The Obama administration sent representatives to the UN Universal Periodic Review, whick all other Presidents have declined to do, in order to have the global community (Iran, N. Korea, China, Cuba, Libya, etc.) tear the U.S. a new one on all of our "human rights abuses".
One of my favorites? The spokewoman from Iran condemning the U.S. for treatment of the Koran and for violence against women. Apparently the last part she was coerced into saying under the threat of being stoned to death.
Thanks President Obama for allowing the rest of the worlds dictators and despots open up a verbal can of whoop-ass on the U.S. I'm sure they'll like and respect us much better now.
Thank you sir! May I have another!!
11/30/2010
"Common Sense": Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous on Government Pensions
One reason California is going down the tubes...and into bankruptcy? State government pensions through State employee unions are killing the state,
SO IT STARTS - Senate Bill 510 - Organic Farmer Fined 5000 For Growing ...
This is exactly what is coming with SB510. Liberty vs. Tyranny.
Have California Democrats Turned Their Backs on Social Justice? A Conver...
Now, I'm not a "social justice" kind of guy. "Social justice" is, I believe, a seemingly benign term used by Marxists and socialists to cloak their true intentions. However, this interview is interesting in that it shows the complete hypocrisy of the left when it come to "standing up for the little guy."
Cuts in Tax Rates Do Not Mean Cuts in Tax Revenues
by Brian Johnson November 30, 2010
This isn't hard to understand. Art Laffer developed the Laffer Curve to illustrate how cuts in tax rates, down to a certain level, increase tax revenues. The GOP, if they want to effectively govern, need to articulate, and demonstrate, to the American public the lie that all tax cuts create debt and deficits. They also need to have a spokesperson that can finally convince the public that taxes is money that belongs to them, they earned it, and it is being confiscated by the government. What creates deficits and debt is not that the Government is confiscating too little, it is that the politicians spend way too much.
The Democrats love to talk of how the Reagan tax cuts increased the deficit. A few facts: The Reagan tax cuts nearly doubled revenue to the Federal Government between 1981 and 1989. The deficits came about because Congress (which holds the purse strings) increased spending by more than double. Even with that, spending as a percentage of GDP dropped, during that same time period. How much did the "rich" pay during the "evil" Reagan years"
Sowell: Can Republicans Talk?
By Thomas Sowell November 30, 2010 6:56 AM
The biggest battle in the lame duck session of Congress may well be over whether or not to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in January. The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress.
Read More Here
 Image via Wikipedia |
| Paul Ryan (R-WI) |
This isn't hard to understand. Art Laffer developed the Laffer Curve to illustrate how cuts in tax rates, down to a certain level, increase tax revenues. The GOP, if they want to effectively govern, need to articulate, and demonstrate, to the American public the lie that all tax cuts create debt and deficits. They also need to have a spokesperson that can finally convince the public that taxes is money that belongs to them, they earned it, and it is being confiscated by the government. What creates deficits and debt is not that the Government is confiscating too little, it is that the politicians spend way too much.
The Democrats love to talk of how the Reagan tax cuts increased the deficit. A few facts: The Reagan tax cuts nearly doubled revenue to the Federal Government between 1981 and 1989. The deficits came about because Congress (which holds the purse strings) increased spending by more than double. Even with that, spending as a percentage of GDP dropped, during that same time period. How much did the "rich" pay during the "evil" Reagan years"
- The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988.
- Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988 (from the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee Report).
Sowell: Can Republicans Talk?
By Thomas Sowell November 30, 2010 6:56 AM
Read More Here
Federal Workers Having Meltdown Over Pay Freeze
Obama Publicity Stunt Has Fed Workers Seeing Red
by Brian Johnson November 30, 2010
An article in the NY Daily News reports that federal government employees are having a major meltdown because the President has announced a 2 year freeze on salary increases.
I have two reactions to this. My first reaction is that the federal workers get no sympathy from me. You may say that is cold-hearted, but I make this judgement based on the fact that federal civilian workers wages are already 75% higher than their private sector counterparts, on average. If benefits are included, the federal workers pay and benefits is double their civilian counterpart (see chart below). So please excuse me if my tear ducts do not well up at this. Much of this disparity can be attributed to federal workers unions and collective bargaining agreements which are crippling budgets of both federal and state governments. The strength of these unions need to be severely weakened, with future pay and benefits limited until more closely aligned with the private sector. In addition, Congress could start to look at ways to privatize many of the current jobs held by federal workers by contracting them out to private businesses. This would help shrink the government, and allow private companies to streamline many of the processes currently bloated by these huge bureaucracies.
My second thought on this is that this is just a public relations stunt by the White House to show that they are trying to do something to get spending under control. This is just a just a drop in the bucket where spending is concerned, and the workers are bearing the brunt of the Obama Administration's attempt to show that they're engaged. I mean, seriously, does anybody really think this is going to have any real effect? It's not going to improve the economy. It won't put any money into people's hands (other than Congress) to boost the private sector. It's all window dressing. No substance and all bluster.
The federal workers are right to be upset. They are pawns in this game. They have been all along. Government pay and benefits have been bloated intentionally to lure more people into dependence, into the system, with the ultimate goal of expanding the government to the monstrous beast it has become. They are starting to feel the effects of a government out of control, of policies which the rest of us have been feeling for over 2 years. I still stand by my earlier statement of contracting out jobs to private sector companies (DMV anyone?), but who in government has the guts to take that on? There might be a few in the new Congress, but the numbers are not there, and there are too many old guard politicians still there to allow it to happen.
Meanwhile, the vise continues to tighten.
Federal workers rage over President Obama's two-year wage freeze
by Brian Johnson November 30, 2010
I have two reactions to this. My first reaction is that the federal workers get no sympathy from me. You may say that is cold-hearted, but I make this judgement based on the fact that federal civilian workers wages are already 75% higher than their private sector counterparts, on average. If benefits are included, the federal workers pay and benefits is double their civilian counterpart (see chart below). So please excuse me if my tear ducts do not well up at this. Much of this disparity can be attributed to federal workers unions and collective bargaining agreements which are crippling budgets of both federal and state governments. The strength of these unions need to be severely weakened, with future pay and benefits limited until more closely aligned with the private sector. In addition, Congress could start to look at ways to privatize many of the current jobs held by federal workers by contracting them out to private businesses. This would help shrink the government, and allow private companies to streamline many of the processes currently bloated by these huge bureaucracies.
My second thought on this is that this is just a public relations stunt by the White House to show that they are trying to do something to get spending under control. This is just a just a drop in the bucket where spending is concerned, and the workers are bearing the brunt of the Obama Administration's attempt to show that they're engaged. I mean, seriously, does anybody really think this is going to have any real effect? It's not going to improve the economy. It won't put any money into people's hands (other than Congress) to boost the private sector. It's all window dressing. No substance and all bluster.
The federal workers are right to be upset. They are pawns in this game. They have been all along. Government pay and benefits have been bloated intentionally to lure more people into dependence, into the system, with the ultimate goal of expanding the government to the monstrous beast it has become. They are starting to feel the effects of a government out of control, of policies which the rest of us have been feeling for over 2 years. I still stand by my earlier statement of contracting out jobs to private sector companies (DMV anyone?), but who in government has the guts to take that on? There might be a few in the new Congress, but the numbers are not there, and there are too many old guard politicians still there to allow it to happen.
Meanwhile, the vise continues to tighten.
Read The Article: |
| CATO Institute |
Federal workers rage over President Obama's two-year wage freeze
Why Is Wikileaks Releasing This NOW?
Glenn Beck: Why this? Why now? Wiki-leaks explained...
GLENN: I want to go over the WikiLeaks and last hour I asked you, are you surprised by anything that is coming out of the WikiLeaks stories? Are you surprised that these documents show that China has helped Iran with a bomb? No. We told you that. Are you surprised that North Korea may have supplied a bomb to Iran? No. We told you they were doing that. Are you surprised that Putin is not a friend of the United States? No, you'd have to be a dead man. Are you surprised that we're in a really difficult situation with our, quote, ally Pakistan? Are you surprised that the major funder of Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia? No, I'm not surprised by any of these. Are you? Is anyone in America surprised by these? So why is this coming out?
Read More Here
GLENN: I want to go over the WikiLeaks and last hour I asked you, are you surprised by anything that is coming out of the WikiLeaks stories? Are you surprised that these documents show that China has helped Iran with a bomb? No. We told you that. Are you surprised that North Korea may have supplied a bomb to Iran? No. We told you they were doing that. Are you surprised that Putin is not a friend of the United States? No, you'd have to be a dead man. Are you surprised that we're in a really difficult situation with our, quote, ally Pakistan? Are you surprised that the major funder of Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia? No, I'm not surprised by any of these. Are you? Is anyone in America surprised by these? So why is this coming out?
Read More Here
11/29/2010
The Ninth Circus Strikes Again! Deviancy Dumbed Down
Administration Shields Sexually Deviant Illegals and Supports DREAM Act
J. Christian Adams
Victor Nunez is an illegal alien from Mexico. Two years after arriving in the United States, he was convicted of petty theft for shoplifting. Then, he was convicted of a much more serious crime: He exposed himself in public. But even that wasn’t enough to have him removed from the country.
After a decade of his illegal presence, the Department of Homeland Security finally brought immigration charges to remove him from the United States. Crimes of “moral turpitude,” like exposing your genitals to children, are supposed to result in certain deportation.
The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that he had two convictions for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which under the immigration laws, makes one ineligible for the green card Nunez was seeking. Nunez was on a fast track back to Mexico.
READ MORE HERE
J. Christian Adams
After a decade of his illegal presence, the Department of Homeland Security finally brought immigration charges to remove him from the United States. Crimes of “moral turpitude,” like exposing your genitals to children, are supposed to result in certain deportation.
The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that he had two convictions for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which under the immigration laws, makes one ineligible for the green card Nunez was seeking. Nunez was on a fast track back to Mexico.
READ MORE HERE
Americans aren’t stupid
Most Americans see through Democrats' class-warfare rhetoric and know that extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody makes sense.
by Herman Cain
Here we go with the liberal rhetoric again. You’ve seen the Democrats whine that keeping the “Bush tax cuts” would stuff the pockets of the richest Americans, while doing nothing to help the middle class. But that simply isn’t the truth.
Here’s the truth: Congress is not voting on tax cuts, but rather, whether or not they should allow tax increases to take effect January 1, 2011.
The Democrats have tried to convince the American people that the Republicans want to pass “tax cuts for the rich.” But, in reality, conservatives want to provide a bit of economic certainty by maintaining the current tax rates for all. In fact, Speaker-elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) says that keeping these tax rates is the most sensible way to “reduce the uncertainty in America and help small businesses begin to create jobs again.”
This may come as a shocker to liberals: He’s exactly right.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/29/americans-arent-stupid/#ixzz16i71v7pL
by Herman Cain
Here’s the truth: Congress is not voting on tax cuts, but rather, whether or not they should allow tax increases to take effect January 1, 2011.
The Democrats have tried to convince the American people that the Republicans want to pass “tax cuts for the rich.” But, in reality, conservatives want to provide a bit of economic certainty by maintaining the current tax rates for all. In fact, Speaker-elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) says that keeping these tax rates is the most sensible way to “reduce the uncertainty in America and help small businesses begin to create jobs again.”
This may come as a shocker to liberals: He’s exactly right.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/29/americans-arent-stupid/#ixzz16i71v7pL
The FairTax: What it Is and Why It Will Work
An interesting article on what the FairTax is, and what it isn't, and why it will work. If you are unfamiliar with the FairTax, this will answer a lot of questions. - Brian
Why the FairTax Will Work
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
By: Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Bartlett's Unfair Attack on the FairTax
In his December 24, 2007 Tax Notes article, “Why the FairTax Won’t Work,” Bruce Bartlett purports to critique the FairTax, a proposal to replace almost all federal taxes with a retail sales tax plus a rebate. In fact, Barlett’s article has little to say about the FairTax and even less to say that’s accurate. Instead, most of his article misstates research on the FairTax, criticizes unnamed proponents of the FairTax, lambasts unattributed views of the FairTax, and engages in political punditry. This paper takes a close look at Bartlett’s “analysis,” exposing his repeated use of straw men for what it is rhetoric disguised as economics. (1)
The FairTax was proposed over a decade ago. It now has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supporters. The vast majority of these supporters are not economists. Some are radio talk show hosts, some are Congressman, some are painters, salesmen, investment bankers, homemakers -- you name it. Many FairTax supporters are wildly enthusiastic about the plan, and some have certainly made fantastic claims in its name that have no economic merit. Some of these claims, no doubt, have even found their way onto the FairTax.org website, which is manned, in the main, by volunteers, not economic PhDs.
READ MORE HERE
Why the FairTax Will Work
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
By: Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Bartlett's Unfair Attack on the FairTax
The FairTax was proposed over a decade ago. It now has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supporters. The vast majority of these supporters are not economists. Some are radio talk show hosts, some are Congressman, some are painters, salesmen, investment bankers, homemakers -- you name it. Many FairTax supporters are wildly enthusiastic about the plan, and some have certainly made fantastic claims in its name that have no economic merit. Some of these claims, no doubt, have even found their way onto the FairTax.org website, which is manned, in the main, by volunteers, not economic PhDs.
READ MORE HERE
President Obama is requesting $1.15 billion from Congress
"Farmed or attempted to farm"? Why does this sound eeirly similar to "Jobs created or saved". I love how these politicians come up with these things that are unprovable. "Well, if a person wasn't fired,t hen that job was saved." This is wealth redistribution, or what Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been pushing for years - reparations. They can cloak it however they want. If it smells like a pig...
Brian
Obama’s Agriculture Dept. Has Hired Consulting Firm to Advise It on ‘Diversity'
Monday, November 29, 2010
By Susan Jones
(CNSNews.com) – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has “taken a number of actions to make his department more sensitive to civil rights issues,” The Hill newspaper reported on Monday.
Among other things, the department has hired a consulting firm to advise it on “diversity” matters, the newspaper reported.
And this week, Vilsack is pressing the House of Representatives to approve a Senate bill settling discrimination claims by black farmers.
As CNSNews.com reported earlier, President Obama is requesting $1.15 billion from Congress – on top of the $100 million he requested as a senator -- to settle discrimination claims by 66,000 African Americans who “farmed or attempted to farm” and were allegedly discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture between Jan. 1, 1981 and Dec. 31, 1996.
READ MORE HERE
Brian
Obama’s Agriculture Dept. Has Hired Consulting Firm to Advise It on ‘Diversity'
By Susan Jones
(CNSNews.com) – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has “taken a number of actions to make his department more sensitive to civil rights issues,” The Hill newspaper reported on Monday.
Among other things, the department has hired a consulting firm to advise it on “diversity” matters, the newspaper reported.
And this week, Vilsack is pressing the House of Representatives to approve a Senate bill settling discrimination claims by black farmers.
As CNSNews.com reported earlier, President Obama is requesting $1.15 billion from Congress – on top of the $100 million he requested as a senator -- to settle discrimination claims by 66,000 African Americans who “farmed or attempted to farm” and were allegedly discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture between Jan. 1, 1981 and Dec. 31, 1996.
READ MORE HERE
Howard Dean - Government Should Pick Guests on Fox & MSNBC Because Ignorant Americans Don’t Know What’s Going On
Bring back the fairness doctrine!
by Brian Johnson - November 29, 2010
h/t The Blaze
This is the mantra of the left when they don't like what they hear on radio. especially if it's effective.The claim is that we need more diversity on radio. If there is a Rush Limbaugh out there, then it's only fair that there is Michael Moore. They claim we need balance. Just like on T.V., right? For the most part, news channels lean to the left. Some more than others. MSNBC certainly holds down the far left side of the spectrum in news content (if you don't count PBS). The rest lean varying degrees to the left, with FOX leaning to the right. To be fair, the news programs themselves have to be separated from the shows that are commentary. On Fox, Sheppard Smith is reporting news, Hannity is commenting. On MSNBC, Brian Williams reports, Maddow opines. It is interesting to find out what the news programs actually report though. What each news organization views as "newsworthy." This is where the bias generally rears its ugly head in television news, although frequency of airing a particular story, or how the story is presented are pretty good indications of how the news organization leans.
Radio is a little different. There are literally hundreds of stations to choose from on your radio, especially with the advent of satellite radio. California alone has 925 stations to choose from, not counting the satellite radio. On the talk radio bands alone there are All News, news/talk, free speech, financial, Korean, community, Christian talk, Catholic Talk, Sports Talk, Local issues, , etc. The list goes on and on.
So what is Howard Dean talking about when he says that we need balance? He is talking about speech he agrees with. There are liberal commentators out there - Amy Goodman, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Bernie Ward, Mike Malloy, and Bill Press, to name a few. I've listened to a few. I was probably one of a few that was tuning in. They were not enjoyable to listen to. That's kind of the bottom line, isn't it? I'm sure that if there were a liberal talk show host that was great, who appealed to the masses, they would have 20 million listeners, and advertisers beating their door down. At the end of the day, the stations need to make money. Rush Sean, and Levin do that - in truck loads. We don't need a fairness doctrine. The left needs better hosts.
by Brian Johnson - November 29, 2010
h/t The Blaze
This is the mantra of the left when they don't like what they hear on radio. especially if it's effective.The claim is that we need more diversity on radio. If there is a Rush Limbaugh out there, then it's only fair that there is Michael Moore. They claim we need balance. Just like on T.V., right? For the most part, news channels lean to the left. Some more than others. MSNBC certainly holds down the far left side of the spectrum in news content (if you don't count PBS). The rest lean varying degrees to the left, with FOX leaning to the right. To be fair, the news programs themselves have to be separated from the shows that are commentary. On Fox, Sheppard Smith is reporting news, Hannity is commenting. On MSNBC, Brian Williams reports, Maddow opines. It is interesting to find out what the news programs actually report though. What each news organization views as "newsworthy." This is where the bias generally rears its ugly head in television news, although frequency of airing a particular story, or how the story is presented are pretty good indications of how the news organization leans.
Radio is a little different. There are literally hundreds of stations to choose from on your radio, especially with the advent of satellite radio. California alone has 925 stations to choose from, not counting the satellite radio. On the talk radio bands alone there are All News, news/talk, free speech, financial, Korean, community, Christian talk, Catholic Talk, Sports Talk, Local issues, , etc. The list goes on and on.
So what is Howard Dean talking about when he says that we need balance? He is talking about speech he agrees with. There are liberal commentators out there - Amy Goodman, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Bernie Ward, Mike Malloy, and Bill Press, to name a few. I've listened to a few. I was probably one of a few that was tuning in. They were not enjoyable to listen to. That's kind of the bottom line, isn't it? I'm sure that if there were a liberal talk show host that was great, who appealed to the masses, they would have 20 million listeners, and advertisers beating their door down. At the end of the day, the stations need to make money. Rush Sean, and Levin do that - in truck loads. We don't need a fairness doctrine. The left needs better hosts.
Eric Holder - He Should Resign or Be Fired
Image via Wikipedia- Trying terrorists in civilian courts against:
- Law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush
- Expert warnings that civilian courts would invite problems
- Federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled key evidence inadmissable in Ahmed Khaifan Ghailani trial
- Jury acquitted Ghailani on 284 out of 285 counts
- Holder says after this near debacle, that it will have no bearing on where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried.
- Black Panther Jerry Jackson case involving voter intimidation dropped
- Failed to , or were tardy, taking action to ensure military persons stationed overseas got absentee ballots in a timely manner to vote in elections.
- Suing the State of Arizona for passing a law that mirrors Federal Law, which enables local law enforcement to enforce those laws.
EDITORIAL: Forcing Holder out
Respected officials call for attorney general's resignation
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES -The Washington Times 2:02 a.m., Friday, November 26, 2010
The calls have begun for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s resignation. Potential Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty both took that position last weekend in response to last week's embarrassing result in the trial of Guantanamo terrorist detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailiani. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Pawlenty won't be the only prominent politicos reaching the conclusion that Mr. Holder is unfit for the office he holds.
READ MORE HERE
Related Stories: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595683,00.html , http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-did-holders-justice-department-dismiss-the-black-panther-case/ , http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/reverse-discrimination-new-black-panther-case , http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-party-president-admits-to-philadelphia-voter-intimidation-holders-justice-department-still-silent/
11/27/2010
Crazed Shoppers Pile Up At Target
Santa Claus Is Coming and the kids are getting greedy
It's Christmastime
They know it's in the stores because they've seen it on the T.V.
It's Christmastime
It used to be the birthday of the man who saved our necks
It's Christmanstime
But now it stands for Santa Claus, you spell it with an X
It's Christmastime
"Christmastime" by Larry Norman
It's Christmastime
They know it's in the stores because they've seen it on the T.V.
It's Christmastime
It used to be the birthday of the man who saved our necks
It's Christmanstime
But now it stands for Santa Claus, you spell it with an X
It's Christmastime
"Christmastime" by Larry Norman
Battle between the Tea Party and the Establishment
Image by Lone Primate via FlickrDon’t You Go Away Tea Partiers- The GOP Establishment Is Fighting Back
Published: November 26, 2010
Deroy Murdock: "Pre-flight screening has moved from safety to comedy"
Image via WikipediaBy Deroy Murdock
As Americans fly this Thanksgiving holiday, critics of new security measures are arriving at airports in kilts. Subsequent pat downs will be enhanced, indeed.
Pre-flight screening has moved from safety to comedy. Before it devolves into tragedy, officials should start profiling terrorists.
After al-Qaeda's attempted bombing of FedEx and UPS cargo jets, any package from, say, Somalia to a San Francisco synagogue likely will get close scrutiny. This is profiling.
Now, obviously, packages are not people. Boxes have neither civil rights nor emotions. People do, and we always must be aware of and sensitive to that.
However, America must focus its finite capabilities on those who crave the destruction of planes and the people who ride them.
What would that profile be? Today's threat comes almost exclusively from militant-Islamic males between about 18 and 35 who hail from the Middle East and predominantly Muslim African and south-Asian nations. This profile was not drawn by anti-Muslim bigots, nervous Jews, or paranoid Southern Baptists. The terrorists themselves created this profile. Aviation has obsessed them for years.
READ MORE HERE
11/24/2010
Obama’s Jeffersonian Muslim Revisionist Lie
“Jefferson viewed the region the Muslim states of North Africa as the repository of despotism, depravity, and backwardness"
by Susan Dale
11/23/2010
Barack Hussein Obama is a practitioner of many nasty and nefarious things as our President, but none are more destructive to our nation and its endlessly fascinating and largely glorious past than his frequent practice of revisionist history.
The term revisionist means actually, well, lying.
The most recent of these was made during a Presidential speech at a White House dinner, hosted by Barack and Michelle Obama, to celebrate the end of the month-long fast on the part of the Muslim world, a practice which is known as Ramadan. The end of the fast, which seems to require some sort of celebratory event, at least in the alternate universe of the Obama Administration, is known as Iftar. In his remarks at this dinner, the second in his two year Presidency, Obama made various claims in his increasingly pathetic attempts to legitimize the world of Islam, the most outrageous of which was that one of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, (who Obama fashioned as a fellow admirer of the Muslim world), hosted the first Iftar dinner at the White House.
Read More Here
by Susan Dale
11/23/2010
The term revisionist means actually, well, lying.
The most recent of these was made during a Presidential speech at a White House dinner, hosted by Barack and Michelle Obama, to celebrate the end of the month-long fast on the part of the Muslim world, a practice which is known as Ramadan. The end of the fast, which seems to require some sort of celebratory event, at least in the alternate universe of the Obama Administration, is known as Iftar. In his remarks at this dinner, the second in his two year Presidency, Obama made various claims in his increasingly pathetic attempts to legitimize the world of Islam, the most outrageous of which was that one of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, (who Obama fashioned as a fellow admirer of the Muslim world), hosted the first Iftar dinner at the White House.
Read More Here
Health Tyrants
The tyrant's strategy: Attacking people's rights to property and liberty on a piecemeal basis reduces resistance.
by Walter E. Williams
11/24/2010
Do federal, state and local governments have a right to intervene in our lives when it comes to choices affecting our health? Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to forbid restaurants from giving gifts with meals that contain too much fat and sugar, a measure aimed at McDonald's Happy Meals. The reasoning of these tyrants is to prevent McDonald's from using toys to lure children into liking foods the board deems non-nutritious. Fortunately, San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, by no means a libertarian, has threatened to veto the measure saying, "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."
If the board of supervisors gets away with this intrusion into parental responsibilities and choices, we can bet the rent money that they will not stop with McDonald's Happy Meals. The reason is that Happy Meals are not the only contributors to child obesity.
Read More Here
by Walter E. Williams
11/24/2010
If the board of supervisors gets away with this intrusion into parental responsibilities and choices, we can bet the rent money that they will not stop with McDonald's Happy Meals. The reason is that Happy Meals are not the only contributors to child obesity.
Read More Here
Want to Pay Higher Taxes? Go ahead!
Image via Wikipediaby Wynton C. Hall
11/24/2010
Rich liberals say they want to pay higher taxes. Great. Let them. Who is stopping them from doing so voluntarily?
Consider Warren Buffett. In an interview that is scheduled to air November 28th on ABC’s This Week With Christiane Amanpour, mega billionaire Warren Buffett told Amanpour that he believes high income earners, such as himself, should pay more in taxes. Furthermore, like President Obama, Mr. Buffett believes that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should expire:
“If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further,” Buffett told Amanpour. “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it. The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
Read More Here
Al Gore’s Green Blasphemy
Gore: "...Ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices" Thank you Mr. Wizard!
Rich Trzupek on Nov 23rd, 2010
Back in 1994, vice-president of the United States Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote that started us on the long road of taking American farms out of food production and converting them to fuel production. While conservatives and libertarians argued at the time that subsidizing ethanol production made no economic or environmental sense, Gore and his green allies were certain that bio-fuels would solve all the nation’s woes. Sixteen years later, Mr. Gore has apparently seen the light, admitting that America’s rush to embrace corn ethanol has been something of a mistake.
Read More Here
Rich Trzupek on Nov 23rd, 2010
Read More Here
Happy Thanksgiving! (From Fidel and Che)
Black Friday 1962: Cuban agents had targeted Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdales, and Manhattan’s Grand Central Station
Humberto Fontova on Nov 24th, 2010
“We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies’ very home,” raved Che Guevara in his message to the Tri-Continental Conference, “to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm!”
“The more I get to know Che Guevara,” beamed Benicio del Toro to In Touch magazine as he prepped for the role of Guevara in Steven Soderbergh’s homage to the cruel revolutionary, “the more I respect him. Che was just one of those guys who walked the walk and talked the talk. There’s just something cool about people like that. ”
Read More Here
Humberto Fontova on Nov 24th, 2010
“The more I get to know Che Guevara,” beamed Benicio del Toro to In Touch magazine as he prepped for the role of Guevara in Steven Soderbergh’s homage to the cruel revolutionary, “the more I respect him. Che was just one of those guys who walked the walk and talked the talk. There’s just something cool about people like that. ”
Read More Here
Will ObamaCare Collapse?
ObamaCare “will encourage more employers to drop employer provided care
Tait Trussell on Nov 24th, 2010
Large employers who spend $80 billion a year to insure millions of employees and their families say ObamaCare is headed for “collapse.” Human resource executives see the law as pushing employers to drop health coverage. A 28-page analysis by the Association of Chief Human Resource Officers (ACHRO) finds a majority believe the law must be repealed or overhauled.
ObamaCare requires employers to offer health insurance to their employees. If they don’t, they would have to pay a penalty beginning in 2014. But when McDonald’s and some other employers warned it would be too expensive to ensure their large ranks of employees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued waivers, taking dozens of companies off the hook, The New York Times and other publications reported. Preferential treatment for some companies is sure to cause resentment.
Read More Here
Tait Trussell on Nov 24th, 2010
ObamaCare requires employers to offer health insurance to their employees. If they don’t, they would have to pay a penalty beginning in 2014. But when McDonald’s and some other employers warned it would be too expensive to ensure their large ranks of employees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued waivers, taking dozens of companies off the hook, The New York Times and other publications reported. Preferential treatment for some companies is sure to cause resentment.
Read More Here
Is TSA the 'Domestic Security Force' Obama Spoke Of?
After watching this, I can't help but remember Obama say on the campaign trail that he wanted a "Domestic Security Force as well funded and well armed as our Military". Could it be that he is having Homeland Security take that on with the TSA as the "Domestic Security Force?" Seems to be a lot of people in the TSA dishing out a lot of fear and intimidation, with the full POWER of U.S. Government behind them.
New Mother Harassed and Threatened by TSA because she requests alternate screening for her breast milk. As a repeat traveler, the TSA singled her out to make an example out of her. She spends over an hour in the "Special Inspection" area and is forced to miss her flight.
I am the brunette in black getting my items ready for screening (you will see me about 45 seconds into the video). I travel every week and bring home breast milk with me through Phoenix Sky Harbor. TSA rules allow for alternate screening (no xray) for breast milk and I almost never had a problem...until the week before this screening. I was held for 30 minutes that week while the TSA manager called to find out the rules. I was told to "pump and dump," asked why the milk wasn't clear, and asked where my baby was if it was really milk (uh traveling, working mom pumping doesn't usually have the baby with her). After begging him to figure it out, they finally let me through. I called and complained to TSA and was instructed to travel with the TSA breast milk rules printed out and present them whenever there is a problem. As my items come through security this time, I notice immediately that I was dealing with the same people from the week before. The woman tells me right away that my milk might have to go through xray, and then I tell her I printed the rules. I go to grab the rules on top of my bag and she freaks out and pushes my arm away. Another guy comes over and calls for "back up" and they put in me back in the glass cage. Standing 50 ft away are the same manager and supervisor I had dealt with the previous week. They will stall for 20 minutes before coming over to me. Meanwhile, one of the guys comes over to me and tells me "to be quiet if I know what's good for me." I have already been in the glass cage for about 8 minutes. My patience wears thin and I start crying. It is hard to see on this video, but real tears wouldn't stop streaming down my face. About 10 minutes into all this, a Phoenix PD comes to calm me down. I explain to him that there is no reason I should be treated this way and I have every right to be upset. He then says "they" (aka TSA) saw me coming, have it out for me (from my complaint against TSA the week before when they didn't know the breast milk rules then either), and I should travel out of a different gate in future weeks. He said TSA wants me to play along with their horse and pony show and if I don't then TSA can have the Phoenix PD arrest me! Well, I wanted to get home to my baby and my flight was 30 minutes from departure so I 'played along.' Three Phoenix PD watched in the background...I could tell they all knew this was a waste of their time but I was happy to have them standing by in case TSA continued to act out of line. One police office actually came up to me later during my second screening asking if I was okay and if he could let anyone in my party know I was going to be late. A class act compared to the TSA actions.
I was patted down, and then I had a talk with the TSA manager. He told me I had to have the milk go through the xray since the containers were too full (not a TSA rule) and the liquid was not clear (hello, it is milk?, and also not a TSA rule). I then begged him to read the TSA rules I had printed out. He read the first form which stated that medical liquids can have alternate screening (no xray). He was quick to say "well this isn't a medical liquid!" So I had him read the second form which says breast milk is to be treated like a medical liquid. He then says, "well, not today." I started balling all over again once he said that.
The TSA manager tells me I can leave security, redistribute the milk into half full containers (his completely made-up rule) and go through security all over again if I want to avoid xrays on the milk. With tears continuing to stream down my face, I did that. I also missed my flight playing along with his ridiculous game. Curiously, my second screening video (another 20 minutes) has been erased. During that portion, I was scolded for not watching the woman test my milk (I would turn my head away to hide the tears), the manager wrote down my personal information on a scratch piece of paper and tucked it in his pocket (who knows where that ended up- TSA could only say their "policy" was to destroy information like that...we all know how "policy" went that day, though), and took pictures of my breast milk for some unknown reason. Southwest put me on the next flight home and, as luck would have it, I was standing in line right behind my Constitutional Law professor from my law school days. At that point I knew I needed to stand up for my rights and help myself and other mothers against the uninformed, retalitory, and harassing TSA employees that help "keep us safe."
New Mother Harassed and Threatened by TSA because she requests alternate screening for her breast milk. As a repeat traveler, the TSA singled her out to make an example out of her. She spends over an hour in the "Special Inspection" area and is forced to miss her flight.
I am the brunette in black getting my items ready for screening (you will see me about 45 seconds into the video). I travel every week and bring home breast milk with me through Phoenix Sky Harbor. TSA rules allow for alternate screening (no xray) for breast milk and I almost never had a problem...until the week before this screening. I was held for 30 minutes that week while the TSA manager called to find out the rules. I was told to "pump and dump," asked why the milk wasn't clear, and asked where my baby was if it was really milk (uh traveling, working mom pumping doesn't usually have the baby with her). After begging him to figure it out, they finally let me through. I called and complained to TSA and was instructed to travel with the TSA breast milk rules printed out and present them whenever there is a problem. As my items come through security this time, I notice immediately that I was dealing with the same people from the week before. The woman tells me right away that my milk might have to go through xray, and then I tell her I printed the rules. I go to grab the rules on top of my bag and she freaks out and pushes my arm away. Another guy comes over and calls for "back up" and they put in me back in the glass cage. Standing 50 ft away are the same manager and supervisor I had dealt with the previous week. They will stall for 20 minutes before coming over to me. Meanwhile, one of the guys comes over to me and tells me "to be quiet if I know what's good for me." I have already been in the glass cage for about 8 minutes. My patience wears thin and I start crying. It is hard to see on this video, but real tears wouldn't stop streaming down my face. About 10 minutes into all this, a Phoenix PD comes to calm me down. I explain to him that there is no reason I should be treated this way and I have every right to be upset. He then says "they" (aka TSA) saw me coming, have it out for me (from my complaint against TSA the week before when they didn't know the breast milk rules then either), and I should travel out of a different gate in future weeks. He said TSA wants me to play along with their horse and pony show and if I don't then TSA can have the Phoenix PD arrest me! Well, I wanted to get home to my baby and my flight was 30 minutes from departure so I 'played along.' Three Phoenix PD watched in the background...I could tell they all knew this was a waste of their time but I was happy to have them standing by in case TSA continued to act out of line. One police office actually came up to me later during my second screening asking if I was okay and if he could let anyone in my party know I was going to be late. A class act compared to the TSA actions.
I was patted down, and then I had a talk with the TSA manager. He told me I had to have the milk go through the xray since the containers were too full (not a TSA rule) and the liquid was not clear (hello, it is milk?, and also not a TSA rule). I then begged him to read the TSA rules I had printed out. He read the first form which stated that medical liquids can have alternate screening (no xray). He was quick to say "well this isn't a medical liquid!" So I had him read the second form which says breast milk is to be treated like a medical liquid. He then says, "well, not today." I started balling all over again once he said that.
The TSA manager tells me I can leave security, redistribute the milk into half full containers (his completely made-up rule) and go through security all over again if I want to avoid xrays on the milk. With tears continuing to stream down my face, I did that. I also missed my flight playing along with his ridiculous game. Curiously, my second screening video (another 20 minutes) has been erased. During that portion, I was scolded for not watching the woman test my milk (I would turn my head away to hide the tears), the manager wrote down my personal information on a scratch piece of paper and tucked it in his pocket (who knows where that ended up- TSA could only say their "policy" was to destroy information like that...we all know how "policy" went that day, though), and took pictures of my breast milk for some unknown reason. Southwest put me on the next flight home and, as luck would have it, I was standing in line right behind my Constitutional Law professor from my law school days. At that point I knew I needed to stand up for my rights and help myself and other mothers against the uninformed, retalitory, and harassing TSA employees that help "keep us safe."
Report: Clinton and Obama Pulled 'Bait and Switch' on Netanyahu
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeby Maayana Miskin
As Israel waits for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. does not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.
The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.
Read More Here
Feds Tell Insurance Companies How Much They Can Make
Government Regulations Will Raise Costs, Socialize Industry
Posted by: Brian Johnson
November 24, 2010
h/t to Locker Gnome
A new mandate on health insurers by Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama Administration will cripple many of those insurers, and force Americans into the government system. New Federal laws call for insurance companies to spend at least 80% of their premium dollars on medical care and quality. For employer plans over 50 people, the requirement is 85%. The Administration, and liberal Democrats, has taken great pains to point out what they call "excessive profits" by insurance companies. We hear of billions of dollars of profits by these companies, but are these figures correct? Are the American people being given the whole story? It helps to understand how business operates first. In my opinion, the Obama Administration is economically illiterate.
First of all, what is insurance? Health insurance is a contract between an individual and a company in which you are essentially betting that you are going to become ill, or injured, and the insurance company is wagering that you don't, or at least not in the near term. Factors such as age, weight, lifestyle, or family health history go into premium costs. Thus, if you purchase insurance when are younger, premiums are generally lower. If you wait until you are older, or until you have a catastrophic illness or injury, your premiums are going to much higher. Insurance companies have to make a profit. Those profits are put aside into huge pools in order to cover people in cases of disaster. Not just individual injuries or illnesses, but when natural disasters strike, as well. If a massive earthquake were to strike the Bay Area and tens of thousands of people were injured, the insurance companies have to have the resources to cover medical bills and hospital stays. That money is not going to be there if companies don't make profits.
The Health and Human Services new rules dictate how much can be spent on overhead. What is "overhead"? It is the cost of running a business. Everything from the building costs, lights, water, electricity, training, salaries, paper, pens, and even the insurance company's own health care costs, are all components of overhead. If the government is dictating the maximum amount they can spend on this, it shows that they don't have a clue as to what it takes to run a business.
The pointy-headed Ivy-League elites who are coming up with this stuff, most of them have never owned or run a business. They have hung out in the lounges of academe discussing economics and business as an abstract theory, marvelling over the brilliance of Paul Krugman and Keynesian theory.
Posted by: Brian Johnson
November 24, 2010
h/t to Locker Gnome
First of all, what is insurance? Health insurance is a contract between an individual and a company in which you are essentially betting that you are going to become ill, or injured, and the insurance company is wagering that you don't, or at least not in the near term. Factors such as age, weight, lifestyle, or family health history go into premium costs. Thus, if you purchase insurance when are younger, premiums are generally lower. If you wait until you are older, or until you have a catastrophic illness or injury, your premiums are going to much higher. Insurance companies have to make a profit. Those profits are put aside into huge pools in order to cover people in cases of disaster. Not just individual injuries or illnesses, but when natural disasters strike, as well. If a massive earthquake were to strike the Bay Area and tens of thousands of people were injured, the insurance companies have to have the resources to cover medical bills and hospital stays. That money is not going to be there if companies don't make profits.
The Health and Human Services new rules dictate how much can be spent on overhead. What is "overhead"? It is the cost of running a business. Everything from the building costs, lights, water, electricity, training, salaries, paper, pens, and even the insurance company's own health care costs, are all components of overhead. If the government is dictating the maximum amount they can spend on this, it shows that they don't have a clue as to what it takes to run a business.
The pointy-headed Ivy-League elites who are coming up with this stuff, most of them have never owned or run a business. They have hung out in the lounges of academe discussing economics and business as an abstract theory, marvelling over the brilliance of Paul Krugman and Keynesian theory.
They teach: Cost + Profit = Price (or Premium)
It sounds good on paper, but in reality, it is not how it works. The company doesn't really set the price. The marketplace does. People will pay for a good or service at a price they can afford. The company really has only one thing that they can control in this formula. The Cost.
Reality: Price (Premium) - Cost = Profit
Costs = Labor + Overhead + Medical Care Payouts
When government starts messing with how much can be spent on overhead and profits, this is a recipe for disaster. One of three things has to happen. If costs cannot be brought down, either profits will suffer, premiums will increase, and/or services will decrease. In other words, certain types of care will be dropped, medications not covered, etc. This could be on top of increases in Premiums. But premium increases are only viable for a limited time. At some point the people are not going to be able to afford increased premiums, and will have to drop coverage. If you drop coverage, under the new laws, you are forced into the government system. Eventually, when enough people are forced to drop coverage, the private insurance industry will be destroyed, or will only be available for those wealthy enough to afford it.
As for these "obscene" profits by health insurance companies. Lots of figures are thrown around, usually in the bilions of dollars. A few examples:
Huge Profits! But these a gross profits. Kind of like your check before taxes come out. What is the profit margin?
Okay, the formula that you derive the profit margin from is:
Profit margin = (net profit/revenue) * 100
…Net profit is equal to the gross profit minus overheads minus interest payable plus/minus one off items for a given time period…
Source: Wikipedia and probably your macroeconomics textbook
So, when we have the profit margin and the revenue figures, we can reverse that formula to find their net profit. That formula would be netprofit = (profit margin (with percentage as decimal, aka 4.3% is .043)*revenue)
So, let’s plug in our healthcare companies, shall we?
Quite a difference in what the pointy-heads would have us believe. In fact. one of the companies made less than a quarter of a billion dollars. A lot of money for sure, but does 2.6% sound like obscene profits? Or even 4.14%, which Unitedhealth netted? That's not even much of a safety margin.
As for these "obscene" profits by health insurance companies. Lots of figures are thrown around, usually in the bilions of dollars. A few examples:
Aetna:
Revenue: $32.67B
Gross Profit = $8.23B
United Health Group:
Revenue: $84.27B
Gross Profit = $6.24 B
Tenet Healthcard Corp.:
Revenue: $8.89B
Gross Profit = $4.85B
Huge Profits! But these a gross profits. Kind of like your check before taxes come out. What is the profit margin?
Okay, the formula that you derive the profit margin from is:
Profit margin = (net profit/revenue) * 100
…Net profit is equal to the gross profit minus overheads minus interest payable plus/minus one off items for a given time period…
Source: Wikipedia and probably your macroeconomics textbook
So, when we have the profit margin and the revenue figures, we can reverse that formula to find their net profit. That formula would be netprofit = (profit margin (with percentage as decimal, aka 4.3% is .043)*revenue)
So, let’s plug in our healthcare companies, shall we?
Aetna Inc. (AET):
Revenue: $32.67 Billion
Profit Margin: 3.85%
Net Profit: $1,257,795,000
Unitedhealth Group, Inc. (UNH):
Revenue: $84.27 Billion
Profit Margin: 4.14%
Net Profit: $3,488,778,000
Tenet Healthcare Corp (THC):
Revenue: $8.89 Billion
Profit Margin: 2.63%
Net Profit: $233,807,000
Quite a difference in what the pointy-heads would have us believe. In fact. one of the companies made less than a quarter of a billion dollars. A lot of money for sure, but does 2.6% sound like obscene profits? Or even 4.14%, which Unitedhealth netted? That's not even much of a safety margin.
This is only one way in which those in power manipulate the discussion. They speak in terms of gross profits, ot total revenue to take political advantage of an uninformed electorate, and then use the misinformation to ram through legislation which will hurt those whom they claim to want to help, the most. This new mandate is only one more brick in the wall in which government is separating the American people from their liberty and freedoms.
Documents Show Conservative Leader Was ‘Uninvited’ From Military Event for Opposing Obama Policies
Free Speech Under Attack
Monday, November 01, 2010
By Fred Lucas
(CNSNews.com) – U.S. Air Force officials wanted to keep Family Research Council President Tony Perkins from speaking at a National Prayer Luncheon in February because his organization is opposed to Obama administration issues, according to internal Air Force e-mails.
The Air Force chaplain invited Perkins to be keynote speaker at the National Prayer Luncheon earlier this year at Andrews Air Force Base, where the president boards Air Force One. After Perkins accepted, at least one person complained, which caused an unnamed general to be concerned, according to the e-mails.
“Pastor, General [name redacted] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org,” a Jan. 29 e-mail said. “That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief (sic) is named. CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story.”
Read More Here
Monday, November 01, 2010
By Fred Lucas
The Air Force chaplain invited Perkins to be keynote speaker at the National Prayer Luncheon earlier this year at Andrews Air Force Base, where the president boards Air Force One. After Perkins accepted, at least one person complained, which caused an unnamed general to be concerned, according to the e-mails.
“Pastor, General [name redacted] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org,” a Jan. 29 e-mail said. “That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief (sic) is named. CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story.”
Read More Here
Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas
Unsealed ruling reveals 'ample evidence' tying group to terror
Posted: November 23, 2010 10:48 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided "ample evidence" to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.
According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in "a conspiracy to support Hamas," a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.
The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites "ample evidence" that CAIR participated in a "criminal conspiracy" led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas's main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR's request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
"The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas," Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.
Read Article Here
Posted: November 23, 2010 10:48 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in "a conspiracy to support Hamas," a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.
The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites "ample evidence" that CAIR participated in a "criminal conspiracy" led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas's main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR's request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
"The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas," Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.
Read Article Here
The Left's Hypocrisy On Airport Screening
Why Aren't We Profiling?
by Brian Johnson November 24, 2010
During the Bush years, every time the Administration came out with a new security policy, be it warrantless wiretapping, holding terrorists at Club Gitmo, waterboarding of terrorists, or the Patriot Act, those on the left would come out of their skin about loss of civil rights for the terrorists. Now we have the TSA doing full body scans and extremely intrusive "pat downs" on actual American citizens, which in some cases look more like proctological exams, or something that should be administered by an Ob/Gyn, and those on the left are suddenly fine with it. Anything for security, right? But, the first mention of using the proven Israeli method of profiling, the left comes unglued, falling back on their tried and true method of attack, which is to scream racism. The thing is, the Israeli's don't profile on race. They profile behavior, paperwork, and body language, among other things. All without doing any groping, or violating Fourth Amendment Rights.
Watch Video of one of my favorite leftists - Ed "Sgt." Schultz
by Brian Johnson November 24, 2010
During the Bush years, every time the Administration came out with a new security policy, be it warrantless wiretapping, holding terrorists at Club Gitmo, waterboarding of terrorists, or the Patriot Act, those on the left would come out of their skin about loss of civil rights for the terrorists. Now we have the TSA doing full body scans and extremely intrusive "pat downs" on actual American citizens, which in some cases look more like proctological exams, or something that should be administered by an Ob/Gyn, and those on the left are suddenly fine with it. Anything for security, right? But, the first mention of using the proven Israeli method of profiling, the left comes unglued, falling back on their tried and true method of attack, which is to scream racism. The thing is, the Israeli's don't profile on race. They profile behavior, paperwork, and body language, among other things. All without doing any groping, or violating Fourth Amendment Rights.
Watch Video of one of my favorite leftists - Ed "Sgt." Schultz
11/23/2010
Haiti - Let's Not Forget Them
Cholera has brought Haiti back into the headlines again, but in a few weeks it won't be much of a media story anymore. Yet, there are still hundreds of thousands who are homeless and living in temporary shelters in Haiti. Let's not forget them.
"Convoy of Hope" is a non-profit which has served more than 37 million people throughout the world through international children’s feeding initiatives, community outreaches, disaster response and partner resourcing. 92% of all money which they receive gets to the people who need help. I urge you to look into this organization. www.convoyofhope.org
"Convoy of Hope" is a non-profit which has served more than 37 million people throughout the world through international children’s feeding initiatives, community outreaches, disaster response and partner resourcing. 92% of all money which they receive gets to the people who need help. I urge you to look into this organization. www.convoyofhope.org
Christie Educating People: Problem Is Not Teachers, It's The Unions
Gov. Christie: The problem here is not the teachers, it’s their union
Share36posted at 11:15 am on November 23, 2010 by Cubachi
When it comes to Governor Chris Christie, there is no better representative at pinpointing what is so egregiously wrong about the public education system in New Jersey: the teachers union.
In a town hall meeting yesterday in Hackettstown, NJ, a man asked the governor, why is it that he has to demonize “good teachers” and falsely claim to students that teachers are the “greedy people” to blame for their lack of school supplies and poor education levels.
In true Christie form, the Governor railed against such a distortion and pointed out to the gentleman that his contention is not against teachers, but against their union, who provides teachers 4-5% pay raises per year in a zero inflation economy as well as free health benefits for life without contributing anything to the system.
Cross-posted at Cubachi. and at Hot Air
Share36posted at 11:15 am on November 23, 2010 by Cubachi
When it comes to Governor Chris Christie, there is no better representative at pinpointing what is so egregiously wrong about the public education system in New Jersey: the teachers union.
In a town hall meeting yesterday in Hackettstown, NJ, a man asked the governor, why is it that he has to demonize “good teachers” and falsely claim to students that teachers are the “greedy people” to blame for their lack of school supplies and poor education levels.
In true Christie form, the Governor railed against such a distortion and pointed out to the gentleman that his contention is not against teachers, but against their union, who provides teachers 4-5% pay raises per year in a zero inflation economy as well as free health benefits for life without contributing anything to the system.
Cross-posted at Cubachi. and at Hot Air
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)