you Liz Cheney for showing us how it's done.
(HT Rush Limbaugh, Hot Air, National Review, Fox News, & NewsBusters):
Rush Lumbaugh: Liz Cheney Conducts a Clinic on How to Destroy Liberal Arguments
HotAir: Liz Cheney to Obama: Stop Letting the Polls Shape Your Policy on Terror
National Review: On 'Torture,' Holder Undoes Holder
FOXNews: Holder Tongue-Tied Over Waterboarding
NewsBusters: Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC: Cheney Speech 'Sleazy,' 'An Abomination'
O'DONNELL: "It is torture. This government's prosecuted people in the past for doing exactly this, but Dick Cheney believes it's not torture and that's essential to his position. If it was effective, why didn't they use it on the 500 people that Bush-Cheney released from Guantanamo, 75 of whom we know now have gone back into the terrorism business. That was a failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to keep America safe by processing people correctly at Guantanamo. Is that accurate?"
LIZ: Let me go through all of the inaccuracies in what you've just said. First of all the question of whether or not enhanced interrogation is "torture" has been answered and it's been answered legally and it's not that Cheney or President Bush or anybody else "believed" it to be torture. The justice department of the United States --
O'DONNELL: (interrupting)
LIZ: Lawrence, I let you go.
O'DONNELL: Are you afraid of waterboarding, Liz?
LIZ: No. Waterboarding is not torture.
O'DONNELL: (pompous laugh)
LIZ: You know what, though? I would refer you to Attorney General Holder's testimony --
O'DONNELL: Why has this country prosecuted people for waterboarding?
LIZ: Lawrence?
O'DONNELL: Why did we do that?
LIZ: Because they did a number of other things in addition to waterboarding. Attorney General Holder had a hard time explaining exactly what the legal definition is of waterboarding that would make it torture. We've done it to our own people. Secondly, your argument about why didn't we do it to 500 other people proves our point. It was used in three cases when we had terrorists who had information about potential attacks on the United States of America. So the notion that somehow, you know, we should have waterboarded everybody? I'm surprised that that's a position you've taken.
This is how you do it - stay on offense, don't accept liberal BS, cite the facts. Regarding Attorney General Holder, He couldn't explain the legal definition of waterboarding. Louie Gohmert and Dan Lundgren was questioning him. Gohmert's a former appellate judge, and they zeroed in on Holder. Holder was destroyed in a Q&A about waterboarding and "torture" in general. It boiled down to a position that the administration has taken -- and that, by the way, is legal doctrine. It is a legal doctrine that was evolved during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has adopted it and continues to use it, and that is it can't be torture if the interrogators do not intend torture. If they're waterboarding somebody, for example, and they don't intend permanent harm or physical harm that has any lasting effect -- psychological, whatever -- if they do it then there's no torture. They pointed out to Holder that Navy SEALs go through it as training.
A lot of military people go through it as training for if they are captured. And how to resist it. And so they asked him, "Are you saying we're torturing our own people?" And Holder had said, "No, because when we waterboard SEALs we're not intending to harm 'em." Well, we weren't intending to harm Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We were trying to get information from him! We weren't trying to harm him. So Holder was totally defeated on the whole notion of torture. This was not reported in the Matrix (Media). Lawrence O'Donnell has no clue that it happened. He has no clue that Obama's own attorney general has been defeated demonstrably on the whole concept of waterboarding being torture. Liz Cheney knew, and so she hit O'Donnell with it. So the whole notion that waterboarding is torture is not even an official legal position of the Obama administration.
Another fine example. Liz Cheney on Anderson Cooper. Cooper asks: More than 100 people are known to have died in US custody, some that were ruled a homicide. If these were tightly controlled things, how come so many people are murdered in US custody?
LIZ: Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible.
COOPER: Why?
LIZ: Because you are contemplating things that aren't conflated. When somebody dies or is "murdered" in US custody then we are a great nation and we take the people who are responsible and we put them on trial as you've seen happen throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program, and to somehow suggest that those two things are the same I think willfully conflates something and ends up in a situation where we aren't able to take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened.
Anderson Cooper's there saying, "What's my next question?" Yeah, he's trying to probably figure out what "conflate" means and so forth. But what she's talking about here, he asked this loaded question, a hundred people died in US custody. And what he's implying is it happened because we waterboarded them or we tortured them. She said, "No, no, no. Your question is fallacious. The premise is irresponsible -- and whenever these kinds of things happen we have prosecuted." Liberalism is a series of mirages and images and PR -- and the truth does not need a majority to win, as Liz Cheney is illustrating. She's going on these programs solo, ganged up on by at least two and maybe more people who oppose her and she's wiping them out with something as simple as the truth. She often starts by refusing to debate their cliched, fallacious premises. Thank you Liz Cheney for showing us how it's done.
(HT Rush Limbaugh, Hot Air, National Review, Fox News, & NewsBusters):
Rush Lumbaugh: Liz Cheney Conducts a Clinic on How to Destroy Liberal Arguments
HotAir: Liz Cheney to Obama: Stop Letting the Polls Shape Your Policy on Terror
National Review: On 'Torture,' Holder Undoes Holder
FOXNews: Holder Tongue-Tied Over Waterboarding
NewsBusters: Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC: Cheney Speech 'Sleazy,' 'An Abomination'
Kaufman Staduim Brawl - And It Doesn't Involve The Royals
This one features parents fighting in the kids area. And you only thought 5 year-olds fought in the sandbox. I guess this means they moved up from brawling at Chuck E. Cheese's. How classy. A great example for the youth. (HT Deadspin, MomLogic, & Kansas City Star):
Deadspin: Royals Fans Turn Children's Playground Into Thunderdome
Kansas City Star: Two Charged In Brawl At Kauffman
Deadspin: Royals Fans Turn Children's Playground Into Thunderdome
Kansas City Star: Two Charged In Brawl At Kauffman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)