Absolutely Reprehensible

Recent appeals by the Hollywood elite to stop the extradition of child rapist, Roman Polanski is nothing short of reprehensible. As an example, Debra Winger recently criticized Swiss officials of a "Philistine collusion" when he was arrested this past Sunday:

"This fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited, and whenever this happens, the whole art world suffers. We hope today this latest arrest order will be dropped. It is based on a three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece."

Well, I have a question for Debra Winger: If it was your thirteen year old daughter that was drugged then raped, would you still have these sentiments?

Better yet, let's revisit this 13 year old's testimony, on page 95, in all of its gory details:

Prosecutor: "What did he say to you that indicated to you that he had an interest in photographing you?"
Samantha Geimer: "He showed me a Vogue magazine that he had done and he said, 'Would you like me to take your pictures?'"
"At any time did you pose without a top?"
"Yes."
"At that time were you wearing a bra?"
"No."
"So you were bare from the waist up?"
"Yes."
"Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?"
"That was at his request…

"I think I said I was thirsty. And he went in the kitchen and this refrigerator… and he got out a bottle of champagne. And he said, 'Should I open it?'
And I went, 'I don’t care'..."

"Did you get into the jacuzzi with your panties on?"
"No."
"When did you take them off?"
"I had gone outside. I was ready to get in and he said, 'Take off your underwear'.
"So I did and then got in."
"What happened when you got in the jacuzzi?"
"He took some pictures…"

"Did you take a quaalude?"
"I took part of it."
"Where did you get this quaalude?"
"He gave it to me."

"At some time did he stop taking photographs of you in the jacuzzui?"
"Yes."
"What did he do after that?"
"He went in the bathroom and he came out and got in."
"When he came out was he wearing anything?"
"No…"
"And what did Mr. Polanski do?"
"He got in and went to the deepest part…
"He said, 'Come down here'.
"And I said, 'No, no I got to get out'… He had his hands on my sides like right around here and he was..."
"Around your waist?"
"Yes. Then he started to move and I got out."...

"What did you do when he said, 'Let’s go in the other room'?
"I was going, 'No, I think I’d better go home'. Because I was afraid.
"I just went and sat on the couch."
"What were you afraid of?"
"Him…

"What happened when you sat down on the couch?"
"He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'keep away'.
"But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there."

"How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina?"
"A few minutes."
"What happened after that?"
"He started to have intercourse with me.
"He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?'”
"And I went 'No'… he goes, 'Would you like me to go in through your back?'
"And I went 'No'. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, 'Oh, I won’t come inside of you then'. Then he lifted my legs up farther and went in through my anus."
"Do you know what a climax is?"
"Yes."
"Do you know whether he had a climax?"
"Yes."
"And how do you know that?"
"Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear and on my butt and stuff."

And you people in Hollywood can defend this? If you are one of those, you are no better than pedophiles.

As for Woody Allen, do you seriously think anyone with sanity would listen to you? This disgusting low life drugged and raped a 13 year old child and anyone who has the gall to come to his support, seriously needs to do some in- depth soul searching. It doesn't matter if it was 30 years ago or 1 year ago, he raped a child and then jumped bail. He knew he was guilty.

This has gotten so out of control that France and Poland are intervening and want Hillary Clinton to step in. What on God's Green Earth has gotten into people when they turn the guilty into the victim? Of course, should we really expect anything less from the Hollywood elite? Those who look down on the rest of us commoners like a duke looks down on his fiefdom from above?

Does America Need A Mother's Touch?

Ever since Sarah Palin was introduced to America during the 2008 campaign, she continues to be the hottest name in politics. Will she make a 2012 presidential run or will she wait it out to 2016?

During her first visit to China about a week ago, you would think that it was her very first campaign speech. Despite criticism among Democrats and Republicans, particularly after her abrupt resignation as governor of Alaska, she seems to be blazing a trail across the world promoting Conservative values and blasting the policies of our current president.

And it's resonating.

After her VP speech during the RNC convention last year, she rekindled the Conservative movement that continues to grow on a daily basis. But, she also showed us something more.

She's down to earth and it's difficult to distinguish her from your next door neighbor. That's what is causing her popularity among average, every day Americans to rise; looking at her current Facebook page, she is quickly nearing 1,000,000 fans, despite some of them being trolls who post drive by vitriolic comments. And wherever she goes, she is sure to attract attention and draw a crowd.

Her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life is scheduled to release on November 17 and it has already shot to number 1 on pre-order sales. For someone that is constantly vilified, why does she remain so popular and why does it continue to grow on a daily basis? Could it be that she is down to earth? She says what she means? She doesn't sugarcoat anything? She identifies with the common everyday American? She's a woman?

Maybe it's high time that our country needs a mother's touch. After all, this country finally tore through the disgusting, hateful racism and elected our first African-American. Why not go further and elect the first woman? Not even a year into his first term, Obama has already shown us his true colors and slipped in the polls faster than any other president in history.

And do we really need to go down the road of Congresses popularity?

What has Obama given us thus far? A 9.7% unemployment rate, a national debt that has robbed our grand children, constantly blaming the previous administration for his own follies, not that they don't deserve any and gallivanting across the nation continuing to campaign. The list can go on. Suffice it to say that he doesn't seem to realize that the 2008 campaigns are over.

And I'll ask the question: Can we do any worse by replacing Carter's second term with Sarah? And if you try to use the "lack of skills" argument, may I turn your attention to our current president and his skills? Sarah Palin is the only governor that I am aware of that had the highest popularity rating of any sitting governor in the 20th and and 21st centuries. And not just any governor. She was running a state that provides the bulk of this country's energy needs. What has Obama run in his past experience? A community organizer and a 140+ day stint in the Senate?

If you are an employer, which curriculum vitae would you accept?

But what she has to do is gather support from the Indies. If she is trying to gather momentum for a 2012 run, getting them on her side is the top priority; many Conservatives and Republicans already support her. Without the Independents, she'll probably come out of the gate in the lead, but it will eventually cause her to fall behind.

But, the ultimate question is will she have a chance if she decides to run?

You betcha!

And it's scaring the living daylights out of liberals, democrats and progressives.

Bertha's Bolsheviks

This story comes from Matthew Vadum at The American Spectator. Why is ACORN's chief organizer friendly with the Marxist anti-American governments of two South American countries? Within ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis's storied rogues gallery of a rolodex may be found contact information for then-Bolivian ambassador Gustavo Guzman and for Sabine Kienzl, a professional propagandist employed by the Venezuelan embassy. The listing for Guzman contains what appears to have been a direct office telephone number. Read the rest at The American Spectator

Bank of America Pulls Back From ACORN Work

In response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, a spokesman for the banking company said it has "suspended current commitments" to ACORN Housing, an affiliated group, and "will not enter into any further agreements with ACORN or any of its affiliates," pending assessments by the bank of the organization's operations.Read the rest FoxNews

Big Brother Knows Best, Because You Are Too Stupid

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson

Or to put it in modern day terms, "You live the way you want, as long as it doesn't harm me or others and doesn't take my money."

I am the sort of person that will look down at a drunk on the sidewalk and say, "You know there are places to help you." While I step right over the guy and continue walking. It doesn't mean that I have no compassion, I just have the attitude that people make their own decisions and if someone wants to lay on a sidewalk drunk, that's their business just don't make excuses and blame others.

If most of us had my attitude, we certainly wouldn't have any issues with nanny state laws. Actually, I think most Americans do share my attitude, but they don't have the ear of our politicians like our "compassionate" counterparts, better known as lobbyists. Now look where their "compassion" has gotten us: Paying for people who are so fat, that their wall has to be cut down so they can put the guy on a flatbed trailer, then we all have to pay for it.

So much for not picking my pocket, when it costs us $93,000,000,000 a year to deal with it.

But, it gets even better. Do you recall a young(er) journalist who reported a story in the Ocala Star-Banner in May of 2002, linking sky high cigarette taxes and funding Hezbollah? Once you start reading the newspaper article it might jog your memory, if not, it goes something like this: The ring leader of a Charlotte, North Carolina organized crime cell was caught smuggling cigarettes to Michigan where the taxes were much higher. After selling them in Michigan over a four year period, they funneled the millions to terrorist support groups where it finally ended up in Hezbollah's coffers.

Way to go DC! Thanks for looking out for my well being, I knew I didn't have the brains to figure out that smoking was bad for my health, so you came to my rescue and jacked up the taxes to discourage me from smoking. So what if a few million dollars went to a terrorist group that hates our guts and wants to destroy Israel.

On a side note, have you ever noticed that something weird happens when the government thinks they know what's best for you and raises the taxes on cigarettes? Smokers tend to go elsewhere, such as New York's Indian Reservations, and buy them there. In 2007, $1,000,000,000 of state revenue was lost due to bootlegging. Read this blog article and you'll get an idea of why the government knows best.

But, here is where it gets really hilarious when Big Brother thinks he knows best. I want you carefully read the following statement:

Our government has significantly raised taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking because it's bad for your health.

Do you see the contradiction? No? Well, let me spell it out for you. Our government (Big Brother) gets money from tax revenue. Since they have exponentially raised cigarette taxes to discourage you from smoking, how is Big Brother going to continue to rake in the revenue if everyone quits because they can no longer afford it?

Incidentally, has our dear leader quit yet?

Moving on we look at another inane nanny state law that's designed to look out for your best interest. Using your logic, read this statement and see if you can spot the error:

Seat belt laws saves lives.

Do you see the error? Are you missing it? Think about it for a minute and ask yourself if it's the actual law that saves lives or if it's the individual who decides to use them on their own accord that saves their own life? It's a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo proptor hoc (after this therefore because of this). In other words, after seat belt laws were enacted they subsequently saved lives. If you are one who follows this type of logic, then reducing maximum speed limits to 10 miles per hour would also save more lives. Or better yet, enacting a nanny state law forbidding you to go outside between the hours of 2:00 to 5:00 PM in the summer because that's when many people do yard work and tend to get sunburns.

I contend that passing the seat belt law was nothing more than a ruse to raise state's revenue. When first enacted all those years ago it was a secondary law, meaning that if you were pulled over for one infraction you could be charged for not wearing your seat belt. Now it's a primary infraction where you can get ticketed if you're not wearing it.

Same goes for wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you are stupid enough to not wear one, then who am I, or Big Brother for that matter, to tell you otherwise. It doesn't pick my pocket nor does it break my leg, even though it breaks your head and damages other body parts if you lay down your hog on the highway.

Moving on to another nanny state law that's seems to be for the greater good, has, in fact, gotten way out of control.

"MADD has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned, I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with issue of drunk driving."

In other words, Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD in 1980, left her organization because it had become a monster and took another path with other intentions. What started as a noble crusade against drinking and driving after her daughter was killed by one, has turned to taking a zero tolerance approach to alcohol.

Uh oh, we've seen this before and it's consequences.

Here's a factoid you can tell your liberal progressive neighbor: The biggest percentage of drunk driving fatalities occur by repeat offenders. So what do nanny states do? They don't target the offender, no, they decide to target everyone when they decide to implement those ignition interlock devices. It doesn't matter if you don't drink at all or if you are a responsible person and has a plan in place in the event you have a little too much at happy hour. Nope, Big Brother has hopes of catching the few by punishing the responsible many.

In a 1998 report, a sociologist by the name of Ralph Hingson claimed that lowering the nationwide drunk-driving arrest threshold from .10% to 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) would save 500 lives a year. Regardless of the US GAO refuting that report, MADD continued to use his report that compelled many states to adopt “.08” legislation.

But, here's the real kicker: MADD uses what it calls VIP (Victim Impact Panels) that many judges require of anyone convicted of DUI. These offenders are required to pay a fee to MADD out of their own pocket to hear the victims and/or their families relate their stories.

After researching these VIP's in New Mexico, a report was issued in 2001 and concluded, in part:

“Female repeat offenders referred to VIPs were significantly more likely to be rearrested compared with those not referred, with an odd of rearrest more than twice that of females not referred.”

But, MADD didn't stop there. They tried pushing a campaign to raise taxes on adult beverages (where have we seen that before?) for the purpose of, now get this, reducing under age drinking. Huh? Where is the evidence for that? Thankfully there are politicians that were smart enough to see right through that, even though they can't see the problem with raising taxes on cigarettes, after Henry Wechsler, who, by the way, is a staunch anti-alcohol researcher forced MADD to admit that there wasn't any basis for their wild assertion.

Incidentally, this forced the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in their 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health to admit that "alcohol prices were a less salient determinant of the drinking behavior of college students than they were in other population groups."

If you weren't a victim of our public school system, you may recall what the disastrous fallout was that occurred when Prohibition (The Noble Experiment) was enacted in 1919-1933. If you were a victim of our public school system, I'll bet you are an expert Googler and while you're at it, posit (that means ask) a question: If nanny state laws assume that it can correct bad behavior, then why is there still crime in other countries, like China, that have many laws that are punishable by death if they are broken?

But, if you are sitting on a chair in front of your PC or MAC  eating a bag of Doritos and slugging down a half rack of Red Bull while playing World of Warcraft, I'll help you along: After the Noble Experiment was enacted, crime rates shot up 80%, many legitimate businesses resorted to becoming speakeasies, brilliant "businessmen" like Al Capone and Joe Kennedy made millions from bootlegging and, get this, our government was no longer raking in the revenue. You know, those pesky taxes that help or government raise revenue?

Continued...


So, where does all this nanny state legislation come from? Why do the federal and state governments implement these laws that basically tells you that they know what's best for your well being?

Simple. Because in their perverted world it's for the greater good.

What the government doesn't quite understand is that what's good for the few, doesn't mean that it's good for the many. For instance, did you know that most infants under the age of one die each year because they were left unattended in the bathtub? So, taking the greater good aspect of government, does that mean they should ban all bathtubs or should they prosecute the parent for being a moron?

Now, you may think that these laws are petty because they don't directly affect you. Tsk, tsk. Remember the high taxes on cigarettes in New York? Remember the local store where some people used to go to for a half rack of Guinness? Well, chances are pretty good that Crazy Joe's mini mart is no longer there because of the greater good. The unintended consequences most likely due to the black market because smokers are going to look for the cheapest pack they can find.

And who pays for all of this errant lifestyle? We all do because it's for the greater good. Remember the $93,000,000,000 we spend on taxes to pay for obese people? Do you really think that they know how to eat right by eating smaller portions, eating low calorie foods and exercising can probably fix their bad knees, diabetes and heart disease? I'll wager that they do, they just don't want to and unfortunately it picks our pockets. The government is of the opinion that these people don't know how, then they tax everyone else so these obese people can continue their lifestyle.

I can think of a few things that would definitely be for the greater good, like sterilizing Charlie Sheen so he can't contaminate the rest of the world.

At any rate, here  are some issues that have either resulted in nanny state legislation, causing some other knee jerk reactions or just being a moron and blaming others:

• Remember the banning of saccharin? It was banned after lab results concluded that it would cause cancer. Never mind the rats were force fed pounds of it.

• Remember the lady that sued McDonalds after she spilled coffee on her lap at the drive thru? Here's a news flash: Coffee is hot.

• What about the woman that tried to sue McDonald's because it made her husband obese causing them to be unable to have sex?

• What about the countless idiots that use an electric device in the bathtub?

• Driving or operating a vehicle after drinking is stupid.

• Yes, Virginia smoking is bad for you. If you have to put a label on it to tell you that, you're an idiot.

• Putting oil in a deep fat fryer, clamping down the lid and then deciding to take a nap is not smart.

• Banning themerosal because some idiot doctor tried to link it to autism.

• Hiding a loaded gun in the oven before you go on vacation.

The list is endless. But, do you punish the many for what a few morons can't seem to do? If a company has to put a label on a chainsaw telling the user not to touch the chain while it's in motion, then maybe the person using it should find another tool. But, what makes blood shoot out of my eyes is when these morons blame others for their stupidity.

Chavez: Iran Helping Venezuela Detect Uranium

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez's government says Iran is helping to detect reserves of uranium in Venezuela. Read the rest at FoxNews

Rubbing Shoulders With Dictators - The Carter and Obama Parallel

Quickly approaching a year into his first term, President Barak Obama is already showing eerie parallels to Jimmy Carter's first/worst term as the 39th president in regards to the Middle East. After 30 years, it just goes to show that democrats and progressives have learned nothing.

Recalling the 1978, Camp David peace accords, which essentially forced Prime Minister Menachem Begin to hand over the Sinai to Egypt, you would think that a lesson would have been learned from the subsequent fallout.

Not so. If you have been following the President's latest round of his World Apology Tour, you begin to see the eerie parallels between Jimmy Carter and Barak Obama's stance on Middle East politics, particularly Israel.

However, before we compare President Obama with Jimmy Carter, we need to revisit some history, the Middle East and their apparent admiration and support of dictators.

The Foundation

Upon assuming office in 1977, Jimmy Carter moved to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process that had stalled during the presidential campaigns the year before. Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Henry Kissinger was using an incremental, bilateral approach to deal with peace talks in the Middle East, or what is commonly referred to as shuttle diplomacy. Following the advice of the Brookings Institute, Carter decided to change that tactic and use a multilateral approach which called on the 1973 Geneva Conference to be reconvened, this time with a Palestinian delegation. By doing so, he was hoping to negotiate a final settlement, but, it didn't come to pass.

Not liking this approach, because he thought it was a dog and pony show, Anwar Sadat lost confidence in the Western powers to pressure Israel after meeting with them. Completely unknown to NATO countries, Sadat held clandestine meetings with Israeli officials and in November of 1977, Anwar El Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel, thereby implicitly recognizing Israel as a nation.

When Sadat held his Knesset Speech, he shared his views on peace in the Middle east, Israel's occupied territories and Palestinian refugees. His speech went counter to the intentions of what the East and the West had in mind in regards to reviving the Geneva Conference, thus invoking the wrath of many Warsaw Pact nations, such as that by the Hungarian leader, Janos Kadar, who threatened war with Egypt if they signed a peace deal with Israel.

Sadat was counting on the help of NATO after these countries threatened war to improve the Egyptian economy. Sadat held the view that Egypt should focus more on its own interests, rather than focusing on the Arab world, thus hoping to foster similar agreements between Israel and her Arab neighbors and solve the Palestinian issue. Menachem Begin saw many reasons why bilateral talks would be in his country's best interests and showed a willingness to engage the Egyptian leader. By doing so, Israel would have the ability to negotiate with Egypt alone instead of having to deal with a larger Arab world.

At any rate, the gist of Sadat's speech at the Knesset requested the implementation of Resolutions 242 and 338. His visit led to negotiations, such as the preliminary Cairo Conference in December 1977, which ultimately led to the Camp David Accords.

Camp David and the Subsequent Fallout

On September 17, 1978, President Carter hosted a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian president Anwar El Sadat at Camp David. This resulted in the first peace accord signed by Israel and one of its Arab neighbors and with several months of further negotiations led to the signing of a peace treaty on March 26, 1979.

Under the terms of the treaty, control of the Sinai Desert would be turned over to Egypt while Israel would retain control of the Gaza strip. In exchange for the return of the Sinai, Egypt would recognize Israel as a state and establish full diplomatic relations with them. Moreover, Egypt would guarantee to pull their military forces back to 50 kilometers of Israel's border. The treaty also called for the free travel of Israeli and Egyptian citizens between both countries. The fallout of this treaty led to an Arab wide boycott, with the exception of Oman and three years later Anwar El Sadat was assassinated by Islamic extremists.

Some felt that Carter had pressured Begin to sign the accord.

According to David Kimche, the current Israeli government felt that Carter was being too sympathetic towards the Palestinians and was in cahoots to compel Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. He states in his 1991 book, The Last Option, "Begin was being set up for diplomatic slaughter by the master butchers in Washington. They had, moreover, the apparent blessing of the two presidents, Carter and Sadat, for this bizarre and clumsy attempt at collusion designed to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state...this plan, prepared behind Israel's back and without her knowledge, must rank as a unique attempt in the United States's diplomatic history of short changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation."

He continues further by stating that, "Unbeknownst to the Israeli negotiators, the Egyptians held and ace up their sleeves, and they were waiting to play it. The card was President Carter's tacit agreement that after the American presidential elections in November 1980, when Carter expected to be elected for a second term, he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby."

In Ben Menashe's 1992 memoirs, Profits of War, he asserts that Begin and his Likud party had nothing but contempt for Carter, "Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David. As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel's back."

What one's opinion is on the Camp David Accords is irrelevant, the subsequent events that were about to occur sounded the death knell of Jimmy Carter's administration and destroying Egypt's ace card.

A Surprise in October


If there was one pervasive fear that Menachem Begin had was a Carter second term. After the 1979 Islamic revolution where extremists took over and the subsequent bungled handling of it by Carter, set the conditions for Begin and the Republican party presidential campaign to secretly hold meetings.

To some Americans, many of which are democrats,  believed Begin had colluded with the Republican party in the hopes of a Reagan presidential victory, which resulted in a joint covert operation to negotiate with Iranian leaders behind Carter's back to delay the release of 52 American hostages until Reagan was elected in November 1980.

According to Ben Menashe's sworn testimony, the controversy known as the "October surprise", also involved then vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush and his participation in a meeting in October of 1980 in Paris. Of course, Bush denied it in two 1992 press conferences and was never called on to testify under oath.

During the Islamic revolution in Iran, the intelligence network that Israel established was annihilated. Being an Iranian born Jew, Menashe began rebuilding the network in 1979 after Begin authorized small arms and spare parts shipments be sent to Iran via South Africa. In November of the same year, disaster struck for Menashe when Iran seized the US Embassy and took 90 hostages, 52 of them being Americans, which resulted in a US led trade embargo and freezing all Iranian assets.

In April 1980, Carter became fully aware of the Israeli clandestine operations being conducted in Iran. According to Carter's press secretary, Jody Powell, "There had been a rather tense discussion between President Carter and Prime Minister Begin in the spring of 1980 in which the President made clear that the Israeli's had to stop that, and that we knew that they were doing it, and that we would not allow it to continue, at least not allow it to continue privately and without the knowledge of the American people."

Befriending Dictators

Jimmy Carter's follies wasn't constrained to the Middle East and he had a penchant for rubbing shoulders with dictators. As I noted in a previous article, which is worth repeating, Carter invited Robert Mugabe to the White House and supported his rise as dictator of Rhodesia, even though Abel Muzorewa had already been elected to the post of prime minister. With the support of the world press, Jimmy Carter declared Muzorewa’s election null and void and causing Mugabe, an avowed Marxist, to win in a second election.

During his term, Jimmy Carter supported the anti-American mullahs and pressured the pro-American Shah to relinquish power to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Then he had the Pentagon tell the Shah’s top military commanders to bow down to the Ayatollah and not fight him, when they did they were subsequently murdered.

In 1994, Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. He done this without governmental authority or support. The illegal deal that he made with North Korea provided them with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons. On top of that, Carter's’s illegal “negotiations” was also supposed to allow U.N. inspectors to monitor their use. On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced to the world it had developed its first nuclear weapon.

Jimmy Carter was also instrumental with Hugo Chavez’s rise to power. Despite exit polls done by an independent firm in New York showing that Hugo Chavez had lost, he was declared winner anyway with nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Regardless, Carter endorsed Chavez’s “victory” anyway.

Jimmy Carter also has a special interest with dictators in Central America. By using the Office of the President, he set the conditions for the overthrow of Anastasio Somosa in Nicaragua, only to be replaced with Marxist Sandanista Daniel Ortega. On a side note, Somosa’s election had been certified by the OAS.

Although the list can go on, I’ll leave Carter and his support for Hamas. A terrorist state supported by Iran that is constantly harassing Israel, Carter says to give Hamas a chance and not supporting them is criminal.

At any rate, Jimmy Carter's presidency left America's economy in tatters, with hyper inflation and high gas prices. The general feeling of American's during that time was one of suicide.

Continued...

President Obama and the Parallel

Picture this: The Republican party has a super majority in both the House and the Senate. President George W. Bush calls for a press briefing to announce that he will request legislation to have the 22nd Amendment removed from the Constitution and declare himself president for life. Much like the democrats tried with Joint House Resolution 5 to repeal the 22nd Amendment in January of this year.

What do you think America's reaction would be?

In June of this year, something like that nearly occurred in Honduras when Manuel Zelaya attempted to do just that, with the support of dictator Hugo Chavez, when he tried to rewrite the Honduran Constitution to make himself president for life. On June 28, soldiers ousted Zelaya and exiled him while he was still in his jammies after the Honduran supreme court endorsed charges of treason and abuse of authority.

The Honduran Constitution reads in part:

• Article 313: "The courts will require the help of the security forces to fulfill their resolutions, if they refused or were not any available, as required of citizens."

• Chapter 3 Article 42: Anyone who fraudulently produces or alters election documents loses citizenship.

• Article 3: "No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to those who assume public office or employment by force of arms or by using means or procedures that violate or are unaware of what the Constitution and the laws.

• Article 4: "Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required."

• Article 272: "The Armed Forces of Honduras, is a National Institution of a permanent nature, essentially professional, apolitical, obedient and not deliberating... They are set up to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic."

Of course, with our state run, fringe news media you wouldn't know any of that.

And what does President Obama and Hillary Clinton do? Remember, they didn't want to meddle in Iran's affairs during the protests after rigged elections, but felt it neccessary to meddle in Honduran affairs when they issued statements claiming that Zelaya's removal was in violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

Excuse me? Zelaya was trying to re-write the Honduran constitution to extend and expand his power and make himself president for life! If Hillary and Obama had taken the time to at least peruse the Honduran constitution, they would have noticed what article 4 stated.

No. What really happened was that the Honduran government, with the help of the armed forces, acted to defend their constitution to prevent the country from becoming a puppet government of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

When it comes to Iran, he doesn't want to meddle:

"Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and condemn it."

Pursuit of justice? What about pursuit of freedom?

Not wanting to meddle, Obama unleashes his surrogates, David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, to make the obligatory, state run media rounds to pay lip service to the Iranian protesters. Their response to the stolen election and the subsequent protests, where many Iranians were murdered, was telling:

"Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

Sounds like Jimmy Carter appeasing the mullahs when he was president, doesn't it? But, Obama and his secretary of state declared that Zelaya's removal was a violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, when he tried to over turn his countries constitution and turn it into a hegemony of Hugo Chavez.

Are we seeing a parallel yet? No? Well, let's move on to Israel.

In May of this year, Obama dispatched his leg breaker, Rahm Emmanuel to deliver a message to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. According to the Jerusalem Post, Emmanuel stated, "The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."

To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, the message is crystal clear. If Israel doesn't make concessions with the Palestinian's, then the US won't take any actions, whatsoever, against Iran. Never mind that Israel has enemies on three of its borders and a sea at its back, who want nothing more than its complete destruction.

This isn't the only time that Obama has sent a message to the Israelis. Taking off Hillary's muzzle and leash, she told Congress, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." The two issues, Iranian nuclear development and the Israeli-Arab conflict, "go hand in hand."

This ranks right up there as one of the ten most stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. This issue has nothing to do with Israel and the Arab worlds conflicts. Iran's nuclear program doesn't only threaten Israel, it threatens the entire world. Do you honestly believe that Iran won't sell/give any nukes to other countries that are hostile to the US and its allies?

This is Camp David part deux, this time with a nuclear twist. The Obama administration has basically given Israel two options: Commit suicide by making concessions that would force them to give up more territory or commit suicide by Iran (much like suicide by cop).

I'll leave Israel quoting, in part, Benjamin Netanyahu's poignant speech to the United Nations:

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

Well, we know that our current president and his minions have no shame.

America's Economy Today

Much like the FDR and Carter administrations, we are quickly witnessing a repeat of history with the current economy. From the housing bust to rising gas prices, we are also witnessing what may well be a new depression in America. Starting with George W. Bush's ridiculous stimulus package, it was further continued by another, then an omnibus package, then Cap and Trade and government run health care, which would shut out the private sector and printing money that is quickly devaluing the dollar, we can only hope that, like Carter, Obama will be a one termer.

Salon Launches Glenn Beck Smear Campaign

Salon.com's, Alexander Zaitchik has posted an article questioning the circumstances surrounding the death of Glenn Beck's mother. This is typical among the gutter press and its inhabitants when they can't argue the content and resorts to attacking the person and/or his family. Glenn Beck, who used to have a show on CNN, is now hosting the Glenn Beck Show on FoxNews. Since that time, his show is quickly climbing in the ratings on a daily basis and may be catching up to Bill O'Reilly. With in your face content and hardball questions, it's typical for the tabloids, like Salon.com to make any issue a personal one when they can't cogently respond to people like Glenn Beck.

U.S. charges Obama fund-raiser in $290 million fraud

Photo courtesy of Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday. Read the rest at Reuters

On Scientific Consensus and Climate Models

In my previous article, we left off with liberalism and ideology in regards to environmentalism. You will recall that ideology trumps facts and thus rendering opposing points of view meaningless. These groups that push an ideological agenda will always ignore the facts and marginalize anyone that should not fall into lockstep with their beliefs.

We left off with the “scientific consensus” and the computer climate model fallacy and it’s where we will continue.

What is consensus? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a general agreement, or unanimity”. It can also be defined as “group solidarity”, depending how one uses the word. Does this sound like a word that should be used in the world of science? After all, many scientists do come to a general agreement on many topics and subjects; however, they always leave room to change that general agreement should any new evidence be discovered.

All it takes is one person to change it, that one eureka moment.

What is science? Again, we go to that reliable place called Merriam-Webster and we see several definitions. The definition we are most interested in is this:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Revisiting our initial question, we begin to see the flaw in “scientific consensus”. How can a group seek knowledge covering general truths occur if that group relies on consensus when doing so? They can’t. The definitions of consensus and science, by their very nature, negate each other if used together.

Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not twenty, fifty or even a hundred years in the future. Yet, we always hear that scientists are in a consensus because computer climate models are predicting world wide catastrophe decades in the future. If evidence can’t be verified and results from said evidence can’t be reproduced with the methodology being used, then predictions are meaningless.

Computers can do wonderful things that assist us in making our day to day lives easier; what they are not is crystal balls. It is a tool, not unlike a mechanic’s wrench or a surgeon’s scalpel and if used incorrectly computers can produce false data or a scalpel can cause irreparable damage. How a scientist (what I refer to as modern day Nostrodomus’s) uses the climate modeling software determines what the results will be. If worst case scenarios are placed in the software, then it’s rather obvious that worst case scenarios will be the result. What one has to understand is that computer climate models are only one part of method, they should not be relied upon by themselves for results.

When these dire predictions fall on the ears of the uninformed, they paint a picture of doom and gloom. When the uninformed make an attempt to get more information, they are bombarded with more doom and gloom from environmental extremists that feed off it. Trying to convince the uninformed turned radical becomes more and more difficult.

On Liberalism and Ideology

Has anyone ever noticed that liberals who assert that they are the people of tolerance, open mindedness and being non judgmental, are probably the most hateful, close minded and judgmental people in the world?

Particularly when it comes to particular issues like climate change and global warming.

Ask any so-called environmentalist what ENSO is or if they have looked at the latest data concerning the current PDO. Chances are very likely that you will get a response of silence, or a sneer and an expletive or two; you may get an occasional response that is half way coherent. Yet, by and large many of these tolerant, open minded and non judgmental environmentalists don’t take the time and make an attempt to get a basic understanding of the science behind it.

Now, why is that?

There are several reason, ideology probably being the most prevalent. When a person or group has an agenda that’s based on ideology nothing else matters, least of all facts and opposing points of view. Take the scientific consensus argument that environmentalists use as “proof” that the modern human industrial population is the root cause behind climate change and global warming. The very idea, to someone with an ideological agenda, is the foundation of their argument. When presented to someone that has an understanding of how science works, making such an assertion is tantamount to scientific heresy.

Anyone, with a modicum of rationality, knows that there is no place for consensus in the scientific community; if there were then there would be no progress or eureka moments. Indeed, progress and advancement would likely never be achieved; technological advancement and innovation would cease to exist. Instead of the hunting rifle we use the club. As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics…”

When someone attempts to voice an opposing point of view to an environmentalist, they are often met with derision, scorn and vitriolic comments. This is due primarily to the fact that environmentalists can’t respond in any intelligent manner, thus rendering any debate useless. Oh, and they almost always end their derisive comments with “scientific consensus”.

With this “eco-fascism”, it should come as no surprise that anthropogenic climate change/global warming has stumbled into the political arena. So much so, that it as a major player in the current political stump speeches; though it has seemed to have lost its network glitz recently.  What’s particularly scary is that made up issues, like this one, has the propensity to alter economic decisions that may prove disastrous in years to come. Yet, none of these people will ever likely be held accountable for their actions; hind sight may be 20-20, but to a politician it’s almost always myopic (Just look at the current financial mess, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. Two people inextricably linked to it, yet neither will ever be held to account for it).



Now we have these politicians trying to pass legislation to “reduce” greenhouse gas emissions to some amount by some future date. What are the odds that these politicians have crystal balls in their offices? Well, if you think about, they do and they are called “scientists” that use “computer climate models”. This is yet another fallacy that is at the heart of the liberal environmentalist’s ideology and it’s also completely misunderstood and abused. Coupled with “scientific consensus”, it is proof positive that we are the cause of climate change and we better change our ways or we are doomed.

The Sierra Club Exposed

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

David Brower – First Executive Director, Sierra Club

John Muir founded The Sierra Club to “Make the mountains glad” in 1892 and is probably the most powerful environmental group in the nation. Originally founded to better the future enjoyment of the wilderness, it has become more radical by promoting anti-growth, anti-technology and espousing populationism. Their priorities now are best illustrated by the animal rights activist and extremist, Paul Watson who was elected to the Sierra Club’s board of directors in 2003.

If you don’t know who Paul Watson is, then a brief history is in order. Paul Watson was a co-founder of Greenpeace and founded the ultra-radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in 1977 after being ousted from the former, for condoning violence in the name of the environment. He quoted to Access Energy in 1982, “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds”. Watson and his merry band of sea pirates sail the high seas, harassing and sinking fishing boats and endangering people’s lives.

In 2003, he announced that he was overtly “advocating the takeover of the Sierra Club,” claiming to be 3 votes shy of controlling a majority of the 15 member board. When the 2004 election season came around, he made allies with candidates endorsing strict limits to legal immigration. Even though he made promises of using the club’s revenue to address both immigration policy and animal-rights issues, he lost in a record turnout. Despite the loss, he remained on the board until 2006.

“A vegetarian lifestyle as a way to counter the alleged abuse animals endure to feed a hungry and growing global population.”

Broward Sierra News 2002

The American people are a technologically linear progressive society; meaning that we are always striving to invent and reward those with innovative ideas, not punish them. The Sierra Club, on the other hand, despises this and goes out of their way to stymie technological innovation, such as biotechnology. They are a well coordinated group, which pushes the animal rights agenda through campaigns against, what it labels as, “the growing menace” of modern farms.

Florida, 2002. A Case study


Sierra Club extremists endorsed PETA’s logo that eating meat is animal abuse and is what’s contributing to world hunger. It was at this time that the Broward Sierra News championed the quotation above and used PETA and their message that meat eating and livestock farms, in particular, are what’s causing world hunger and animal abuse. Meanwhile, the New York and Michigan Sierra Club chapters promoted  and distributed their “Vegetarian Starter Kit”, by the deliberately misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a well known PETA front group. These two groups also encouraged people to sign the “VegPledge” campaign sponsored by EarthSave International, as a way to “save the earth” by going vegetarian. During this time, the New York group cosponsored the “Behind Closed Doors” event with the People for Animal Rights, with the sole purpose of vilifying livestock farms and featuring none other than Gene Bauston of Farm Sanctuary.

Legal Muscle Worthy of Al Capone

As you can see, the Sierra Club, as well as PETA are well funded and well coordinated. They are also well funded on the legal front. The Sierra Club has a long “hit list” of farms that they have targeted for legal action and in the May 2000 issue of their periodical, Sierra, they announced thier intentions to sue large livestock farms from coast to coast. “No one court case will be a magic bullet … You have to fight on multiple legal fronts.” On February 28, 2001, The Club allied itself with the ultra radical Waterkeeper Alliance’s trial lawyer, Robert Kennedy Jr., as a “full partner in litigation” against pork companies. On the very same day, The Club announced that it had filed lawsuits targeting Smithfield Farms across the nation, one of the lawsuits alleged that they were involved in “mafia-style racketeering”, which was summarily bounced out of court.

This has become The Club’s primary tactic by suing farms, such as construction of multiple dairy farms between 1998-2003, because it’s cheap and bogs down those farms in litigation.

The Sierra Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1971 as a non profit law firm to act as a legal arm for its self proclaimed “grassroots”, mafia style tactics. In 1998, the name was changed to EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund or just EarthJustice, who’s sole purpose is to bully, threaten and intimidate businesses and public agencies through frivalous lawsuits. And the military isn’t even immune to the terrorist style tactics of The Club, when it filed a lawsuit in 2004 against the Marines to stop a training exercise on Makua Valley, Hawaii, citing “concern” for supposed endangered species habitats. A response was issued to EarthJustice’s bullying tactics, “To win the war against terrorism and get ready for future battles, the U.S. military must be prepared. The conduct of realistic live-fire training in Makua is part of that preparation.” Four years prior to that, EarthJustice made an attempt to stop the military from training on a small, uninhabited island called, Farallon de Medinilla, citing concern for migratory birds.

“If I knew I had a fatal disease, I would definitely do something like strap dynamite to myself and take out Grand Canyon Dam, or maybe the Maxxam Building in Los Angeles after it’s closed up for the night.”

Darryl Cherney, Earth First!

Profiteering Through Lawsuits

In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 65, which was coauthored by the current Sierra Club executive director, Carl Pope. Proposition 65 “Requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.”

What many don’t know is that prop 65 contains a “bounty hunter” clause that encourages trial lawyers to file frivalous lawsuits and cash in on any product that contains a “carcinogen”, no matter how small, that’s listed in the proposition. Violaters of prop 65 can be fined up to $2,500 per day and per violation, while the plaintiffs can make bank by collecting up to 25% of the total fines collected. The radical group, As You Sow (AYS), now get this, made a whopping $1.5 million by playing the lawsuit game between 2000-2002. The president of The Sierra Club and executive director of AYS, Larry Fahn has made hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, by suing anyone and everyone that will kowtow to their tactics.

The reprobates at AYS route their ill gotten gains from prop 65 and dispurses it to other radical groups, such as Robert Kennedy’s Waterkeeper Alliance, David Brower’s Earth Island Institute and Mike Roselle’s Rainforest Action Network and Ruckus Society.

As with many well intentioned organizations, they tend to go radical with time and The Sierra Club is no different. When it was founded, it promoted environmentalism through conservationism, however, greed almost always plays the fundemental role with radicalism. Since conservationism doesn’t have much monetary return, like the current “Go Green” slogan these days, it’s likely to get worse.

Is NEA Pushing POTUS Agenda?

This is hot off the web at Big Hollywood.com New audio has surfaced that appears to show the National Endowment of the Arts pushing a partisan agenda for the White House. Excerpted from Big Hollywood: The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable. Read the rest at Big Hollywood Read the full transcript here

U.S. as Traffic Cop in Web Fight

The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth. Read the rest at WSJ

They Still Ain't Gettin' It

In an article at the New York Daily News website, Errol Louis makes a feeble attempt at defending the actions of a few ACORN employees. Once again, I'll break it down.

"The videos shot and distributed by a pair of right-wing pranksters to discredit ACORN had all the elements of a good political hit job: sleaze, sensationalism, sleight-of-hand."

Pranksters? Ah, no, Mr. Louis. These two young Americans did something that 60 Minutes, 20/20 and other fringe news outlets, like MSNBC, CNN, et al refuse to do. By bringing to light the inner workings of taxpayer funded organizations, like ACORN, we see that our money is suborning tax fraud and child prostitution and in one video what appears to be slave trade.

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles went from one ACORN community office to another posing as a pimp and his whore, pretending to seek help securing low-income housing and/or tax help to set up a brothel using underage illegal immigrants.

Not one ACORN outlet actually completed or filed illegal paperwork, but the video stunt worked like a charm anyway.

This one is too easy. Whether or not they actually filed the paperwork is irrelevant. What is of relevance is that ACORN employees showed a willingness to commit tax fraud and child prostitution. Nuff said.

Mr. Louis goes on:

Biased and/or naive news producers and editors rushed one-minute excerpts of O'Keefe and Giles' heavily edited videos onto national television without a thought, even when the pair refused to release the full tapes or answer questions on the air about how they were created.

In at least one case, O'Keefe simply lied about his stunt, claiming on Fox News Channel that every ACORN office he visited played along with his purported illegal schemes.

Not so. ACORN's Philadelphia office filed a police report about the bizarre questions posed by O'Keefe and Giles (a copy of the complaint is online).

In another instance, a California ACORN worker named Tresa Kaelke filled O'Keefe's hidden camera with a wild, dramatic tale about killing her husband and getting away with it, which O'Keefe and Giles claimed as yet another example of ACORN perfidy.

In reality, Kaelke invented the story because the fake hooker and her pal "were clearly playing with me." San Bernardino police investigated the claim and concluded that Ms. Kaelke's "known former husbands" appear to be "alive and well," although perhaps unamused.

These facts, and other holes in O'Keefe's selective storytelling, will become relevant when the national witch hunt subsides. A trip to court, in fact, may put the whole matter in a different light: in at least one state, O'Keefe's surreptitious taping may have violated privacy laws.

Biased and naive news producers rushed to get it? You mean bias news outlets like MSNBC? The bias news producers he is referring to is FoxNews and none of us would have known anything about it if it wasn't for FoxNews breaking the story that these "pranksters" exposed.

I certainly hope that ACORN does try to sue James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles and FoxNews for their "lying". ACORN's problem with this approach would give Fox News a way to force ACORN to open all of their books. In other words, dirty laundry has a tendency to get aired out in court.

Let me explain, point by point, what the crux of the matter really is, Mr. Louis:

• ACORN has received $56 million in taxpayer money.

• Bertha Lewis was put in place to "clean up" ACORN.

• They are currently under investigation in many states for voter registration fraud.

• They are slated to receive $8.5 billion in additional taxpayer money.

• Then there are the videos showing ACORN employees suborning tax fraud and child prostitution, as well as what appears to be slavery in one video.

ACORN has a history of ethics issues and campaigns for the left. I am of the opinion that ACORN and other like organizations exploits minorities, just look a the content of the videos! Black and Brown people, as Bertha Lewis puts it, assisting a white "pimp" and a white "prostitute" on how to defraud the government!

And you say it's a witch hunt?

NYC Terror Plot Suspect, Father Arrested in Colorado

Federal agents Saturday arrested Najibullah Zazi, the man under investigation in a terrorism probe in New York, and his father after swarming Zazi's Aurora, Colo., apartment. At 9:30 p.m., 15 to 20 law enforcement cars reportedly swarmed into the parking lot of Zazi's apartment. Read the rest at FoxNews

In Defense of ACORN - Are You Kidding Me?

Salon.com's, Joe Conason opines that:

"Both the Senate and the House have voted over the past few days to curtail any federal funding of ACORN's activities. While that congressional action probably won't destroy the group, whose funding does not mainly depend on government largesse, the ban inflicts severe damage on its reputation."

You got to be kidding us, Joe. Inflicts severe damage on its reputation? How many ACORN offices are under investigation for voter registration fraud? And now we have these reprobates suborning tax fraud and child prostitution on the taxpayer's nickle and you talk about damaging their reputation. ACORN may not primarily depend on the government dole, but, seeing how they already received $56,000,000 and was slated for $8,500,000,000 in the "stimulus" package, they sure do get a large chunk of it.

Yeah, Joe, glad to see my tax dollars at work.

But, Joe doesn't stop there. He further bemones:

"Like so many conservative attacks, the crusade against ACORN has been highly exaggerated and even falsified to create a demonic image that bears little resemblance to the real organization. Working in the nation's poorest places, and hiring the people who live there, ACORN is not immune to the pathologies that can afflict institutions in those communities. As a large nonprofit handling many millions of dollars, it has suffered from mismanagement at the top as well -- although there is nothing unique in that, either."

Highly exaggerated and falsified? Have you seen the videos, Joe? Granted that there are only five of them, but the content speaks volumes of just how this outfit "helps" poor people; unless you consider suborning tax fraud and child prostitution as helping the poor. You say that ACORN is not immune to the pathologies that can afflict institutions. That may be true, however, you are failing to see the main issue. This organization is a 501(c), but, when any organization receives money from the taxpayer they must be scrutinized to keep them honest. I don't know what planet you're on, but maybe you have conveniently forgotten that ACORN has a history of questionable ethics.

Many are saying that ACORN should be dismantled. However, since you say that they don't primarily receive funding from the government, then they shouldn't have anything to worry about; after all George Soros has deep pockets and I'm sure Wade Rathke and his brother can help. Of course, you know that if the President signs the current bill into law, ACORN is doomed without the government's largesse.

Continuing on with Joe's defense:

"Among the most popular canards on the right, repeated constantly by conservative pundits and politicians, is that ACORN has been found guilty of engaging in deliberate voter fraud, using federal funds. In reality, ACORN has registered close to 2 million low-income citizens across the country over the past five years -- a laudable record with a very low incidence of fraud of any kind."

No, Joe we are saying that they are being investigated for deliberate voter registration fraud, using taxpayer money. When we see Mickey Mouse as being registered to vote, yeah, that causes sane people to raise an eyebrow. When are you going to get that right?

He goes on:

"If only the Republicans who have worked up a frenzy over ACORN's alleged crimes were so indignant about real and damaging voter fraud -- such as the amazing case of Young Political Majors, the firm that ran GOP registration efforts in California, Massachusetts, Florida, Arizona and elsewhere before the authorities in Orange County, Calif., busted its president, Mark Anthony Jacoby, and sent him to jail last year. He had built a lucrative partisan career by teaching his minions to deceive thousands of voters into registering as Republicans rather than Democrats, among other scams. Of course, the only on-air mention of the Young Political Majors scandal on Fox News was made by blogger Brad Friedman -- and the national media, mainstream and conservative, generally ignored it. They were too busy generating "controversy" over ACORN."

But, here's the major difference, Joe. Mark Jacoby was acting on his own WITHOUT government funding and he wasn't spreading like a cancer inside of the White House. ACORN, on the other hand, receives taxpayer money and is in bed with politicians. Of course, I am not going to defend the lack of reporting on his sleaziness and his arrest.

Joe goes on to say that Bertha Lewis will be "conducting" an internal audit of ACORN. Is that something like White House politicians investigating themselves? Yeah, we know how that goes. However, for Bertha Lewis to assert that the videos were doctored and then threaten to "go after" the people that made them, as well as FoxNews for airing them is a bit strange. Here we have two young people doing what the fringe media won't do and she has an issue with being secretly video taped?

Mr. Conason, you're pathetic.

Critics Blast Missile Shield Plans

President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates say the move was made in large part because the latest intelligence out of Iran showed a greater threat coming from short- and medium-range missiles, and the prior plans were developed with long-range, intercontinental ballistic missiles in mind. Critics disagree. Read the rest at FoxNews

R.I.P. Journalism - Now The Fringe Media

Remember back in the day when 60 Minutes was a force to be reckoned with when they went after a hot story? Do you recall that some of those investigative reports literally brought down some companies when they revealed corruption and wrong doing?

What about 20/20? They were another group of investigative reporters that played instrumental roles in exposing corporate corruption.

Well, they are now extinct like the dinosaur. No more are the days when we can tune in to these shows and watch the reporters expose corruption using techniques, like asking the tough questions and digging until they got answers and in some cases dealing with situations that could get them harmed or worse.

We used to call them the Mainstream Media.

They aren't mainstream anymore, as Glenn Beck says, we should call them the Fringe media now and I couldn't agree more. The current media has taken a huge turn to the far left and has openly supported and donated millions of dollars to a presidential candidate, which is unprecedented. In short, Journalism is dead.

When I see blatant and overt doctoring of live video, such as what Contessa Brewer did with the African American protester with an AR-15 on his shoulder and handgun on his hip at an Obama town hall, then throw down the race card, I say to myself, "No wonder your ratings are tanking hard."

And then we have the Sarah Palin interview done by Charlie Gibson. Remember that? The moment I watched it, I immediately felt condescension and I couldn't shake off the feeling of someone laying in wait to ambush their victim. I guess I felt that way when he was looking down his nose at her over the top of glasses.

Oh, and let's not forget the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. If that wasn't a setup, I don't know what was. Questions tailored to trip up someone isn't exactly what I would call journalism, it's the equivalent to setting a trap to snare one's prey. Well, at least Sarah knows there are only 50 states instead of 57.

And what about the Fringe media either literally ignoring or down playing stories like those of "Reverend" Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the like? Why aren't they reporting these stories? But, when Michael Jackson dies because some "doctor" pumped drugs down his throat, you couldn't get enough of it on the Fringe media outlets. I was so frustrated one day, I turned on Spongebob Squarepants. Without a doubt, Michael Jackson was to pop music as Elvis was to rock in roll, but the Fringe media was doing too much.

Now we must rely on FoxNews to get any real journalism of any sort. When I tune into FoxNews to watch Bill O'Reilly, I actually get to hear two sides of the story; liberal and conservative views. When I tune into Sean Hannity, I get to watch his panel with democrat and republican points of view. When I watch Greta, sometimes I see a democrat and sometimes I see a Republican being asked hard and pointed questions.

And you don't see them doctoring video.

Remember this:



You won't get that from the Fringe media. Megyn doesn't turn down the heat and certainly doesn't accept this twit's spin on the White House's collection of "fishy" emails. Baghdad Bob's assistant was skewered by REAL journalism and I recall being somewhat riveted to Megyn's interview. You won't get that from the Fringe media anymore.

What about this interview with Glenn Beck:



This is what 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to be all those years ago. Digging for information, verifying the sources, asking the hard and pointed questions and being relentless to get at the truth behind the smoke and mirrors.

No, instead we get this:



Sorry, Chris, but I don't get a thrill going up the back of my leg when I hear a speech from anyone, except those done by our Founding Fathers. When I heard him say that, I nearly gagged and vomited.

And do I really need to go down the Keith Olbermann road?

What really appalls me is the non reporting of the latest ACORN scandal. Think about it for a second. If you have a modicum of skepticism, you would be asking yourself why FoxNews is the only news outlet that is reporting on this. I mean, here we have two young adults doing what 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to do.

Well, we may be seeing a resurrection of what journalism used to be.

The latest Fringe media craze is to equate criticism towards Obama as the new racism. Of course, this is what happens when the Fringe media is in the tank for President Obama and donates millions to his campaign. Smart Americans know all too well that the race card is nothing more than a smoke screen to divert attention away from the important issues. They do this because they are of the opinion that average working Americans are too stupid to think for themselves.

I won't disgust you anymore and I'll sum this up by quoting a poster at HotAir:

For the MSM it is CHANGE and HOPE, change the story and hope the sheep buy it.

Well, we ain't buying it.

Jimmah Cahtuh, An American Failure

When people can't win a debate on substance, they typically resort to ad hominems or if they are democrat politicians they use the race card. Of course, how far can they use it without the likes of Jimmah Cahtuh, making his self obligatory rounds on the liberal, state run media? Jimmah Cahtuh was a failure as a president and what many believe is an anti-Semite, often referring to his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as proof. I have not read this book myself and will refrain from forming my own opinions about it, however, Cinnamon Stillwell wrote an article on December 12, 2006 seems to sum up his book rather eloquently. Even more interesting is that Osama bin Laden gave his book a good review. Thus, I will leave it there. What I am more interested in is Jimmah Cahtuh's failure and being our nation's embarrassment to the world as a president, as well as having a penchant for rubbing shoulders with dictators. With that said, we are going to go back in time and list some of the follies of our 39th president. In 1980, President Jimmah Cahtuh invited Robert Mugabe to the White House and supported his rise as dictator of Rhodesia, even though Abel Muzorewa had already been elected to the post of prime minister. With the support of the world press, Jimmah Cahtuh declared Muzorewa's election null and void and causing Mugabe, an avowed Marxist, to win in a second election. Jimmah Cahtuh also has a special interest with dictators in Central America. By using the Office of the President, he set the conditions for the overthrow of Anastasio Somosa in Nicaragua, only to be replaced with Marxist Sandanista Daniel Ortega. On a side note, Somosa's election had been certified by the OAS. During Jimmah Cahtuh's Human Rights program, he demanded that the Shah of Iran step down and relinquish power to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Then Jimmah Cahtuh had the Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders to bow down to the Ayatollah and not fight him, when they did they were subsequently murdered. Then we know what occurred after the Ayatollah came to power at the U.S. Embassy. In 1994, Jimmah Cahtuh went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. He done this without governmental authority or support. The illegal deal that Jimmah made with North Korea provided them with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons. On top of that, Jimmah's illegal "negotiations" was also supposed to allow U.N. inspectors to monitor their use. On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced to the world it had developed its first nuclear weapon. Former President Jimmah Cahtuh was also instrumental with Hugo Chavez's rise to power. Despite exit polls done by an independent firm in New York showing that Hugo Chavez had lost, he was declared winner anyway with nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Regardless, Jimmah Cahtuh endorsed Chavez's "victory" anyway. Although the list can go on, I'll finish it with Jimmah Cahtuh's support for Hamas. A terrorist state supported by Iran that is constantly harassing Israel, Jimmah says to give Hamas a chance and not supporting them is criminal. Here's a message to Jimmah: Stick with farming peanuts, because you are a walking, talking disaster at home and around the world.

Ignore Your Constituents At Your Peril - 2010

January 2010 is the time for mid-term elections and it's usually a time when political incumbents ramp up their rhetoric to get re-elected. Given the recent history of the manner in which politicians have been treating and responding to the American people, it's likely to become very perilous for their re-election bids.

From the $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" package to Cap and Trade and finally with the current health care dilemma and everything in between, Americans have had enough of the spending. However, what really has us pissed off is the overt and deliberate dismissal and downright nastiness of politicians' responses to genuine anger.

Let's revisit some of it:

Nancy Pelosi

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades...”

Or how about this from the Queen Speaker

I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.

Dick Durbin

"I'll tell you what's wrong with this. When there's a group of people honestly sitting in the middle ... and someone takes the microphone and screams and shouts until the meeting comes to an end, that isn't dialogue."

Jim Messina

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard..."

And then we seen what that meant when Kenneth Gladney, a black protester handing out "Don't Tread On Me" flags was beaten by SEIU thugs at Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting.

Then there is the liberal media, that guardian of truth and fairness. You know them, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT and the rest of their ilk, who spent millions to get Obama elected and are doing everything they can to cover and support his administration. However, they decide to take it a step further and play the race card every chance they get because they know it plays right into the hands of the far left.

And they do so at their own peril.

They are going to be in for a big surprise come January 2010 when they see a shift in the House and Senate.

Senate Votes to Cut Off ACORN Housing Funding

The amendment, offered by Sen. Mike Johanns, passed in a vote of 83 to7 and prohibits the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now from receiving funds from the current Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It marks the third time this year Republicans tried to block the organization from federal funding. Read the rest at FoxNews

NYC Residences Raided in Terrorism Investigation

NEW YORK — Law enforcement agents have raided residences in New York City as part of a terrorism investigation, and are preparing to brief Congress about the investigation. Red the rest at FoxNews

Three Strikes - ACORN Caught Again In New York

Days after the release of hidden-camera videos led to the firing of four ACORN workers in Baltimore and Washington who assisted an independent filmmaker posing as a pimp to apply for an illegal housing loan for a brothel, a third video has surfaced showing ACORN workers offering the same kind of assistance at the organization's office in Brooklyn, N.Y. Read the rest at FoxNews

Maureen Dowd - The Ultimate in Race Hustling

Maureen Dowd's article in the New York Times goes to lend more credence that race hustling is alive and well; leave it to her to see something that isn't there. Of course this is par for the course with the mainstream media and its left leaning agenda, who spent millions to the Obama administration to get him elected.

Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst was quickly seized upon by the left wing media and Congressional members were quick to condemn the Congressman's heckling, calling for him to apologize. He has done this more than enough times and leave it people like Maureen Dowd to exacerbate the issue by bringing race into it.

Did she have the same "outrage" when Senator Harry Reid called President Bush a liar back in December 2004? As a matter of fact, let's revisit that event for the erudite, Maureen Dowd:

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

Is that rhetoric appropriate?

SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.

h/t Brian Walsh

More, via Tim Grieve, from a 2005 Rolling Stone sit-down:

RS: You've called Bush a loser.

HR: And a liar.

RS: You apologized for the loser comment.

HR: But never for the liar, have I?

Did Obama lie? That's not the point, now is it? Due to the fact that doctors and health care providers do not have the means and are not allowed to check the legal residency status of anyone, then it becomes quite clear that illegal aliens will be covered on the legal American's taxpayer dime.

But, here is where Maureen Dowd sees the issue when she states:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Now how on earth does she see that in Rep. Wilson's outburst? It's quite simple, really. Maureen Dowd is a race baiter and a race hustler, who uses argumentum ad hominems to defend her disgusting and feigned "outrage". This is one of the points I alluded to in a previous article when I pointed out that Contessa Brewer, another race hustler, severley misused a video on one of her programs at MSNBC.

Maureen goes on with her rhetoric:

The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

Let's not forget, Maureen, that there are many democrat anti-Semitics, some of whom used it in part of their platforms. Can you say Cynthia McKinney and James Moran, or have you conveniently forgotten that those two people blamed the Jews for the Iraq war and the other was defeated in a campaign?

My question for you, Maureen, is this:

When is Harry Reid going to apologize for calling President Bush a liar?