Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obama, Backstabber-in-Chief

'President' Barack Hussein Obama betrays his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and betrays his duty to the sovereign state of Arizona. How many impeachable offenses will he be allowed to commit?

CNSNews.com - State Dept Referring Arizona’s Immigration Law to U.N. is Rebuffed by Arizona Sheriff – ‘Regard for the U.N. as I Do the Vermin That Hides in the Rocks’
    “Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.”

    The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt.

    The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better.

    Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Canadian Death Panel in Action

Hospital withholds food, water from Christian pastor
Order requires seriously injured patient to ask for drink to live
    He was revived successfully, although the apparent brain damage from the attack left him in a coma for a time. He was placed in intensive care where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness has reported he has regained movement in his arms and legs and that he recognizes the family he is living with.

    According to Bernard Stephenson, another local pastor and friend who visits Mayandy daily, the injured man can speak some words.

    But staff with Brampton Civic Hospital, which is part of the William Osler Health Center, disagree. According to Stephenson, doctors asserted all along that there was no hope of recovery.

    The disagreement over his condition and capacity triggered in Ontario the involvement of the region's "Consent and Capacity" board, which by law determines the proper medical treatment for patients unable to make decisions themselves.
    However, Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the board's decision simply is euthanasia by omission.

    He also claims the hospital put pressure on Mayandy's friend, whose name has been redacted from the decision letter, to support its decision.

    "Joshua, who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death. This is not the case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability," Schadenberg said.

    He also believes Mayandy's friend and strategic decision-maker, chosen by the board, was pressured into supporting the hospital's position before he appeared before the Consent and Capacity board.

    Schadenberg said, "It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a substitute decision maker to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that person's willingness to a agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person."

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Somebody Had To Say It!

Michelle Malkin » Big Government Huckster John McCain’s bitter, clingy $21 million primary fight; Update: Election night results; Meghan McCain taunts Hayworth

Saturday, August 21, 2010

You Can Tell a Tree by its Fruit

American Thinker: The Civility Gap
    One of the unspoken truths of the political and ideological wars which rage around us is the civility gap between the left and conservatives.
    These leftists had the manners of Nazis, their Siamese twins ideologically. I would respond, always, politely -- much to their chagrin sometimes. I would also ask them, civilly, if there were any facts which I could present which would change their minds. In every single case, no facts, however well-documented, could sway their mind, which was marinated in noxious misology.

    Conservatives have criticized my articles more often than leftists, but their critiques almost never have personal attacks. They discuss legislative votes, public statements, and philosophies of government and society. Conservatives are civil, even when they strongly disagree with me.
    First, most conservatives are religious. They may be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, but within them burns real, living faith. Courtesy, kindness, and respect are ineradicably intertwined in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Treating people as you would like to be treated, among countless other rules the Blessed Creator has enjoined us to follow, simply prohibits the sort of savagery which pockmarks leftism.

    Second, conservatives believe in markets.
    Treating our neighbors decently, treating strangers decently, watching our language when around children, ladies, or the elderly -- these and countless other signal "transactions" in the marketplace of human interactions largely determine what sort of life we will lead.

    The left dislikes all forms of markets and believes instead in coercion
    [...] -- these people trust force and pressure more than liberty and choice.

    Third, conservatives believe in truth. Leftists like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Howard Dean, and Al Gore believe that ideology is truth. There is no point in really looking beyond ideology, and any facts which contradict their ideological reality must be false.
    Those who seek truth behave entirely differently from those who seek to crush truth. We listen to the left because we want to hear what they have to say. Most of us can state the arguments of the left better than Howard Dean or Barack Obama could ever recapitulate conservative positions. When the left has a point, as with the corruption of Nixon, we agree with them (Nixon resigned when Republican leaders, including Goldwater, told him he must -- in stark contrast to Clinton when caught in a web of outlandish lies and perjury). Those who truly want the free flow of information do not invent "speech codes" for college campuses and do not try to create a climate in which the political or ideological impact of each word must be weighed before spoken. Conservatives, then, are like true Americans -- plain-talking, really listening, open-minded, but independent-thinking people.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


FOXNews.com - Why Does Hollywood Hate 'To Save a Life'?
    Preaching Christian salvation is to preach moral absolutes.

    Hollywood no likey.

    It seems that the snobs at The New York Times would rather see more teens go ahead and off themselves than find salvation through the Christian faith (imaginary or not). One has to wonder if the reviews would have been more glowing had Jake found his salvation through medical marijuana, the newest hip detox center, or by simply “believing in himself.”

Reagan vs. Tyrants

Monday, August 16, 2010

Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Congressional Report Blasts the Propaganda Presidency, Accuses Administration of Abuse of Office

Still more impeachable offenses....

Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Congressional Report Blasts the Propaganda Presidency, Accuses Administration of Abuse of Office
    The most recent DHHS-related abuse is the cable television ad by retired actor Andy Griffith touting both Medicare and ObamaCare:
    This year, as always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits. And with the new healthcare law, more good things are coming. Free check-ups, lower prescription costs and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud. … I think you’re gonna like it.
    The DHHS paid for the ad, which cost $700,000. It was also featured on both the DHHS and White House websites. The commitee notes that the ad “was designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrats’ major legislative initiatives,” and is therefore unlawful.

    Both President Obama and Vice President Biden have touted Recovery.gov, a site Biden was publicly charged with creating, as evidence that the administration’s stimulus efforts have been successful — in effect, asking the public to ask them how well they think they are doing their jobs. Interestingly enough, the economic figures touted on the site and referred to by the administration have been revealed to be fraudulent. Once called upon the suspect numbers, Recovery.gov merely changed their criteria so that they would not be responsible for disclosing the fraudulent data. The committee concludes: “[W]asting those dollars by promoting false or misleading information is an abuse of the resources at the disposal of the White House and a betrayal of public trust.”

    The worst abuse of propaganda is directly connected to the White House. BarackObama.com, run by the Democratic National Committee, has been featured during the president’s speeches. It has been used by the administration and the DNC as a mechanism to lobby Congress, again apparently illegally, and to use the president’s high profile to solicit funds for the DNC as part of what has been mocked by some as the president’s “permanent campaign.” Additional efforts by First Lady Michelle Obama, detailed in the report’s reporting on the “iParticipate” initiative, find that the administration skirted the Hatch Act and and federal anti-lobbying laws by using Mrs. Obama to support the presidents social and health care agendas with $240 million worth of free advertising.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Legislation from the Bench is No Less Than Tyranny

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8 banning "same-sex marriage". Frank Turek breaks down the judge's fantastical assertions and hypocritical abandonment of law.
    Top 10 gay marriage false 'facts'

    When one judge overturned the will of more than seven million Californians last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed "findings of fact" (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They're lies or distortions.

    Before we address the top ten false "facts" asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:
    "The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples."
    Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.

    Second, Prop. 8 doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We're all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

    What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker's first false "fact."

    1. "Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group." (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker's entire case collapses without it. The "fact" is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.

    Having certain sexual desires — whether you were "born" with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn't allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker's false "fact" was a real fact, we'd have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are "sexual orientations" too.

    In other words, there should be no legal class of "gay" or "straight," just a legal class called "person." And it doesn't matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that's a job for the people, not judges.

    2. "California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California." (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. Statistics show that health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well) — a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That's exactly what same-sex marriage does — it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

    But won't same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker's next false fact.

    3. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions." (FF 48) What does "successful" mean? It has nothing to do with children, according to Judge Walker. In his "the stork brings children" universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a "successful" marriage is merely about commitment, but he can't even support that case.

    In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it's a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, "None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage." Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that's why he didn't bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.

    4. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.

    5. "Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples." (FF 62) It's too bad Judge Walker didn't look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same-sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

    Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught about homosexuality in grades as low as kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.

    "But you can't legislate morality!" some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights — rights that our founders declared self-evident.

    Think I'm overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it's poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

    6. "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." (FF 46) I guess thousands of ex-gays just don't exist in Judge Walker's special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

    This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary — a self-described "Jewish atheist," Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they've turned on him because he reported the truth.

    Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study "has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual you can never change."

    When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change its position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, "I think they should, [but] they will not be....There's a gay activist group that's very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There's nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won't talk."

    Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker's conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that's intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can't they be talked out of it?

    Sexual orientation isn't like race either. You'll find many former homosexuals, but you'll never find a former African American.

    Of course Walker's "fact" even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can't change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal "marriage" relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.

    7. "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment." (FF 70) Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion "is accepted beyond serious debate." Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his "fact."

    But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. "No respect at all — when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!"

    Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.

    Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain — if men and women are interchangeable — then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, "Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex"?

    Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes: "[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them."

    8. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.

    9. "Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships." (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society's very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.

    (1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

    (2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn't thrive because it wouldn't even survive. It would end the human race!

    This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.

    If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality, not me. I didn't make up the facts of nature. I'm just admitting them — something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.

    10. "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." (Conclusion) The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any "rational basis" for overturning Proposition 8 — no rational basis from the Constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their "private moral views" cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own "private moral view" that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.

    He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed." If that's true, that's not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.

    Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That's what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Mexican's Actually Did Take Over Laredo Ranch

Journalistic backbiting and one-upmanship while Mexicans invade.
    Despite Naysayers, Reporters Get at the Truth about What Happened in Lardeo

    This is a cautionary tale about reporters eagerly attacking other reporters working a developing story. Because it’s not possible to provide evidence as quickly as some might demand it doesn’t mean the story is false.

    On July 24, Kimberly Dvorak, of the Examiner, and Don Amato, of the blog Digger’s Realm, broke the story about two Texas ranches outside of Laredo, Texas, being seized by members of Los Zetas drug cartel. Today, Ms. Dvorak posted a copy of the police blotter which provides a good deal of the information necessary to confirm her initial story’s claims:
    After 16 days of denials by Laredo law enforcement and local officials regarding a Mexican drug cartel takeover of a Laredo area ranch, a Texas police blotter proves the alleged incident did in fact happen and that multiple agencies responded to the scene of a seized U.S. ranch...

    “On Friday 7-23-10 Laredo Webb informed that their county SWAT Team is conducting an operation in the Mines Rd. area. According to LT. Garcia with LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) received a call from a ranch owner stating that the Zetas had taken over his ranch. As per the 17 (reporting person) he informed them that they stated La Compania (area business) was taking the ranch and no one was permitted on the ranch without permission. SO (Sheriff Office) will have an unmarked green Ford Taurus with two officers stationed at Los Compadres and a white Chevy Tahoe with two officers stationed at Mineral Rd. The LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) will maintain surveillance in the area and advise if action is taken. Susp (suspect) Veh (vehicle) are described as a gray or silver Audi, a BLK (black) Escalade or Navigator and a van truck with a logo of a car wash spot free on the side. Border Patrol also has their response team on scene. Also known info of BMW’s and Corvettes entering and leaving the area. Auth LT Lichtenberger if assistance is requested LPD (Laredo Police Department) will secure the outer perimeter. (07/24/10 07:42:10 NR1873)”

    Dvorak’s latest post confirmed several details that I had been able to ascertain through other sources. One important detail was different: only one ranch was investigated and under surveillance, not the two originally reported.

    The original story quoted multiple anonymous sources in law enforcement and was quickly picked up by Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report, Big Peace and DBKP among others. Almost as quickly, the story was branded an Internet rumor,” “conspiracy theory,” a “hoax” or outright lies by the usual suspects from the Progressive Left/amnesty crowd.

    One expected this crew to crank out immediate rebuttals–without offering any proof–such as Right-Wingers Stand By Their Fabricated Mexican Drug Cartel Raid Story.” What one didn’t expect was for Soros-financed attack dog Media Matters to cite a right-leaning blogger as evidence the story was a “rumor”–not once, but twice.

    Law enforcement was not denying the story. I tried six times to get the Laredo PD to flat-out deny the story, but received a host of “can’t confirm” and “can’t say anything.” A tip for the aspiring reporter: be aware of the “non-denial denial.” Spokesmen who are trying to keep a lid on a story –because of a continuing investigation, so as not to scare off targets of surveillance, for whatever reasons — will often offer a host of creative answers in lieu of a flat-out, simple “no.” It’s often not only advisable, but necessary, to parse carefully what spokesmen say.

    Local media sources confirmed on July 28 that no written statement had been issued and that no local law enforcement officers had issued a simple denial. It’s telling that despite reports of “numerous media inquiries,” local law enforcement issued no written statement for nearly a week after the story broke.

    The local paper, the Laredo Morning Times, reported on the story, confirming that no law enforcement agency had gone on the record with an outright denial. After speaking several times with the paper’s reporter, Nick Georgiou, I felt that his story was very fair — but it wasn‘t a rebuttal.

    However, the LMT’s article was offered as proof that the story was a hoax. As one blogger put it, “You’d think the local paper would know, wouldn’t you?”

    Not content with merely disagreeing with what local law enforcement was saying, within 24 hours of the story breaking, one blogger tagged those who had reported the story “Laredo Truthers” — which likely set a record for the quickest use of the discussion-quashing “truther” label. It was after this salvo that Big Journalism published The MSM in the Fog of War: What’s Going On in Laredo, Tex.? In it, I laid out several reasons why the story might well be true.

    Pat Dollard — who covered aspects of the story — said, “Keep in mind the Top Two Big Scores for bloggers: 1. The Scoop and 2. The “I’m Superior Because I Didn’t Fall For A False Scoop” post. The myth-busting Laredo “debunkers”–who are citing a phone call to a heretofor-unknown-to-them source at a police department (a source who any reporter of police matters knows may have to issue denials of events in order to protect ongoing investigations, or ongoing operations pertaining to those events) as full and final evidence of the falsity of Dvorak’s story–are chasing the second, and at this point in the game are heavily invested in it.

    The final irony? In this case the only people guilty of lazy, sloppy, shoddy, agenda-driven, factually incorrect reporting — the ones who owe the world a retraction, and who owe an apology to Kimberly Dvorak.

    Another guess: there is a subset of the blogosphere which is terrified that they will report a “planted story” by the Left and, by the very act of reporting, will lose “credibility.” Their motto seems to be, “If it’s not on CNN, it didn’t happen."

    Why even have a New Media, if it acts like the Old Legacy Media? Whatever happened to just reporting the story — especially one that’s developing, instead of hastily rushing to quash it? Sources who come forward with information may begin by remaining anonymous. However, they may encourage others to later come forward on the record. “Anonymous” sources doesn’t necessarily mean “not credible” sources.

    With the 2010 and 2012 elections coming up, there will likely be stories that take longer to develop than a single blog post. Because the MSM doesn’t quickly confirm them, they shouldn’t be strangled in the cradle by those who come late to the story or disagree from afar.

    Just ask Brad Thor.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Perfect Microcosm of U.S. Politics Today

This story demonstrates the vast chasm between a rational, free-thinking, freedom-respecting, market-based approach to a problem on the one hand and nothing more than tyranny on the other.
    Feds threatened universities that used Kindles, claiming they violated the civil rights of the blind

    Posted by Kim Priestap
    Published: August 10, 2010 - 7:51 PM

    Come on, this is so preposterous that it has to be the brainchild of the Onion, right? Nope, the feds really did threaten to sue the universities that allowed students to use Kindles for textbooks. Byron York wrote about it last week

    Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?

    Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.

    It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    Why would the federal government get so upset about something as innocuous as the Kindle? It goes to the heart of what makes the Obama administration tick:

    The Civil Rights Division informed the schools they were under investigation. In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn't use the device, then nobody could. The Federation made the same demand in a separate lawsuit against Arizona State.

    This is what drives the Obama administration's redistributionist policies. If the poor don't have money, then the feds will just take it from the rich and give it to them. Same thing with votes for felons. However, since the feds can't seize the eyes from the sighted and hand them over to the blind, then the feds will just make sure the sighted are denied products the blind can't use. It's all done in the name of "fairness."

    But as York noted, the market was at work and solved that problem on its own:
    One obvious solution to the problem, of course, was to fix the Kindle. Early on, Amazon told federation officials it would apply text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week the company announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working.

    But don't worry, the feds under the Obama administration will find some way to punish the haves in the name of delivering justice to the have-nots.

    Cross-posted at KimPriestap
    About The Author: Kim Priestap is a freelance writer, blogger extraordinaire, columnist, and all around cool gal. Married to Steve for twelve years, they have three wild and wacky kids. Kim splits her time between south central Michigan during the school year and northern Michigan during the summer, where she and her husband own and operate a canoe livery and fly shop near the banks of the beautiful and historic Au Sable River.

    In addition to blogging at Wizbang, she also writes at her personal political blog KimPriestap: No-nonsense conservative opinion.

    You can follow Kim on Twitter at @KimPriestap and at her Facebook page.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Smears Against Tea Parties Are Contrived Political Strategy | NetRight Daily

Smears Against Tea Parties Are Contrived Political Strategy | NetRight Daily
    The attacks on the tea party movement and other citizen activists are continuing. This time, the DNC has unveiled its latest effort to portray tea parties, and Republicans, as radicals and extremists.
    This effort, www.republicanteapartycontract.com, is nothing more than a series of misrepresentations of popular ideas like repealing ObamaCare and the financial takeover, eliminating whole departments and agencies in the federal government, keeping taxes low, etc. but it is occurring in a highly charged media climate where the NAACP has accused the movement of being racist.

    The DNC is attempting to ride that wave of coverage to discredit the movement once and for all. It has all of the appearances of a coordinated attack, but there is an even wider context than has been widely reported by the mainstream media that shows a clear pattern to sabotage, infiltrate, and to otherwise destroy the movement, which has been chronicled by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin.
H/T ARRA News Service

Sunday, August 01, 2010

"Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man."

An elderly veteran straightens out whippersnapper Obama.
    Pass It On
      Dear President Obama,
      My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

      I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

      One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

      So here goes.

      I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

      I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
      You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
      " We're no longer a Christian nation"
      " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
      announced to the world," America is mean-
      spirited.. " Please tell her to try preaching
      that nonsense to 23 generations of our
      war dead buried all over the globe who
      died for no other reason than to free a
      whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
      I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

      After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

      Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

      I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

      Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

      Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

      And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

      One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

      You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
      You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
      And I sure don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...

      Harold B. Estes

    Snopes confirms as true
    When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.