Saturday, March 31, 2012

Here Are The Best Twitter Reactions To Keith Olbermann's Latest Ouster

Jaywon Choe and Jordan Teicher
Mar. 30, 2012, 9:30 PM
Business Insider:

Just minutes after news broke Friday that Olbermann was out of another hosting job, this time as a host for Al Gore's Current TV, Twitter was predictably abuzz with people commenting on the incident.

From jokes about Current's minuscule viewership to cracks about Olbermann's bad employment track record, the Tweetosphere seemed to take a certain amount of spiteful joy in the television host's most recent flare-up.

Here are some of the highlights.

Click here to see the tweets >

Former Chargers QB Ryan Leaf arrested, charged with burglary

By Mike Foss, USA TODAY

Former San Diego Chargers first round draft pick QB Ryan Leaf was arrested Friday and charged with felony burglary, misdemeanor theft and criminal possession of dangerous drugs.

Leaf posted a $76,000 bond late Friday, officials at Cascade County Detention Center in Montana told the Great Falls Tribune.

PHOTOS Biggest contract busts in sports

Leaf was chosen with the second pick of the 1998 NFL Draft by the Chargers and was signed to a $31.25 million contract. Broncos QB Peyton Manning was the first pick that year.

In four years in the NFL, Leaf threw 14 touchdowns and 36 interceptions in 25 appearances.

Leaf has been through a string of legal troubles dating back to 2008 when he was accused of robbing a player's home while serving as the quarterbacks coach for West Texas A&M. The following investigation found Leaf had obtained approximately 1,000 pain pills from area pharmacies over eight months.

In 2009, he pleaded guilty to eight felony drug charges and sentenced to 10 years of probation and fined $20,000.

Ameritopia and the Fable of The Frogs

By King Shamus – March 30, 2012
Posted in: Featured Stories

No, not that kind of frog.

I just finished reading Mark Levin’s “Ameritopia” a few days ago. I might give it a proper book review, but in case I don’t let me just say that it’s a tremendous piece of work. If you want to understand how the Left has crafted their gaseous dreamy ideology, you need to read “Ameritopia”. It’s that good.

As Levin surveys the modern US political system, he makes a remarkable observation.

America has become a society in which the people are wise enough to select their own leaders, but too incompetent to choose the right lightbulb.

Knowing this painful truth, the question becomes: Is our present schizophrenic situation tenable in the long term?

No One Of Any Import has an answer for us with her translation of the old Aesop’s fable of the frogs who desired a king.

Here is Caxton’s original translation, circa 1484. It’s my favorite version, but man oh man that’s some crazy Olde Englishe. Let me rephrase:

There were once some frogs who lived in liberty, but they wanted a king. They asked Jupiter to give them a king. They asked in one voice–no dissent, so it was all democratic and everything. Now, Jupiter knew these frogs weren’t the smartest bunch. So to placate them, he sent a piece of wood which splashed loudly in the pond.

This commotion scared the frogs at first. They approached their king cautiously, to make obeisance to him. When they realized their new ruler was just an ineffective lump of wood, they weren’t happy. They went back to Jupiter and asked for a better king. Jupiter was like, fine. And he sent a Heron to be their king.

The Heron flew down and began to eat the frogs, one after another. The frogs began to cry, and they begged Jupiter to deliver them from the throat of this tyrant. Jupiter replied, tough. The king which you demanded shall be your master.

There is a significant portion of the US population–like, oh say, 21 percent–that pines for a monarch. For the most part, rank-n-file liberals are perfectly content to live within the current spongy pliable despotism. Give them a vote, especially one where the electorate gets to choose between Barack Obama’s moderate pragmatic ultra-leftism or Noam Chomsky’s more ambitious super-mega-insane-o-leftism, and most progressives would cream their jeans. In return for that, the progs would joyfully accept the State making them buy the Earth First!/politically-correct/militantly-inoffensive/gluten-free/compact fluorescent version of everything.

The problem is that the statists are not satisfied with the current arrangement. Everything, even ObamaCare, is seen as merely a stepping stone paving the way for the next massive government usurpation of the citizens’ rights. At some point, if the American people do not put a stop to this, the socialists who wield power in our government won’t be satisfied allowing the subjects to take part in an election every four years while simultaneously mandating how Americans are to light their homes.

The current arrangement cannot hold for much longer. America has spent too much money and thrown away too many freedoms and gone too far down the road to serfdom for this situation to continue. Either we’re the free people the Founders intended us to be or we’re the fat dumb belching frogs waiting to be consumed.

Democrats in Disarray

A good week for the good guys – finally

BY: Matthew Continetti
March 30, 2012 5:00 am
Washington Free Beacon:

Hoping to spend the week sliming Paul Ryan and screeching about the mythical Republican “war on women,” the Democrats instead have been set back as the news cycle spun out of their control. Foreign policy, health care, and energy have forced them into a defensive crouch. No wonder I’m in such a good mood.

David Axelrod most likely is not. He must have wished he could go back to bed on the morning of Mar. 26, when news broke of President Obama’s “hot mic” moment at the security summit in South Korea. ABC News had caught the president telling Putin stooge Dmitri Medvedev that he needed the Russian dictator to give him “space” on issues such as missile defense until after “my last election,” at which time he will have “more flexibility.” Medvedev nodded sympathetically throughout the conversation and said, in his best General Orlov imitation, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” All that was missing from the ridiculous exchange were fulminations over “moose and squirrel.”

The president embarrassed himself. Not only did Obama give us a glimpse of his backwards statesmanship, in which “diplomacy” involves telling a corrupt strongman that electoral concerns prevent him from further accommodation. He also reminded Republicans and independents of the high stakes in 2012. What would be the results, not a few conservatives wonder, if the president had all the “flexibility” he desires?

As it happened, the hot microphone mess was the least of the president’s troubles. The gaffe was still in the news when oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act began at the Supreme Court. The first day of proceedings concerned whether the Court could rule on the law at all since the individual mandate will not be enforced until 2014. But even those arguments went poorly for the administration and its hapless solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr., who was unable to explain how the mandate could be a “penalty” one day and a “tax” the next day.

Yet the liberal panic did not truly begin until Mar. 27, when the Court heard arguments over the mandate’s constitutionality and even the president’s most hardened supporters had to acknowledge his signature policy was in trouble. No sooner had the proceedings concluded than a hysterical Jeffrey Toobin fled the courtroom, screaming that Obamacare was in “grave, grave” condition. The flimsiness of the administration’s arguments had transformed Toobin into a Henny Penny in drag, running around Capitol Hill and warning his fellow liberals that the Court could overrule Obamacare in “one big package” and that at the very least the mandate is “doomed.”

The administration and its friends in the media found themselves in a truly helpless position. If Toobin is proven right and the Court overrules Obamacare in part or in whole, Republicans will pounce, the president will look like a loser, and Democrats will be both demoralized and radicalized (not a winning combination). If Toobin is proven wrong, however, he will look like an idiot, Republicans and Tea Party activists will mobilize for the fall, and Democrats still will have to defend an unpopular law whose consequences grow worse with each passing minute.

The liberal reaction to this dilemma has been a predictable combination of spin and scapegoating. The noted legal mind Chuck Todd, who seems to have missed the class on Marbury v. Madison, asked guests on his show whether a Court decision against the health care overhaul might not be an unprecedented intrusion of one branch of government over the elected branches. Meanwhile, James Carville and Harry Reid lamely suggested an anti-Obamacare ruling would be good for the president and his party. The White House was reduced to using Newspeak, referring to the mandate as the “personal responsibility clause.”

It was Verrilli, however, who bore the brunt of the blow. After transcripts and audio of the arguments revealed little difference between his platform and that of a former Miss Teen South Carolina, left-of-center talking heads likened the longtime attorney to Bill Buckner and a clueless actor in a fifth-grade play. Mike Barnicle suggested that the administration would have been better off sending in Vincent LaGuardia “Vinny” Gambini to argue the case.

None of the commentators who hurled these insults dared to ask whether they might have done any better. They probably could not have improved on Verrilli’s performance for the simple reason that the arguments for the constitutionality of the federal health insurance mandate are weak. So it goes: Whenever liberals are dealt a setback, as has happened repeatedly during the last three years, they blame their defeat on a lack of message. Once again, they have failed to realize that the marketing is not the problem. The problem is what they are selling.

As a possible anti-Obamacare majority was forming inside the Supreme Court chambers, the magnitude of this week’s Democratic rout was becoming apparent across First Street. Senate Democrats had hoped to spend the last few days before Easter Recess reminding Americans that Republicans are the protectors of those horrible, greedy oil companies. To that end Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin had Bob Menendez introduce a bill eliminating tax breaks for carbon energy producers and replacing them with tax breaks for green energy companies. The Democratic leadership had expected the Republican caucus to block debate on the Menendez proposal, handing liberals and the White House a tactical victory.

This is your Democratic-controlled Senate at work: No budget in three years but plenty of votes to score partisan points. What the oaf from Nevada had not anticipated, however, was that Republican leader Mitch McConnell would allow debate on the bill, thereby providing the Senate GOP an opening to blame Obama’s anti-drilling policies for high gas prices. The Menendez proposal went down in the end as expected, but not before Republicans turned the tables on Democrats.

The week ends, then, with the Democrats in disarray as a result of the president’s gaffe, unanticipated trouble at the Court, and shrewd maneuvering by McConnell. Having spent most of 2012 under fire for the mind-numbing Republican primary and for not properly appreciating Sandra Fluke’s unique contributions to society, this was the first good news cycle for conservatives in a long time. Might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Rarely do politics get better than this. Though they might on Nov. 6.

Dems fume over Justice Scalia’s comments during healthcare case

By Alexander Bolton - 03/30/12 05:15 AM ET

Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law.

While several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense, Scalia appeared hostile to the law, an attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way.

Scalia mocked the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago.

Scalia also joked that the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he quipped. “Is this not totally unrealistic, that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

The comments did not sit well with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a member of the Gang of 14, which in 2005 established guidelines for considering judicial nominees.

“I am concerned that Justice Scalia’s comments call into question his impartiality and instead suggest judicial activism,” Nelson said.

Nelson was taken aback by Scalia’s suggestion that reading the law was too much to expect of justices ruling on its constitutionality.

Scalia’s use of the term “Cornhusker Kickback," coined by GOP political operatives during the healthcare reform debate, also raised concerns — especially since Scalia appeared unaware the provision was scrapped before Obama signed the law.

“Scalia said [Wednesday] that it was totally unrealistic to read the whole law. Sen. Nelson didn’t think it was too much for the justices to know what they’re talking about when questioning the law’s content,” said Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson.

“It seems fitting that Justice Scalia’s attempt at humor instead displayed his ignorance of the law. Sen. Nelson hopes the justice will concentrate on the actual instead of the perceived or interpreted views as he weighs the laws against the Constitution,” Thompson added.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.

Nelson secured a special $100 million payment to cover higher Medicaid costs during the 2009 healthcare debate, which Republicans slammed as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” Congress dropped the provision in response to a public uproar over it. Nelson’s approval ratings took a hit after the controversy, and he announced late last year that he will not seek reelection.

Regular observers of the court know that Scalia has a big personality and that his quips can have a sarcastic tone or verge on bombast. The personality quirks of the justices usually receive little attention, but this week was different as the court commanded the nation’s attention during three days of oral arguments.

Scalia’s demeanor contrasted starkly with the evenhanded questioning of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Democrats are not inclined to give Scalia any slack because they think his mind is closed against the healthcare law and his judgment clouded by partisan politics.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned Scalia’s complaint about the bill’s length and musings on the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

“These arguments are flip and specious, that’s all I can say,” said Feinstein.

Feinstein said striking down the healthcare law would have enormous implications that should be taken very seriously.

“This could take down Social Security, too,” she said. “If the questions indicate a trend line, as reported, there’s real jeopardy for the government to achieve any real benefits for people. Even Medicaid is in question.”

She said Congress had put years of work and thought into healthcare reform ever since then-first lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded a failed reform effort in 1993.

“This is the biggest Supreme Court hearing, in terms of effect on the nation, in my lifetime,” Feinstein said.

A senior Democratic aide said Scalia’s conduct during the oral arguments was “unbecoming of a justice.”

“You would think after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United the court would be more sensitive to the perception that it’s politicized. Scalia seems unaware. He said some things that sounded like they came from a Republican spokesman,” the aide said in reference to the 2000 decision awarding the presidency to George W. Bush and the 2010 ruling that gave corporations and labor unions greater freedom to influence elections.

Democrats view Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as two highly politicized rulings that broke with precedent.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said colleagues should not be surprised by Scalia’s behavior.

“That’s the way he always is. This, after all, is the man who helped push through Bush v. Gore, which every historian is going to say was a crazy thing,” Leahy said.

Scalia’s close relationship with former Vice President Cheney adds fuel to Democratic doubts about Scalia’s impartiality on politically charged legal issues.

Scalia came under scrutiny in early 2009 for a duck-hunting trip he took with Cheney at a private camp in Louisiana. Legal experts questioned the timing of the trip because it took place a few weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to consider Cheney’s appeal in a lawsuit related to his handling of a special energy task force during the Bush administration.

The Sierra Club asked Scalia to recuse himself, but he refused.

“Since I do not think my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse,” he wrote in a memo at the time.

Scalia, 76, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1986.

On Restoring American Individualism

March 31, 2012
On Restoring American Individualism
By Daren Jonescu

Much of the political crisis facing America today stems from a disintegration of the ethical basis of the free society. That is why the core of the 2012 election fight is not tax rates, job growth, or the national debt. These issues, though of enormous practical importance, are merely the policy manifestations of underlying moral sentiments. The fundamental battle to be waged concerns nothing less than the nature of man, and the moral implications of that nature. If public disapproval of particular Obama policies is to become a lasting movement toward societal renewal, then the conservative's primary objective must be the restoration of American individualism.

The problem is that the warm quilt of entitlement and dependency which the left has so cozily tucked around American society not only restricts freedom of movement; it also effectively reinforces the anti-individualist morality that makes the left's advances possible. In the doublethink names of "fairness" and "security," soft despotism of the modern leftist sort produces a siren-song promise of carefree mother's love forever -- with its corresponding appeal to a toddler's moral myopia, the inability to concretize and respect the wishes and wills of other people. Thus, creeping socialism ushers in a hitherto unknown ethic, which we might dub "collectivist self-absorption."

"We Are the World" and "We are the 99 percent" are both products of this ethic, expressed as, respectively, self-aggrandizing "brotherly love" and self-aggrandizing slothful covetousness. In both cases, the heart of the message is, "We are one; give us what we want." This sensibility is the very meaning of the "entitlement mentality" with which the left seeks to charm America into moral and intellectual submission. The constitutionalist is therefore saddled with the thankless task of serving up the repeated splashes of cold water that might prevent the cozily blanketed moral invalid from drifting into the long, nightmarish sleep of collectivist authoritarianism.

The most indispensable resource in this struggle to renew the individualist ethic is a clear understanding of the moral terms of the argument, and a refusal to allow those terms to be redefined by the authoritarians.

Theoretically, "individualism" is a relatively recent concept. This is not to say that it expresses a new idea, but rather that as a historically significant notion it was born of modern philosophical debates. In short, as nineteenth-century liberal democracy came under attack from those who rejected natural rights and the politico-economic freedom those rights demand, both freedom's critics and its defenders saw fit to introduce a term that might encompass the crux of the ethical dispute. That term, "individualism," was born, therefore, of a need to explain the moral assumptions of liberty.

Individualism does not mean "selfishness," "greed," a reticence to work with others, or even a denial of the interconnectedness of humans and their fates. These misrepresentations are the products of leftist materialism's populist efforts to undermine faith in freedom by aligning freedom with amoral and anti-human inclinations.

At its base, individualism -- or, as its detractors since John Dewey have renamed it, "classical individualism" -- is simply the presupposition that fundamentally discrete human beings do, in fact, exist. Absurdly obvious as that may sound, this presupposition is precisely what modern leftism is calling into question -- not just implicitly, but quite directly.

Late modern philosophy has rejected outright the commonsense awareness, which was elevated to metaphysical theory by Aristotle, that individual existents are the basic facts of material reality. This notion applies, of course, to the category of man as to all else. From this accepted principle -- that the building blocks of human civilization are particular humans, who exist in logical priority to any community or social arrangement -- gradually arose the theoretical edifice of political freedom.

From the classical understanding of the individuated human mind as the essence of man, through the Christian development of the notion of individual moral will, philosophy at last turned, under the influence of modern empirical science, to the attempt to understand man's practical (i.e., moral) essence with a view to determining the most natural social arrangement. This latter effort ushered in the concept of natural rights -- moral constraints on men's behavior towards one another, grounded in the empirical understanding that the primary natural objective of each man is the preservation and progress of his own life, and hence that each man's range of moral authority both limits and is limited by every other individual's primary natural objective of preserving and promoting his own life.

The coinage of a uniquely "American individualism" stems from the fact that America was the first nation grounded explicitly in the most concrete and practical conception of this modern notion of natural rights. Thus, America was a political community that, in its very founding, expressly rejected the hitherto generally accepted premise that the leaders of communities may, and should, determine the purposes and limits of human action. By directly embedding the theory of natural rights -- understood as a moral fence around each individual -- into its basic law and its conception of government, the United States became the first nation founded on the premise that men are by nature free, and therefore that the purpose of government is, and must be, only the protection of that natural freedom.

Prior to the developments described above, "individualism" was not part of the philosophical vernacular, simply because the logical primacy of individuals -- the belief in the existence of individual human beings -- was the given in all theories of human experience. The concept became historically relevant precisely as a means of explaining the American ethic. America translated the Aristotelian "metaphysical" primacy of individuals into socio-political reality. Government may not, constitutionally, encroach upon natural liberty. The law of the land, unlike the laws of all other lands, is first and foremost a set of clear moral restrictions on government, in favor of individual citizens.

The American, then, is the only citizen on the planet who is -- in a manner that is more than an abstraction -- functionally superior in political status to his "government." The American head of state -- unlike all equivalent leaders throughout the world -- is not the "head" of the society (in traditional "body politic" fashion). American government is merely an instrument of the citizens, their tool, assigned a specific set of tasks, with the explicit proviso that it may and should be disbanded if it ceases to perform those tasks within its defined limits.

From this unique political achievement -- genuine practical freedom -- grows a unique moral sense. The American, related to his government in a manner that inverts the normal political relationship, duly sees himself differently. His non-subjecthood, if you will, produces a heightened sense of personal responsibility -- of having no (moral) choice but to "do it himself" -- from which is born the virtue of forward-looking self-reliance that is almost definitive of the American soul. This virtue is the core of the notion of "American individualism"; it is in part the source, and in part the moral outgrowth, of the translation of a metaphysical premise, the primacy of individuals, into a political system -- i.e., rights-based constitutional republicanism.

What came to be called "individualism" can be found in the citizens of other nations, of course; however, it exists as an apolitical principle, in the sense that only in America is individualism consistent with the duties of citizenship. The individualists of other nations, then, may be called "spiritual Americans."

Those who wish to subvert the American republic, and to undermine its founding documents, have always understood that the primary obstacle is ethical individualism. And this subversion, then, if one wishes to dig up America from its roots, requires an attack on the metaphysical presumption of the primacy of individual beings. Dewey, America's friendly face of socialism, shoved the spade in deep. Seeing that individualism was the source of natural rights, he sought to dissolve this nexus by undermining the metaphysical presupposition of discrete individuals.

For Dewey, the father of twentieth-century American public education, the individual as the given -- as an entity complete unto itself -- is the fallacy at the heart of all previous philosophy. Individual human beings -- i.e., individuated minds -- do not exist. Rather, individuals are created through social and educational influences. Thus, the theory of natural rights, which presumes the logical priority of individual men, is destroyed. Where there are no individuals, there can be no individual rights. Dewey, and others following him, expanded upon the European socialist theories that reject individual human nature, instead regarding historical social conditions as the fundamental realities. Community is prior to the individual; the latter is merely the product of the former. "It takes a village," to state this in one of its well-known contemporary manifestations.

Dewey and his collectivist allies take this metaphysical reversal one step farther, arguing that a society based on the "myth" of natural rights -- i.e., America -- actually prevents the development of true "individuals." The laws and liberties of such a society are, for Dewey, antithetical to the growth of the genuine individual, who is progressive and creative in devising new forms of community. Here is a typical outline of the view, from Chapter 22 of Dewey's Democracy and Education:

Not but that there have always been individual diversities, but that a society dominated by conservative custom represses them or at least does not utilize them and promote them. ... Regarding freedom, the important thing to bear in mind is that it designates a mental attitude rather than external unconstraint of movements, but that this quality of mind cannot develop without a fair leeway of movements in exploration, experimentation, application, etc. ... A progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth. Hence a democratic society must, in consistency with its ideal, allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measures.

Since "classical individualism" is based on a pre-societal notion of man, it tends toward the promotion of practical freedom, ultimately through natural rights. By redefining freedom as "a mental attitude rather than external unconstraint of movements" -- as creative "individuality" rather than political liberty -- and by regarding the preservation of liberty through law and custom as a "repression" of genuine individualism, the leftist turns freedom on its head. Freedom now means unconstraint in the "experimentation" and "application" of one's "gifts" to promote the "growth" of the "progressive society."

On this model, Thomas Jefferson is a repressor of individualism; William Ayers is a true individual. This leftist reversal of the moral concepts of individualism and freedom is explicitly grounded in a profound, and profoundly stupid, metaphysical reversal: the proposal that society is prior to the individual, that the individual is a product and instrument of the collective.

Do not be fooled by the modern, Dewey-inspired smokescreen composed of popular lingo such as "individuality" and "being an individual." These groundless notions are the harbingers of the most fundamentally anti-individualist philosophy ever devised.

The struggle facing America and the world over in the coming generations is nothing less than a battle between individualism and collectivism. Do you exist as a unique, rational being, independently of any community? Or are you merely an amorphous blob of nothing, to be shaped by your society, and a "free individual" only insofar as you are "creatively" serving the growth of the progressive community that made you? In political terms, are you, by nature, the master of your "government," or is it, by nature, your master?

Compared to the task of restoring genuine individualism, paying down the national debt will be a walk in the park. However, without ultimate success in this task, all other efforts to save America from the abyss will be futile. The imposed moral infantilism of American collectivism must give way at last to the self-reliant adulthood that is man's birthright. "We Are the World" must give way to "I am in the world -- and I have a right to be here."

Great News For George Zimmerman: Terry Jones Lends His Support

Posted by Jammie on Mar 30, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Because just what a guy who’s accused of being some racist assassin needs is the full endorsement of a man who gained infamy for sending Muslims into riotous frenzy. Bet Zimmerman’s feeling better about things tonight.

The Gainesville pastor who set off riots in the Middle East by burning the Quran is turning out to support George Zimmerman today at a University of Florida protest of Trayvon Martin’s shooting death, according to Rev. Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach Center.

Really, the only person with fewer followers must be Keith Olbermann, so why give this buffoon any attention?

Jones and 20 members of his church plan to attend a march scheduled to begin about 5 p.m. at the UF campus and continue along University Avenue to Gainesville City Hall, said Fran Ingram, a church spokeswoman.

He will likely face oppostion because the march is in support of Trayvon and will include people who want Zimmerman arrested.

Can the Westboro freak show be far behind?

Why Is Homeland Security Buying 450 Million Rounds of Hollow Point Bullets?

Posted on March 30, 2012 at 5:46pm by Tiffany Gabbay

The Blaze:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded defense contractor ATK with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition. According to an official ATK press release, U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over a five-year period.

The following is an excerpt from the press release:

ATK announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. [...]

“We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, President of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.

The hollow point, of course, features a pitted or hollow tip intended to expand upon entering its target. ATK says its ammunition is “engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration” — all hallmarks of the hollow point.

This is not the first time DHS has placed such an order, however. In 2009, it signed a contract with Winchester for the procurement of 200 million hollow points.

The order may seem unusually high, but gun experts I talked to said it is not necessarily unusual and simply reflects a long-running practice by DHS and law enforcement agencies to use any remaining budget surplus on items routinely used and that would not be called into question. The idea being that if an agency does not use its entire budget in expenditures, the government will lower its budget the following year.

On the other hand, the decreased retail availability for hollow points does drive up demand, and hence price for such ammunition. Whether the consequence is an intended one, remains to be seen.

So is this a calculated move by the government to curb ammunition availability to civilians or is it simply another way for it to spend money? Weigh in with your thoughts below.

There Obama Goes Again

By Larry Kudlow
March 30, 2012 4:00 P.M.

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “There you go again.”

Of course, Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for launching false attacks during a debate. And that line was so effective, it not only helped Reagan win the debate, but a presidential election that would change American history.

But “there you go again” can apply equally to President Obama. Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.

What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.

But here’s what I do know, factually.

Oil companies have an effective corporate tax rate well above 40 percent. And they operate within one of the highest-taxed industries in America. According to the Tax Foundation, for more than 25 years, oil and gas companies have sent more tax dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits. That’s a fact.

Single-handedly, oil and gas companies finance over 10 percent of non-defense discretionary spending within the U.S. budget. According to the Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy firm, paid out $59 billion in total U.S. taxes over the five years prior to 2010 while earning only $40.5 billion in domestic profits.

And Obama wants to raise taxes on conventional-energy firms by somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion? Whatever happened to the supply-side principle that if you tax something more, you get less of it?

But with gasoline prices headed towards $5 a gallon, and with oil prices over $100 a barrel, virtually the whole country outside of the White House wants more oil, more retail gas for the pump, and more energy supplies everywhere in order to bring prices down. Raising taxes won’t do it.

Make no mistake about it: Fossil fuel is going to drive the American economy for decades to come. Green energy is not.

Obama’s other line of attack is that oil companies shouldn’t get any subsidies. They made too much money for that. Well, I’m against oil subsidies. There’s about $90 billion worth in the federal budget. Better to end them, slash corporate tax rates across the board, and let the free market decide energy policy and production.

But on the subject of subsidies, so-called renewable-energy subsidies (think Solyndra) are 49-times greater than fossil-fuel subsidies, according to studies by the Congressional Research Service. And the Congressional Budget Office says renewable green energy received 68 percent of energy-related tax preferences in fiscal year 2011, while fossil fuels got only 15 percent. Additionally, oil, natural gas, and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That’s 100-times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9 percent. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100 percent cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences, and carve-outs. That would be an unbelievable job-creator.

But President Obama is too busy spewing falsehoods to support his ideological agenda than to take account of the facts. And while he’s at it, one of the greatest, pro-growth revolutions ever is taking place right under his nose. It’s the oil and gas shale miracle, which if left unfettered will turn America and Canada into an energy-independent New Middle East inside of ten years.

In fact, the collapse of natural-gas prices brought on by this revolution could become one of the biggest tax cuts for the economy in history, making all our industries vastly more competitive, revolutionizing transportation, and providing more consumer real income at home.

Obama should quit the demagoguery, stop bashing oil and gas, stop taxing success, and let our ingenious, creative, free-enterprise private economy spur America to a new generation of prosperity.

– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Cutting Navy while Obama pivots to Asia does not add up

FILE: USS Kitty Hawk pulls into Naval Forces Marinas Support Activity, Guam.

You know it's bad when the President's own national security adviser calls the Secretary of Defense over for a meeting at the White House to explain exactly how the administration is "pivoting" to Asia yet shrinking the Navy and the Air Force. But that's what happened earlier this year. It is no surprise given the administration's budget-strategy mismatch.

When President Obama unveiled his new strategic guidance in January, highlighted by a pivot to Asia, many assumed (incorrectly) that the Navy and Air Force would reap the benefits. But if the president's own 2013 defense budget request did not make it clear to policymakers already, the release of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan confirms this is a pivot in name only.

The Navy would have fared better merely holding steady at last year's resource levels before the pivot and budget cuts shrank the sea service. Five months later, the administration's new plan stops paying even lip service to a 313-ship Navy, the same 313-ship plan that was considered the minimum needed by the last Chief of Naval Operations.

The Navy spends the vast majority of its time assuring and deterring others, not fighting battles. Networks do not deter potential aggressors nor support and assure our friends and allies. Ships steaming the world's oceans and sailors home ported in foreign docks do that. Quantity is still important and even more so when the pivot is to a region defined by vast distances. But at no point over the next three decades will the U.S. Navy approach a fleet size totaling 313 ships. Under the new proposal, the fleet falls under 300 ships for nearly half of the 30 year span. The new fleet average is roughly 298 ships.

But even a fleet of 298 ships is optimistic given that the Navy's latest plan overinflates force levels due to excessive ship life estimates. The new plan assumes 40-year hull lives for DDGs and 35 years for cruisers. This means the gap in major surface combatants is now underrepresented in the revised proposal.

One of the Navy's most competitive advantages is its attack submarine fleet and capabilities. Yet the new shipbuilding plan drops the number of SSNs to 43 from 48 at the same time the service plans to build just one per year in 2026.

The shortcomings of the Navy's 2013 shipbuilding plan are especially transparent when compared to their updated plan of just a short half-year ago. In the Navy's September plan, it would have exceeded its target for 313 ships in 9 out of 30 yrs, or 30 percent of the time. Conversely, it would have fallen below a 300 ship floor for 11 of the 30 years, just over one-third of the time. Over the course of last year's long-term plan, the fleet would have averaged 306 ships in any given year.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the new shipbuilding plan and the 2013 budget is that they simply build fewer ships. As little as five months ago, the administration said the Navy needed to construct 276 ships. Today: 268. While the difference seems slight, what it means is that with fewer new ships, the Navy will be forced to put increased stress and strain upon the rest of the fleet as older ships are kept in service past their intended retirement dates. Ships are already sitting out missions because of decreasing readiness, and with an increased emphasis on the Pacific combined with an older fleet, still more ships will be unable to meet their responsibilities at sea.

The Navy faces a stark risk in the short term. Last year's Navy budget funded the construction of 57 ships from FY 2013 through FY 2017. The pivot budget cuts this to 41 ships, leaving the Navy with fewer than 280 ships in FY 2014 and FY 2015. Despite technological advances in battle networks, numbers still matter. Ships, no matter how capable, cannot be in two places at once. When it comes to maritime patrols, fewer ships at sea means the visible and stabilizing presence of American warships will rotate through foreign ports less often, undermining deterrence, and failing to resource America's commitment to its many allies.

Nonetheless, the Navy is prioritizing the fleet's most important warfighting ships: submarines, large surface combatants and aircraft carriers. The new 30-year plan averages more nuclear attack submarines in the fleet each year, builds nearly 20 more large surface combatants than the last plan, and keeps last year's goal of six new aircraft carriers over the next three decades.

The Navy didn't decide to make do with fewer resources. It was handed a budget number and forced to meet that diminished target.

The latest budget and associated plans that are supposedly emphasizing the Asia-Pacific are part of a hollow shell game. The bottom line is that this Administration's defense strategy proposes one thing while its own defense budget does the opposite. It's no wonder the President's national security adviser had trouble rationalizing the latest defense budget because it just doesn't add up.

SOURCE: Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow at AEI.

Oops: Obama's own bloated bureaucracy kerplodes his energy lies

Friday, March 30, 2012

Oops: Obama's own bloated bureaucracy kerplodes his energy lies

I guess this is what happens when you have so many agencies, offices, bureaus and administrators that you can't keep them all straight. Notice the sources of the data for the accompanying graph: the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior. Oops. I see an early retirement in some bureaucrat's future.

Already struggling for a variety of mostly government-induced reasons, further reductions in crude would literally starve America’s robust refining sector of its lifeblood. [Remember that] the Obama Administration is already inhibiting domestic oil and natural gas production wherever possible. Cancelling lease sales on the Atlantic coast, delaying lease sales for nearly a year in the gulf, and increasing the amount of time it takes companies to receive requisite permits have all immediately impacted domestic oil production, and in turn, America’s refiners...

...But it doesn’t end there. The most explicit attack on refiners from the Obama Administration thus far must be the decision to kill the Keystone pipeline. As most people know by now, the Keystone Pipeline would have delivered around 800,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to, you guessed it, America’s refiners. Creating tens of thousands of construction jobs and ensuring that America’s refiners have crude oil to manufacture into other products, the Keystone pipeline would have been a shot of life for the recession weary construction and refining industries. Unfortunately, Obama’s decision to kill the pipeline is indicative of the Administration’s antagonistic stance towards anyone involved in the oil and natural gas supply chain...

Any member of a private sector union who votes for Barack Obama in November deserves his or her inevitable fate. Which is: unemployment, misery and despair.

Congratulations, Democrats: U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate In the World

Friday, March 30, 2012

Congratulations, Democrats: U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate In the World

And progressives still can't figure out why global companies won't repatriate their cash to the United States. Cause they're smart like that.

This April Fool’s Day, the joke is on all of us. That’s because as of April 1, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

Our high corporate tax rate has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and meant fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans. Other developed nations have been cutting their rates for over 20 years. The U.S. did nothing.

Hey, libs: let's try raising corporate tax rates to, say, 100 percent. That should really help revenues, right?

Hashtag EpicFail.

Canada Refusing Immigration Of Disabled Children Due To Cost To Nationalized Healthcare

Mar 30, 2012
Toro520 - Pat Dollard.Com:

…and I always thought Canada and its healthcare system were supposed to be so benevolent.

Ottawa Citizen:

VICTORIA — A popular University of Victoria psychology instructor and his family have been denied permanent residency in Canada because his four-year-old son has autism.

While Jeffrey Niehaus is preparing to move his wife, Jane, and two kids back to his native U.S., he’s sounding the alarm about problems with the Canadian immigration system, which turned down the family’s application for permanent residency on the basis that autism treatment would be too costly.

“We understand some safeguards have to be put in place,” Niehaus said Wednesday.

“I think that (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) were unable or unwilling to balance . . . the contributions we could make as taxpayers and the amount it would cost (to treat the child).”

Allowing the family to stay would have been a mutually beneficial arrangement, Niehaus said.

“The contributions we could have made would have been significant and the math didn’t work out the way CIC projected. I kind of wish . . . there could have been some other mechanism in there to take more things into account.”

Jeffrey’s wife is a registered thoracic nurse at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. Their son, Kurt, was slow to speak and at when he was 18 months old, they began looking for a possible reason. He was diagnosed with autism, a developmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, in the summer of 2010.

That same year, the couple’s daughter Maria was born prematurely.

The diagnosis of autism caught the attention of officials processing the family’s bid for permanent residency status, and it was subsequently turned down.

It’s difficult to calculate costs for a child with autism because the condition covers a broad range, with symptoms ranging from mild to severe.

“You can say (a child) is or is not on the spectrum, but that gives you very little information on what kind of support they will need for the rest of their lives,” said Niehaus.

“We have not been able to get that information from any of the doctors we worked with, and it’s professionally respectable for them not to say so, because they just don’t know.”

UVic’s lawyer filed papers to Citizenship and Immigration Canada on Niehaus’s behalf, but to no avail.

The length of the immigration process gave the family “time to make a soft bed, no matter what happened,” said Niehaus, who has found a job in Virginia.

Niehaus said he was reluctant to go to the media earlier because his family was sensitive to exposure and judgments of strangers.

“I don’t know if it’s a matter of pride, but we just decided we had a lot of options open to us. We would forgo public media attention and look into whatever options we had,” he said.

There’s also something uncomfortable about being at odds with a country that the family wanted to call home, he said.

“It was going to be mutually beneficial relationship, and if the country doesn’t see it that way, there are definitely other places we can go.”

More stories:

Indian immigrant’s daughter denied entry to Canada due to autism

Canada threatens to deport entire Korean family due to child’s autism

Family denied entry into Canada due to child’s autism

British family’s child banned for life from immigrating to Canada because she is disabled – family dog allowed entry

Flashback: Al Sharpton Explains How To Manipulate Media

Breitbart TV

It's all about race now

by Patrick J. Buchanan

If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.

So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

And they may be right.

Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been "murdered and martyred."

Maxine Waters would not be screaming "hate crime."

Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been "executed." And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.

Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.

It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.

It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.

And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.

Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.

But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?

He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.

Why would this raise Zimmerman's antennae?

Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.

In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.

Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.

For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.

Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp is often a black male wearing a hoodie.

Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers -- about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes -- one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.

The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.

Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.

That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.

Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.

Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.

Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, "Profile your passengers" for your own protection. "The God's honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics."

Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.

To much of America's black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was "shot down in cold blood by a vigilante."

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon's body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.

But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, "this sweet young boy ... was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large."

Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.

But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.

Seven blacks attack and severely injure Latino teenager in Palmdale, California in racially motivated attack

Shocking I tell you, shocking! The pink slime media of CBS LA actually reported that seven blacks attacked and severely injured Latino teenager in Palmdale,, California in yet another racially motivated attack. While CBS identifies that injured Latino teenager as “Latino,” they don’t mention what kind of Latino he is. You know like George Zimmerman being a White Latino? Obama, Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the pink slime media don’t seem too outraged over this racially motivated attack, like they are over what they claim but haven’t proven was a racially motivated attack on Treyvon Martin. Amazing isn’t it? No word if the Latino or blacks had any hoodies on either. One of those reported to be injured in the attack was the nephew of Miami Heat basketball player Dwayne Wade.

The suspects range in age from 13 to 16 years old and face charges of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and committing a hate crime,

The threat of civil unrest in America

Samuel J. Mikolaski
Friday, March 30, 2012
Canadian Free Press

It is now widely accepted that instead of improving race relations and lessening tensions between the majority American population and large minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics, race relations have in fact become worse under Barack Obama. I have to confess that I had hoped, despite my not voting for him, that Barack Obama would advance harmony among the various cultural and racial populations of America. I find it significant that the vast majority of Asian Americans, especially those of Chinese and Japanese heritage, and Americans of Slav heritage are not part of the civil unrest fomented by radical black and, in a few cases, radical Hispanic leaders.

What will be the future of the civil unrest presently being marketed by the likes of the New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? That major civil unrest has been averted thus far in view of Barack Obama’s racial incitements may well be due to the common sense of most blacks to restrain rebellion.

First, if revolution should occur it will not happen because of the economic deprivation of any one group, or even the perceived deprivation of such a group. The definition of deprivation has shifted and continues to shift. Has it to do with hunger? Not really. Like the rest of the population, the majority of those classified as economically deprived are overweight, have cars, have cell-phones, and dress pretty well. The needs of the homeless, the hungry, and the jobless are continually being met by government aid and, more importantly, by the kindness of local individuals and the work of local charities. This comment does not understate the pain for many in our current economic downturn, but simply points to the obvious: in America most people in need do get help and can get it quickly.

In my childhood during the Depression of the 1930s, there was no thought or discussion in our ethnic communities of uprising. There was, indeed, much discussion of the triumph of the proletariat, wrongly thought to be modeled in the Soviet Union (which Eleanor Roosevelt also admired), but no uprising to overthrow the government. There were long lines of the unemployed and marching protests against the nation-wide misery of the Depression caused (commonly argued in the streets) by exploitative capitalism. The mantra was: Be patient. Overthrow will soon occur due to the inexorable course of history as Marxists and Socialists interpreted the course of history.

What does trigger revolt is accrual of power to central government or to the governing class who exercise the power of central government. This is what drove the Colonists to rise up against the British monarchy, more recently the people of Serbia against Milosevic and, currently, the uprising against the Assad regime in Syria. Our bombing of Serbia did not bring down Milosevic. The Serbian people did that effectively, with dispatch.

Key factors that trigger revolt are: Financial mismanagement by the central government and autocratic abuse of power by the head of the central government. These are the two most prominent factors that provoke rebellion. History is replete with examples. Can this happen in America?

Americans are thankful that trigger-happiness to foment uprising, while a characteristic of European countries (the uprising in Greece, and the current uprising in Spain) is largely frowned upon in America as a poor way to reach goals. As well, while student uprisings in Europe are taken seriously politically, in America, such incitement is regarded as boys and girls at play unless someone gets seriously hurt in the process … then we call out the troops!

Here are factors to consider about America’s situation today:
Unsustainable debt combined with ongoing deficit spending which mortgages the future of America’s children.

Excessive and unequal taxation – that is why business is fleeing California, where I live, or America, where we all live. The widely celebrated Apple Corporation, now America’s and the world’s largest corporation, manufactures most of its products overseas, not in America.

Central government favoring some segments of the economy over others, usually to garner financial and political support.

Diminishing opportunity, especially for the middle class, as is the case in America today where multiplied hundreds of thousands will never again find the jobs and pay they once had.

The sense that opportunity in America is diminishing; that there is little hope for a prosperous future.

The sharpening of racial and social tensions combined with deep-seated conviction that they will never be transcended peacefully.

Skepticism that the cycle of the American electoral process will or can make any difference to any or most of the foregoing.

While the media, especially media that report on business and industry, push the opinion that economic recovery has begun—as registered by recent high values in the stock market—and that the economic recovery will quicken toward the end of 2012 and throughout 2013, this is viewed as propaganda by those who cannot find work, by those whose houses are underwater, and by young High School and College graduates who cannot find good entry-level jobs. As more and more talk raises the spirit of discontent, more and more of the population look for a way to circumvent the customary political process to bring about needed change, either benignly as adherents of the Tea Party Movement have been advocating, or by force as black radicals advocate.

The issue for Barack Obama in this election cycle is how to keep people in line. He says little about his track record thus far, or what he will do about the energy crisis—except to tiresomely drum out phrases about alternate energy—nor how jobs will be created. The electorate is no longer mesmerized by his promise of change. He needs another mantra. He can’t come up with one that seems to work, except that what he is doing is for the good of all. He fosters the impression of detachment … it’s the fault of leaders before him … he is above and beyond Congress. All the while he spends most of his time and our money campaigning for re-election, eagerly and quickly forcing tragedy or happenstance into a race or class crisis, such as his unseemly intrusion into the Trayvon Martin death in Florida, or his sneaky appeal to President Putin for patience until his own re-election. The inference is: he will then do whatever he wishes since he no longer will have to pander to the electorate. Is that any way to conduct foreign policy? The video of that conversation is schoolboyish!

America is at risk economically and politically so far as world leadership is concerned. Barack Obama has consistently snubbed key allies: The UK with his rude return of Churchill’s bust. Canada, our largest trading partner, by quashing construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Mexico, fecklessness regarding the undermining of Mexico’s government by the drug cartels and their threat to America.

Worse still, is America to become hostage to radical Islamic hegemony and the threat of Sharia Law enforcing Islamic traditions in America, as in France, Germany, the Nordic countries, and the UK? Obama’s sidling up to anti-American leaders and his wooing of radical Islam has failed. Iran thinks it has nothing to fear because of Obama’s indecisiveness and bland public utterances. He says nothing about the re-sacralization of Turkish society under radical Islam. He seeks to thwart Israel by leaking classified materials about Israel’s necessary steps for self-defense. The Palestinian/Israel peace process is worsening because the Palestinian radicals believe they can get Obama to squeeze more concessions out of Israel.

Let us jettison, once and for all, the nightmare that Barack Obama envisions for America: that America’s future is to become a vassal state among other economies—a consumer of their goods while our own industrial prowess and wealth drain away.

In America we are sitting on top of a capped volcano which is steaming around the edges and is ready to explode. The means to trigger the explosion are now in hand: instant, hand-held communication gadgets. Who will trigger mass access to what message? I do not think that any longer it can be Barack Obama. He has shot that bolt. Confidence in him has evaporated, despite what the polls say about his favorability rating. These are surely inflated because people risk being called racists if they oppose his policies and actions.

There is a quiet resignation pervading the country, but the risk of explosion is high. Are the radical New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson smart enough to capture and exploit the mood by means of mob-generating electronics? I think not, and hope not.

Who on the conservative side – the side of the Reagan Republicans, Reagan Independents, Reagan Democrats and Tea Party Faithful – can galvanize the electorate via the media, the internet, Facebook, Twitter, by all that is available for instant communication, to “save” the country? That is the mantra now needed: Save the Country. Take Back the Country. Recover our Heritage. Reclaim World Leadership. Re-affirm our Founders’ Vision. Let us pray that the Supreme Court decision in June fosters a move in that direction. Could Mitt Romney do it? Despite his alleged stolidity, I think so, especially if he chooses a dynamic running-mate, one who could follow him in eight years. We need sixteen years of America’s new lease on life and leadership in the world.

School Custodian Fired for Having Pro-Walker Sign in Car

March 30, 2012
By Lonely Conservative

Mary Taylor is a school custodian in Wisconsin who was fired for having a sign in her car that says “Stand with Walker,” in reference to the recall efforts against Governor Scott Walker. Taylor said that a number of cars in the school parking lot bore anti-Walker stickers, and teachers started complaining about her sign, causing the janitorial service that employed her to fire her. The school district claims they had nothing to do with it, but her attorney said that the complaints started from the district and he believes they had something to do with it.

She said her manager offered her unemployment or a different job thirty miles from her home. Maggie’s Notebook also reported that Taylor’s car was keyed. So much for free speech.

Here she is on Fox News telling her story.

Audio: More ‘Progressive’ Hate Radio- Malkin, Limbaugh Called ‘Slime’, ‘Pig-Man’

March 30, 2012 — NiceDeb

Kudos to Radio Equalizer for keeping tabs on the likes of the perennially vile and unhinged Mike Malloy -- so you and I don’t have to.



Poor Ed Schultz: conservative “pigs” have stolen his sanity and now he wants revenge. Not that there’s much proof of previous psychological stability, of course, but today he appears ready for the slingshot.

An unhinged whine-fest dominated yesterday’s syndicated radio show, where the “progressive” model of civility seemingly couldn’t contain his anger.

Audio at the link.

Soros-Funded Filmaker Attacks Kochs, Defends Soros

BY: Andrew Stiles -Washington Free Beacon
March 30, 2012 6:33 pm

Filmmaker and liberal activist Robert Greenwald, who has just released a highly critical “documentary” about Charles and David Koch said today that conservative-leaning billionaire activists are fundamentally different from their left-wing counterparts.

In a Friday interview, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir pointed out that the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers are simply “leveraging their wealth” by investing in political causes. “There are people on the left and right who do exactly that,” he said.

While Greenwald acknowledged that the kind of activity the Kochs engage in is perfectly legal, he rejected any equivalence between the Kochs and left-wing billionaire George Soros, who is currently embroiled in a legal fight stemming from allegations of domestic violence.

“[The Kochs] are using their billions of dollars and hundreds of million of dollars to further their own selfish economic interests,” Greenwald claimed. “People on the left who were doing this are using it against their economic self-interests. That’s a very, very important fundamental difference.”

Greenwald’s Brave New Foundation has long benefitted from Soros’ largesse, and the targets of his documentaries have often coincided with the billionaire activist’s pet causes.

Furthermore, Soros himself has admitted that his political and financial interests often align. In a 2004 profile in the New Yorker, he detailed a specific example of a time he financially benefitted from his political philanthropy.

Soros said that he tries to maintain a strict separation between his financial and his philanthropic work. Yet he acknowledged, “There are occasionally symbiotic moments between political and business interests.” He cited one example: an attempt to set up a public-policy think tank in England which had at first looked like a fruitless venture; it had landed him in what promised to be one of the most boring conferences of his life. But, chatting with British notables, he caught a serendipitous glimpse of a way to break into the closed world of the British bond market, which he soon did. It became “one of the most rewarding weekends of my life,” he said. “I made many millions.”

Additionally, Soros is heavily invested in green energy companies that have directly benefitted from federal funding championed by liberal groups he actively funds, such as the Center for American Progress. The Kochs have consistently opposed such funding, and in turn have been targeted by the same Soros-funded groups, including Brave New Foundation.

In contrast, the Koch brothers have taken political positions that hare directly at odds with their own financial interests, including a massive campaign to end ethanol subsidies, from which their company directly benefits.

NBC News Deceptively Edits 911 Call To Portray George Zimmerman As Racist

Mar 30, 2012 - Pat Dollard

Obama to Speed up Reviews of Great Lakes Wind Power Projects.. That Do Not Exist

By DJ Redman on Mar 30, 2012


The campaigner-in-chief has really stepped in it this time. Barack Obama, facing the fact that due to a miserable economy and extremely high gas prices crushing middle class Americans, he will assuredly be a one and done President in November… so now he wants the American people to believe he is really ramping up U.S. energy production … as in windmills. From Fox News comes this enlightening announcement:

The Obama administration announced an agreement with Great Lakes states on off-shore wind projects….and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the governors of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania to streamline reviews of potential off-shore wind projects. (emphasis added)

As in the Solyndra green energy scam that saw half a billion tax dollars funneled to Obama campaign bundlers and big donors, one can only guess which of Obama’s Democrat-crony-capitalists are standing in the windmill line to scam the taxpayers out of a few billion more tax dollars in exchange for big campaign donations. So far it’s pretty hush-hush, as can be seen by the fact that as of right now, these so-called soon to be expedited wind mill projects that Obama is bragging about… not currently exist!

However, when asked how much faster permits could get approved, White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley said, “There currently aren’t any projects seeking approval…”

This is a sign of a president who knows he can not run on his miserable failure of a record during his first term in office, so he turns to making announcements about speeding up reviews that do not exist. Of course there will be plenty of Obama donors lining up to rake in the cash while defrauding the American people through these green energy scams.. eventually. Meanwhile, American oil and gas production and permitting has been stopped dead in it’s tracks under Obama’s regime, including blocking the Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver hundreds of thousands of oil to U.S refineries the minute it was allowed to go online.

This is a man ( Barack Hussein Obama) who the people now see saying one thing in fluffy campaign speeches.. while doing just the opposite behind their backs. Barack Obama just does not understand that when Americans can’t go on vacation because of $4.00 a gallon gasoline this summer, and seeing him stop U.S oil production while giving away billions of dollars to his campaign donors for failed green energy scams… they will say enough is enough and give him the boot in the November elections. He is in for a very harsh lesson in reality this November.

The Left’s Childlike Mentality: America as the Daycare State

By Kyle Becker on Mar 31, 2012


Modern-day liberals have a child-like mentality. As if living by the book All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, liberals believe in the virtues of sharing and never fighting – values codified as Marxism and pacifism, respectively. But the leftists’ “revolutionary” pre-pubescent point of view goes well beyond cutesy naïveté: it will be the source of economic and military ruin if their temper tantrum is allowed to continue.

Time for the liberals to go to time out.

What kindergartners don’t get, in similar fashion as the liberal view of the economy, is that those Smurf figurines didn’t just get there themselves. They were made in China, apparently by our mommy state who gives us neat toys and what libs think is a hefty allowance. Liberals can’t quite fathom that one day the country needs to give the money back. Bless their hearts, they haven’t quite learned the value of money yet.

If only we could make leftists mow lawns to pay back part of the national debt, they might show a little restraint with the federal credit card.

Liberals do not recognize that human dignity in an adult requires autonomy and personal responsibility. These concepts are alien to the liberal, who views society as an agent for molding and manipulating individuals, like a state-licensed teacher does with children in a kindergarten. Adulthood is therefore a contrived and unnecessary social construction; individuality is a characteristic of a bully or an alienated loner who just needs a hug.

The left constantly approaches the economy like it’s a gigantic daycare. When people need something, “all we need to do is share.” If someone has something another person doesn’t, the solution is to have the “teacher” force him to share. This is how liberals approach the economy. But what is lost in this daycare mentality approach is that individuals need to put effort into creating, producing, and selling goods and services. They do not just exist, like a birthday cake that should be cut up and handed to the rugrats on a plastic plate. And liberals don’t notice that after a few semesters, the teacher is really packing on the pounds.

So where did this juvenile mentality come from? When people are coddled by their depression-surviving parents and sheltered by a post-FDR government the way the baby boomers have been, it’s no surprise that they think the entire country should be run like a daycare. The scary thing is that these kids who never grew out of the Age of Aquarius have almost complete control of our government, and creativity and imagination are their only bounds! Our economy is unsurprisingly becoming one giant circle time, where millions of service workers finger paint in exchange for monopoly money while lawyers and bureaucrats draw elaborate crayon pictures under the color of law and post them on the nation’s refrigerator at the federal register.

It’s almost like these intellectuals have never asked themselves the question: Under socialism, who fixes the toilets? Why, it’s that creepy janitor guy. You mean if we actually do away with capitalism and have full equality the community might want me to use that…toilet snake? The only kind of snakes I like are on animal planet! Ewww!

The left’s fairy-land reading of economics is even more dangerous when applied to the world arena, where it is combined with the notion of pacifism (exempting Democrat teachers, of course). Liberals conflate the beliefs of their own social circle with those of foreign leaders and rulers, attributing them “good intentions” because they display the same paternalistic impulses they see in themselves. As unruly as they are emotionally, they have no problem with “strong men” daddy figures. Lacking “boundaries,” they respond well to discipline.

Their warped view of economy is also shifted over to world affairs, where the source of all social ills is relative deprivation. If everything is made “fair” and everyone gets the same action figure or Barbie doll, then there will be nothing to fight about. Obviously, liberals don’t take ideas very seriously, since they blow off Islam as the belief of “misunderstood” Muslim kids. If we just welcome them, maybe include them in some kickball games (no score-keeping, of course), they might just learn to like us.

By extension,”hate crimes” legislation is a way of making sure everyone plays nice and no one says anything to hurt anyone’s feelings. Equal opportunity is the idea that there should be no “favoritism.”

P.J. O’Rourke once wrote: “Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza.” And if the left had its druthers, everyone would get only one slice.

When a Constitutional Republic devolves into democracy, every election becomes a popularity contest, and public policy is devoid of the concept of scarcity. That is why liberals loathe Ronald Reagan and conservatives deem him untenable to mimic in the current political climate: He was like the parent who said “no” to the child-like voters who demanded more and more goodies. And even Reagan had to cave and dole out a few jelly beans to the left at times.

Although we can look to Obama to solve our problems, much like a child looks to a parent to get us out of a jam, we must look to ourselves. As a nation if we can clean up our room and show a little personal responsibility, that is a great first step towards returning a stable economy. If we can get back that shining entrepreneurial spirit by at least allowing kids to run their own lemonade stands, that would go a heck of a long way towards renewing our prosperity.

MSNBC's Touré Has Epic Race-Baiting Meltdown On CNN

Piers Morgan concluded the interview saying, "I like to think of myself as a professional journalist, Touré. I think that you are something else."

SOURCE: Breitbart TV

Race relations much worse under Obama

If you're a white person who voted for Barack Obama believing that his election would usher in a post-racial era in America, you must be very disappointed. Race relations have in fact never been more volatile and the nation is now sitting on a time bomb as we draw closer to another election. Whose fault is it? Race-baiting demagogues like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are feverishly trying to exploit the recent killing of a young black man in Florida for their own selfish agenda to boost their fading relevance. Typically they have jumped to conclusions before all the actual facts have been uncovered.

They are once again inciting racial violence by calling the killing of a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, a bias crime because the shooter, George Zimmerman, was first purported to be a white man. It turns out Zimmerman is a Hispanic from a biracial family but why let a little thing like the truth stop them from provoking a mob. The New Black Panther party, which has already been protected by Attorney General Eric Holder, has offered a bounty of 10k on Zimmerman's head. Director Spike Lee, ever sensitive to attacks on blacks, re-tweeted the address of the Zimmerman family. Now why would he do that unless he hoped that a vindictive mob would exact payback for young Martin's death?

The liberal media jumped on the bandwagon to help the efforts of these race-exploiters by posting a photo of the young Martin as a bright-eyed youth full of innocence. That photo provided by Martin's family is in stark contrast to the one posted on his Facebook displaying a much tougher demeanor. An eyewitness to the shooting has disputed the media's version and claims that the victim had actually attacked Zimmerman and this account was the reason police did not make an arrest. Since I was not there, prudence would dictate I pause before drawing a conclusion and await all the determining facts but that is not how Sharpton and Jackson operate.

Rallies are erupting all over the country as youths seeking a cause to prove their relevance in life join to condemn an injustice that may not exist. Who profits from the t-shirt sales and other merchandise eulogizing the martyred black man? Follow the money is never the action taken by those determined to, as Rahm Emmanuel once intoned, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

The 2008 election should have forewarned us about the thuggery that was to follow when the Black Panthers were allowed to intimidate white voters at a polling site. The intelligent and fair minded members of the black communities are appalled at what has occurred since Obama took office and appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General and general apologist for his errors in judgment. Kevin Jackson just wrote in his Black Sphere blog, "Obama and the Left are taking the Trayvon Martin story and making it about racism, gun control, and INTOLERANCE, while ignoring the THOUSANDS of tragedies that happen every day around this country.

"Hyper-sensitive race activists never become outraged by scenes of black on white crimes which somehow never get the attention of the media yet go viral on YouTube. A plethora of racial anarchic events by black thugs are routinely occurring but will not be evident in mainstream media reports.

"The latest report of hate crimes by blacks occurred recently in Kansas City where a 13-year old was doused with gasoline and lit on fire by two teenagers who said, "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

Last August, WTMJ reported, "According to witnesses, a group of anywhere from 30 to 100 young black men descended on the Wisconsin State Fair last night, beating fairgoers and looting carnival games, in what witnesses said were racially-motivated attacks." One eyewitness Eric, an Iraq war veteran, recalled, "I had a black couple on my right side, and these black kids were running in between all the cars, and they were pounding on my doors and trying to open up doors on my car, and they didn't do one thing to this black couple that was in this car next to us. They just kept walking right past their car. They were looking in everybody's windshield as they were running by, seeing who was white and who was black. Guarantee it."

In Texas, Barry Crawford, a black man, shot and killed a white man, Steven Hardin, over a parking dispute. He was found guilty but the jury sentenced Crawford to 10 years adjudication, a form of probation-for murder. There have been no rallies for this injustice.

Whites are not the only target of black thugs as reported by CBS local news in Georgia. Davis Do, an Asian American, endured a tremendous beating by a group of young Negros. Some of the assailants were college football players. The attack happened in McDonough, Georgia, at a bar. The victim said that they put his body under a car, thinking that he was dead.

Anti-Semitic incidents are also disregarded especially if found to be committed by Muslims who for some reason (cowardice?) are treated with kid gloves by the global press. In Toulouse, France, the brutal murder of a rabbi and three children was at first leaked as the work of Neo-Nazis but was in fact committed by a young jihadist.

The New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets will cover the Trayvon Martin killing ad nauseum as will the television networks ignoring other bias crimes. I watched a CNN report interviewing other blacks in the city who retold their own horror stories with the Sandford, Florida, police department but this TV spot did not give the police an opportunity to dispute these narratives. Fair and balanced? I think not!

Murders against women condoned by sharia law fail to raise the outrage by feminist groups and again will only be exposed on conservative sites on the Web or talk radio. We are living in a time where propaganda of the liberal point of view trumps all and while the truth is out there, it's nonexistent in the mainstream media.

On March 1st, Andrew Breitbart, passed away at the age of 43 and a great warrior of the truth was lost to America. This man established the Big sites to expose the lies of politicians and public figures and ferret out the truth backed by videos and iron clad documentation. I feel very proud to be a contributor at several of the Breitbart sites.

While Andrew may have passed on his legacy is the continuing vetting of Barack Obama that the media failed to do and the resulting stream of facts about his congenital socialist core that are emerging from his successors are mind-boggling.

Unless one has access to the Internet where all one has to do is log on to YouTube and search for bias incidents committed against whites, one might believe Jesse Jackson when he says that only blacks are being attacked.

No wonder liberals are determined to shut down free speech on the airwaves and the Net.

Want the truth? It's out there but can you handle it?

Copyright ©2006-2012 The Irish Examiner USA