Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Hollywood's Favorite Butcher

H/T Babalu

Legacy News Covers Up SEIU Terrorist Connection

Chicago Media Omit Fact That FBI Terror Suspect is Chief Steward for SEIU
    One might think it would be big news that a Chief Steward for a local chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is being investigated by the FBI for possible connection to overseas terror networks. Apparently, though, several Chicago news outlets didn’t see a reason to add this little fact to their stories.
    But it isn’t just TV that missed this fact. The Associated Press also seems to be blind to the fact that Iosbaker is a union operative.
    The fact seems to be that Iosbaker is not just a little fish in the big union pond. He is at least a middle-manager and local union muckety-muck. So why did so many news outlets somehow forget to mention this fact? Isn’t his status as a union operative with some station and position significant?
    One is tempted to think that these news outlets were trying to cover for the SEIU.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Our Anti-American President

Obama's Arizona Jihad - HUMAN EVENTS
    The Obama Administration’s jihad against Arizona continues to rage. Most recently, it included SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) in a report to the United Nations on human rights abuses.
    I didn’t think it could get any worse than the Obama Administration suing a sovereign state for simply enforcing federal immigration law—indeed, for simply defending its citizens—but it has.
    President Obama has decided to have the United Nations review the law of Arizona. You have got to be kidding! We’re now going to have countries like Cuba, Libya and Uganda sitting in judgment on Arizona’s laws? Enough is enough!
    Sheriff Joe’s crack down on illegal immigration led the Mexican drug cartels to put a $1 million bounty on his head last month.

    When the sheriff of America’s fourth-largest county is threatened by foreign enemies, you would think that the President would assist him. Instead, Obama is siding with the cartels. While they are sending their guns against Sheriff Joe, Obama is sending his lawyers.
    Americans need to wake up! Obama’s assault on SB 1070 and Sheriff Joe has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, civil rights, or even the relationship between federal vs. state authority on immigration.

    It is about Obama’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws. He won’t let the federal government enforce the law. And if a state tries to pick up their slack and protect its citizens, he sues them.

    This is the Obama’s Civil Rights Division of $145 million and 399 attorneys attacking Arizona and its citizens. This is a battle of epic proportions. They have the support of highly funded left-wing open-borders legal advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Bring it on!!

Friday, September 24, 2010

The Last Best Hope: Pass it On!

H/T: The Borg Conspiracy

"My Yoke is Easy and My Burden is Light"

How Many Times Did Goldwater Run For President Again?
By Ann Coulter

    Unlike abortion-loving Goldwater, Reagan said, "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."

    And unlike gay-marriage-loving Goldwater, Reagan said: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. ... We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."

    Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

    CNN's Borger contrasted Goldwater with Ronald Reagan by precisely reversing their differences, claiming Reagan "was probably the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

    Yes, the man who called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," who wrote a book against abortion as a sitting president, and who said that our government's founding documents "speak of man being created, of a creator, that we are a nation under God" -- that's the one Borger calls "the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

    By "most secular," I gather she means "most deeply religious."

    Establishment Republicans are always telling Christian conservatives to put our issues aside because they're not popular -- and then moderate Republicans go on to lose elections, while conservative Republicans win in landslides.

RINO Hunting

Jim DeMint's courage and Lisa Murkowski's betrayal
By Mark Thiessen
    The idea that DeMint and the Tea Party are threatening the GOP's chances for reclaiming the majority is absurd. Republicans wouldn't have a shot at taking back either the House or Senate were it not for the Tea Party movement, which has both energized the conservative base and attracted independents to the GOP by promising to reform the party and restore fiscal sanity in Washington. The best way to dispirit the conservative base and lose those independents would be to take back the majority and go back to business as usual.

    This may be why DeMint is less concerned with changing who controls the Senate than he is with changing the way the Senate does business -- by electing outsiders who are committed to restoring the GOP's reputation as the party of limited government and fiscal discipline.

    Regardless of the outcome in Alaska -- or who controls the upper chamber after November -- there is likely to be a wave of new insurgent senators arriving in Washington. The question is: When those insurgents arrive, will they remember how the Republican leadership fought them -- or how the Republican leadership fought for them?

    Marc A. Thiessen is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and writes a weekly column for The Post.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Dim Bulbs in D.C.

Not only is it morally wrong for the government to try to run your life, but also the government is simply very bad at doing it.

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: Proceed with Caution
By Peter Wilson
    Many people, however, don't like curlicue light bulbs, and not because these people are uninformed, shortsighted, or on the payroll of Big Carbon. The list of objections is long, but here are a few:

    • CFL manufacturers claim that a 13-watt CFL emits the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent, but it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. I've been in CFL-lit hotel rooms where I need a flashlight to read my dog-eared copy of The Road to Serfdom.

    • Warm-up time: it takes up to 5 minutes for a CFL to reach full strength, which may be related to the point above (why CFLs seem less bright). My friend has installed them in a hallway where illumination is needed only for the thirty seconds it takes to navigate the staircase. Not ideal when Grandma visits and can't see the skateboard on the stairs.

    • Few CFLs last for their advertised lifetimes of five years or more. Many people report replacing them after one year, making those return on investment numbers a bit less rosy. Using them in ceiling fixtures, on dimmers or timers, and for less than fifteen minutes per use reduce their life.

    • CFLs contain mercury and should be returned to a hazardous waste center for disposal. Studies assume a 25% recycling rate, with the rest going into landfills. (The Westinghouse website recommends recycling only when disposing of "a large quantity" of fluorescent tubes and doesn't mention how to dispose of their CFLs.) According to a 2008 Yale study, burning coal to supply electricity to incandescent bulbs emits more mercury per bulb than a CFL contains, but regions that rely on cleaner fuels like natural gas experience greater mercury contamination with the introduction of CFLs. Why would environmentalists advocate to bring a toxic product into every home?

    • Cleaning up a broken CFL doesn't require a haz-mat team, but you have to take significant precautions to avoid mercury contamination of living areas.

    • Manufacturing CFLs is labor-intensive. No CFLs are made with expensive U.S. labor; most are made in China, where hundreds of factory workers in CFL plants have been hospitalized for mercury poisoning. The last major light bulb factory in the U.S., a GE plant in Winchester, VA, closed earlier this month.

    • CFLs require six times as much energy to manufacture as incandescent bulbs, not to mention -- if you're concerned about such things -- the carbon footprint of shipping them from China.

    • CFLs appear to cause migraines and epileptic seizures in a small number of people. Other health risks are being studied.

    • CFLs work poorly in cold temperatures -- as a wintertime front porch light, for example. In cold climates, the heat of incandescent bulbs is a useful -- if inefficient -- byproduct.

    • CFLs degrade the quality of the electric current (so-called "dirty electricity" with uneven sine waves) on a circuit into which they are plugged, causing problems for other electronic devices and possible health hazards to humans.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

History in the Making

I was pretty sure I understood the meaning, but I looked it up just to be sure.
    1885, from Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who defeated Roman armies at Asculum, 280 B.C.E., but at such cost to his own troops that he was unable to follow up and attack Rome itself, and is said to have remarked, "one more such victory and we are lost."

Pyrrhic Victory? Right Diagnosis, Wrong Patient
By Randall Hoven
    Assume the geniuses are right. In fact, assume the worst case: O'Donnell loses the general election and the Senate ends up 50-50, with the tie-breaking vote going to Joe Biden. If we wing-nuts hadn't screwed things up by electing O'Donnell in the primary, the Senate would be majority Republican in 2011-12. How much better would a majority-by-one outcome be?

    We do not have to hypothesize such a situation. Exactly that happened in 2001. And this is what happened: Jim Jeffords, nominal Republican, left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats, putting them in majority control for the remainder of that Senate term.
    When we really, really needed him, Jumpin' Jim jumped. To be clear, all of the good do-bee Republicans who supported our "moderate" Republicans from the Northeast still got screwed. They lost the money they sent him and lost the Senate anyway. Strike one.

    Move to the next northeast state, Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey ran against Arlen Specter in the GOP primary in 2004. There was nothing wrong or "wing-nut" about Toomey. He had served in the House for the previous six years. He was a Harvard graduate for goodness sake. But, he wasn't the choice of the Republican Party geniuses. The geniuses knew their incumbent, Arlen. And Arlen proved, if nothing else, that he could win elections in Pennsylvania. So Arlen got the GOP money, the GOP backing and President Bush's endorsement.

    Then, when we really, really needed it -- when it might have been possible to filibuster Obama's stimulus in 2009 if a mere 41 GOP senators could hang together -- three GOP senators, all from the Northeast, broke ranks: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Strike two.

    Then, when we really, really, really needed him, to defeat ObamaCare by filibuster, Arlen did Jumpin' Jim one better and became an out-and-out Democrat. He ended up voting for ObamaCare as a Democrat. He took GOP money when he ran in 2004, and then voted against the GOP when it counted most. Strike three. And I'm out.

Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Era
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

    There isn't a Tea Partier who doesn't understand the danger of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. Any Republican taking any title for granted, however, is a problem. Now, you've got to earn it. With this first federal election of the Tea Party era, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils.

    Christine O'Donnell is that lesson. At Friday's Values Voter Summit in Washington, she said, "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country. We are our country." That reminded me of another outsider derided by the establishment: Ronald Reagan.

    With Democrats on the run in so many races, their resources are stretched. Democrats will need to rely on bitter Republicans to fend off O'Donnell's run in Delaware. Conservatives mustn't allow the bitter Republicans to destroy the chance to take the Senate by backing down from, or making excuses for, their establishment "friends."

    The 2010 elections will show who's on our side. It's up to the people who care too much about America to no longer care what the establishment thinks of them.

More relevant words for this week:

[waw-ter-shed, wot-er-]

  1. Chiefly British . the ridge or crest line dividing two drainage areas; water parting; divide.

  2. the region or area drained by a river, stream, etc.; drainage area.

  3. Architecture . wash ( def. 44 ) .

  4. an important point of division or transition between two phases, conditions, etc.: The treaty to ban war in space may prove to be one of history's great watersheds.


  1. a stone functioning as a milepost.

  2. a significant event or stage in the life, progress, development, or the like of a person, nation, etc.: Her getting the job of supervisor was a milestone in her career.

sea change 
  1. a striking change, as in appearance, often for the better.

  2. any major transformation or alteration.

  3. a transformation brought about by the sea.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Smoking Bazooka

The Democrats' Fannie is Showing
    After the global financial crisis, no politician would dare chide another for too much "safety and soundness." But in 2004, 76 Democrats actually asked President Bush not to manage Fannie Mae responsibly.

    There are smoking guns and then there are smoking bazookas. The June 28, 2004, letter from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and dozens of other House Democrats to President Bush, posted by Moe Lane on last week, forever squashes Democratic claims about the mortgage crisis not being their fault.

    "We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats.

Tito "The Builder" Munoz Makes This Native Proud to Be an American

When I see people like this man gathering under our flag, I feel encouraged that God does indeed still bless America.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Bonfire of the Insanities - HUMAN EVENTS

Bonfire of the Insanities - HUMAN EVENTS

    by Ann Coulter

    In response to Gen David Petraeus' denunciation of Florida pastor Terry Jones' right to engage in a symbolic protest of the 9/11 attacks by burning copies of the Quran this Sept. 11, President Obama said: "Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country."

    Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida lauded Obama's remarks, saying America is "a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Obama's words a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion" -- and also claimed that he had recently run into a filthy jihadist who actually supported the Quran-burning!

    Keith Olbermann read the poem "First they came ..." on air in defense of the Quran-burners, nearly bringing himself to tears at his own profundity.

    No wait, my mistake. This is what liberals said about the ground zero mosque only five minutes ago when they were posing as First Amendment absolutists. Suddenly, they've developed amnesia when it comes to the free-speech right to burn a Quran.

    Weirdly, conservatives who opposed building the mosque at ground zero are also against the Quran burning. (Except in my case. It turns out I'm for it, but mostly because burning Qurans will contribute to global warming.)

    Liberals couldn't care less about the First Amendment. To the contrary, censoring speech and religion is the left's specialty! (Any religion other than Islam.)

    They promote speech codes, hate crimes, free speech zones (known as "America" off college campuses), and go around the country yanking every reference to God from the public square via endless lawsuits by the ACLU.

    Whenever you see a liberal choking up over our precious constitutional rights, you can be sure we're talking about the rights of Muslims at ground zero, "God Hates Fags" funeral protesters, strippers, The New York Times publishing classified documents, pornographers, child molesters, murderers, traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, flag-burners (but not Quran-burners!) or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage.

    Speaking of lying dwarfs, last week on "The Daily Show" Bloomberg claimed he was having a hamburger with his "girlfriend" when a man came up to him and said of the ground zero mosque: "I just got back from two tours fighting overseas for America. This is what we were all fighting for. You go and keep at it."

    We're fighting for the right of Muslims to build mosques at ground zero? I thought we were trying to keep Muslims AWAY from our skyscrapers. (What an embarrassing misunderstanding.) PLEASE PULL THE TROOPS OUT IMMEDIATELY.

    But back to the main issue: Was Bloomberg having a $150 Burger Double Truffle at DB Bistro Moderne or a more sensible $30 burger at the 21 Club when he bumped into his imaginary veteran? With the pint-sized mayor shrieking at the sight of a saltshaker, I assume he wasn't having a Hardee's No. 4 Combo Meal.

    Adding an element of realism to his little vignette, Bloomberg said: "I got a hamburger and a pickle and a potato chip or something."

    A potato chip? Translation: "I don't know what I was eating, because I'm making this whole story up -- I wouldn't be caught dead eating 'a potato chip' or any other picaresque garnish favored by the peasants." At least Bloomberg didn't claim the man who walked up to him took credit for setting the Times Square bomb because he was a tea partier upset about ObamaCare -- as Sherlock Bloomberg had so presciently speculated at the time.

    Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.

    This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy -- invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?

    If the general's main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists' recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!

    But wait -- weren't we assured by Fire Island's head of national security, Andrew Sullivan, that if America elected a "brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy," the terrorists would look like a bunch of lunkheads and be unable to recruit?

    It didn't work out that way. There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama's first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.

    Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the "it will help them recruit" argument yet?

    The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do.

Monday, September 06, 2010

The Tyranny of Sexual Perversion

Liberty is a moral value. Homosexuality, or any other immoral behavior, is in opposition to liberty.
Open letter to conservatives who back same-sex marriage
    Judaism, he explains, and later Christianity, "placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified – which in Hebrew means 'separated' – from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife."

    In short, he explains, "Judaism's restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most far-reaching changes in history."

    Do you understand what he's saying? Our sexual mores in large part determine our society's destiny.

    Now, fast-forward to America's founding: It's no accident that this nation has flowered more than any other in world history. But that didn't happen, my dear "libertarian-leaning conservative" friends, because the founding generation resented government, wanted lower taxes and wanted to be left alone. No, America flowered because it was steeped in a faith-based morality and a love of freedom that were wedded together into a rare and priceless alloy the world had never seen.

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Bureaucratic Tyranny

I pay property taxes to the county in which I live. This is a good thing. The taxes paid by residents are used to provide services, one of which is the use of the county dump sites.

But now we have a problem. Only county residents have paid taxes which provide for the dump. Each county has its own dump(s). Residents of other counties should not be using the dump in my county. For this reason, as well as many others including the orderly management of personnel, land, and waste, we suddenly need to provide for the management of these facilities. And this also has a cost that must be borne by taxpayers.

But as is typical, the policing of the use of the county dump is done preventively rather than punitively. That is, rather than penalize those who misuse the dump, provision is made to prevent the misuse of the dump. In some cases, this approach is appropriate. It may be in this case, in which the goal is to prevent non-county residents from using the dump. The way this is pursued (though not achieved) in my county is through the issuance of decals that can be applied to the vehicle window belonging to county residents and must be displayed when discarding waste at the dump site. Naturally, these decals also cost money.

This approach does not prevent non-county residents from using the dump. Obviously, through a variety of methods, a non-county resident might obtain a decal that will allow him to illegally use the county dump. This is actually a little humorous to me because a much more effective method is so easily available. Any proof of residency like a driver's license could easily be used to authorize use of the county dump. And such a method would save money to the taxpayer and the county.

However, what bureaucrat could conceive of such an elegant solution? Bureaucrats tend to be 'little kings' running their own fiefdoms and enjoying the opportunity to enforce upon the unwashed peasants the rules which they majestically devise. Examples abound, most notably and frighteningly at the Federal level. I won't cite them here. Be on the lookout.

In addition, bureaucrats provide never ending excuses to add tax after tax in order to pay for their endless and typically needless, poorly designed, and inefficiently managed programs. Quite obviously, these endeavors are designed to generate revenue in many cases, not merely to pay for themselves.

As for me, when traveling to the dump I place the decal, still stuck to its original backing, on the dashboard of my vehicle so that it can be seen by the dump attendant. This has always been acceptable. I find repugnant the idea that I should drive around my whole life displaying a decal that I only use a few minutes every other week or so. That's just silly. Also, I sometimes borrow a pickup truck from a family member or a friend, who may or may not be a resident of my county, in order to deliver refuse too large or too numerous to fit in my sedan.

So, as one might expect, the 'little kings' have decided the dump can no longer be used except by professed residents of the county who are driving vehicles with decals actually affixed. I will no longer be permitted to use the dump if I simply temporarily lay the decal on my dash for the very few minutes that I need it. The poor soul who lives across the road from the dump will not be permitted to simply walk across the street with his garbage.

What purpose does this serve? First, additional decals must be purchased for those residents who may use a variety of vehicles to deliver waste to the dump. It might also be assumed by some pencil pusher who lives in the city, has his garbage collected, and never actually uses the dump he oversees that requiring the decals to be affixed might prevent the loan of decals to non-residents. To any rational person with the most rudimentary experience in the real world, such a notion is laughable. But what rational person in touch with real life would aspire to the position of bureaucrat?

Prevention may be preferable to punishment in some cases when the consequences are life-threatening. But it has become the norm in every situation and it offers no exceptions to a sacrifice of our liberty. Most obvious and egregious is the case of our 2nd amendment.

When exposed to any discussion of regulation, certification, licensing, or qualification, consider the legal requirement in question and whether the approach is preventive or punitive. A preventive methodology will nearly always be observed. Then consider to what extent the preventive measures have curtailed your rights. Finally, decide whether the security gained by such prevention is worth the price you pay in the currency of your liberty.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

The Palestinianism Hoax

The historical record is too complete and irrefutable for the international fraud of a "Palestinian State" to be permitted to go on.

American Thinker: O, Palestine!
    Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.

    Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d'être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.
    Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, "Kill the Jews."

    In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

Here the money quote:
    Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the "Arab -- not Palestininian -- Army of Liberation." The reason is that prior to Israel's establishment, the notion of a "Palestinian people" simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal -- not national. And because "Palestinian" then meant something else.

    Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) "Palestinians" were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt "Palestinian," as theirs exclusively.

And there's more:
    The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan's occupation of "the West Bank" (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the "Palestinian Arab people," the Covenant declared their goal: a "holy war" (jihad) to "liberate Palestine," i.e. destroy Israel.
    Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.
    "Palestinianism" lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.

    Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim and "non-aligned" countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, sanctioning Israel's demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel's destruction.