Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus.

As distasteful a tactic as it has been, the Republicans have finally gotten some cojones and have refused to participate in the current administration's reckless spending spree.  Although this President promised to be post-partisan and post-racial, nearly every major GOP led initiative with regards to the health care, TARPII and cap and trade have been rejected out of hand by the dominant party.

So here's President Obama's most recent olive branch to the GOP going forward. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

No, Mr. President. If the current batch of GOP-ers are going to be true to their campaign promises, then the GOP is going to continue to fight you if you continue to add to the crushing debt that is now threatening to destroy our entire way of life.

But thank you, Mr. President, for so eloquently sum up your feelings about the GOP in particular and conservatives in general.  It helps to clarify our choices for the upcoming elections.

Amtrak Posts Record Ridership.

USA Today, in a Mike Chalmers article, reported that Amtrak posted record ridership with 28.7 million riders, an increase of 5.7% from 2009.  Ticket revenue increased by 9% to 1.7 billion.

However, Amtrak posted $3.5 billion in expenses for the fiscal year.
Let's see....  $1.7 billion from ticket sales against $3.5 billion in expenses.  Yup, another year in the red for Amtrak.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

The Danger of Playing Economic War When you are DOWNSTREAM

Interesting, considering the situation that exists between both Southern California and Arizona. They both are states that border Mexico. Their electorate are mutually groaning under tremendous budgetary shortfalls that are pushing our public programs to their very limit. 

However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft.  Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States.  Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants.  Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally. 

For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will.  This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce.  Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this.  But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.

Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).  Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet.  I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'. 

Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented.  President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.

Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services.  With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon. 

However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality.  Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power.  I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:


May 18, 2010


VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL


Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:


I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).


You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)


I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.


If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.


People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.


Sincerely,

Commission Gary Pierce


The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.

If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.

John Murtha (D) 1932-2010

John Murtha, the Democrat Representative from Pennsylvania, passed away today (Jan 8 2010) at the age of 77 from complications arising from a gall-bladder surgery.

He was a Marine officer who served in the Vietnam War. As a Democratic representative he often steered funds not only to his home state and home town. He was an advocate for a strong national defense. This often brought him into conflict with his own party, which at times during the Bush administration tried to stop all military spending in an effort to shut down the Iraq war.

He gained notoriety for vehemently opposing the war in Iraq. Considering his strong pro-military position, this caught many in the political establishment by surprise.

He also gained a reputation for having never met a Congressional budget earmark that he didn't like and was under Congressional Ethics Committee investigation at the time of his death for certain earmarks he'd won for Pennsylvania firms.

Murtha's 2008 political opponent, William Russell, made this statement today: "Regardless of your political position, you always knew Jack had an immense love and loyalty to his family and the residents of the 12th Congressional District,'' Mr. Russell said."

Trent Lott and Harry Reid. There Is a Difference.

While attending the 100th birthday celebration for Dixie-crat Senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated in essence that the United States would be "better off" had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Mr. Lott was pilloried not only by the Democrats but even by his own GOP, which ultimately resulted in Mr. Lott stepping down as Majority Leader.

Now, a new controversy has arisen concerning the current Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid who is the senior Senator from Nevada and a Democrat. In a book titled "Game Change", Mr. Reid claimed that the reason that then-candidate Barack Obama had a good chance of becoming the first African-American U.S. President was because he was "light-skinned" and did not speak with a "Negro dialect" unless he chose to do so.

Republicans are now crying "racist!" while Democrats circle the wagons around the "inartfully articulating" Senator Reid. The Republicans are furious that when Sen. Lott made his "inartful" toast to Strom in 2002, they stood against his comments and were a major force in his resignation from the Senate Majority Leader position. By contrast, the Democrats, instead of declaring their abhorrence at Senator Reid's "racist" statements are in fact standing behind him.

I'm a member of the Heritage foundation and a reluctant supporter of the Republican party. But I think that in this case that the Republicans are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist.

When Trent Lott made his famous statement, he essentially said that he supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "pro-segregation" Dixiecrat platform. Equal but separate. How could any modern politician think that he could publicly articulate such an opinion and then not be held to account for it? Not to mention that segregation has been proven to be bad policy.

Senator Reid, by contrast, was stating a painful fact about American politics. White Americans in general are more comfortable with black politicians that speak Harvard English and whose appearance more closely correlates with their own. Senator Reid has been a strong supporter of civil rights legislation, especially as seen by the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus.

A far more appropriate subject for comparison would be Rush Limbaugh, who lost his NFL commentator position when he stated his opinion that the mainstream press was motivated to overstate Donovan McNabb's accomplishments in order to support the position that black quarterbacks can perform as well as whites, who at that time dominated the quarterback position. He later clarified that he felt that Donovan McNabb had the potential to be a great NFL quarterback but that at that time he did not deserve the praise that was being given him by the press.

In any case, I believe that the Republicans are making a case that is not supported by the facts or public opinion. Trying to equate Lott's comments that essentially said that a pro-segregationist president would have produced a better America with Harry Reid's analysis that Barack Obama, as a light skinned African-American who spoke very precise English are not even remotely the same class of comments.

In this situation, I think that the GOP needs to figure out that "this dog won't hunt".

57% of American's Want Tort Reform for Medical Malpractice Suits

Read the Rasmussen poll report here.

On August 12, August 18 and August 27 I bloviated expansively about the House version of the United States National Health Care act (USNHC). Specifically, I wondered how any act put before Congress that does not make any effort whatsoever to set limits on malpractice lawsuits, commonly called "tort" reform could actually claim to be a comprehensive plan to reduce the cost of health care to America's citizens.

Apparently I am now one of a clear majority of polled voters who feel the same way. According to a Rasmussen poll published on December 2nd, 2009 57% of voters favor limiting monetary rewards to medical lawsuit plaintiffs, with 29% disagreeing and 14% not sure. 47% of voter respondents to the poll believe that limiting monetary awards would "significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States", with 28% disagreeing and 25% unsure.

Finally, 60% of the respondents believe USNHC will increase the Federal deficit and a larger number believe it will result in higher taxes on the middle-class.

As I've said many times before, I believe that dramatic changes need to be made in our health care system.

Here's some of my list of items that need to be addressed by USNHC. Note that I'm not saying that we should abandon USNHC, only that if we truly want to believe that it will be a comprehensive bill to control the cost of health care to the U.S. consumer, then I think these issues need to be considered and added:

Have you talked to a health-care professional recently? A surgical doctor? A registered nurse? An emergency room technician? Did you ask them about the hours they work? I know very few health-care professionals that work LESS than 50 hours a week, and I know some that work over 80 hours a week. The old market rule applies in this case. If demand is high and supply is low, cost increases. How does USNHC plan to add more people to the medical profession? And if you think those resources are scarce now imagine when we add the so-called 47 million (I say so-called because it's been proven that there are not that many people with no medical insurance at any one time) to the insurance rolls? Now that somebody else (you and I) will be helping to pay for their care, you can bet that they will flood the system with requests for care.

The FDA approval process for pharmaceuticals adds exorbitant costs to the process of bringing new drugs to market. By itself, I don't have a problem with that. I like the fact that my government is trying to ensure that only high quality medicines make it to the consumer. But if the FDA is going to justify the hoops, the red-tape and the cost associated, then how come drugs keep getting pulled from the shelf and we keep seeing class-action lawsuits against drug manufacturers for drugs that were approved by the FDA? It's gotta be either one way or the other. Either the FDA stands by their approval and accepts some of the risk for their stamp of approval, or they need to admit that there's no way to test for all possible factors associated with drug use, in which case lawsuits against manufacturers for claims against FDA approved drugs should not be admitted to court.

Tort reform. All levels of the health care profession pay a LOT of money to insurers to protect themselves against lawsuits. But with America being the most litigious society on Earth, and there being nearly non-existent controls on both the validity of lawsuits and the rewards being sought, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Reduce the cost of lawsuits and you reduce the cost of insurance paid by providers, the savings which can be passed on to the consumer. This is not to say that lawsuits aren't necessary. But a plaintiff shouldn't expect to profit from a mistake made or even malfeasance made by a provider. However, neither should they bear the loss. Basic market principle here is that if costs associated with a service or product can be reduced in a competitive market, the provider will reduce the cost to the consumer in order to remain competitive.

Increase competition between insurance companies by allowing consumers (businesses and individuals) to purchase insurance plans from across state lines. Basic market principle. Increased competition reduces cost as competitors seek to gain advantages on price through reduced profitability or improved efficiencies in doing business.

Provide incentives for the formation of benefit cooperatives that can cater to people employed by small businesses that cannot afford to provide health care from traditional insurance companies. Kind of like a medical version of a credit union. These coops, if run well, could really give traditional insurance companies a run for their money, and in so doing create an environment that would force insurance companies to compete or go out of business. Have you noticed that very few credit unions have been caught up in the current financial crisis? This is because they are run for the benefit of their shareholders, not stock holders. There is little incentive for credit unions to engage in risky and speculative financial practices. The same should be true for health care benefit coops, since their primary focus is to provide health care benefits at the lowest possible cost to their shareholders. How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans would take advantage of health care coops if they existed?

So why don't progressives want to talk about these ideas? Because none of them give the government more control over your individual liberty.

Chris Matthews' Characterizes West Point Academy as "Enemy Camp" to President Obama.

Follow the weblink to a video of the relevant excerpt of Chris Matthews' commentary after President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech of December 1, 2009:



Now... I'm a former Marine. My son is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. I have a fair number of friends who either are serving or who have served in the U.S. armed forces. And I don't think it's news that these people are generally not friends of members of the Democratic party or persons who lean towards liberal/progressive ideology.

However, I think it is safe to say that neither the regular military establishment, or the military academies such as West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy) or Colorado Springs (Air Force) have ever taken any action that would make it fair to label them as "enemies" of any President of the Unite States.

Just as the rhetoric against George Bush during his administration was way over the top, we still continue to see extreme partisan invective from both sides in this administration. Chris Matthews' rhetoric will continue to reinforce in the minds of his devotees that the military is openly antagonistic of the President and his policies, which is patently untrue.

If we look at recent American history, we can see that the U.S. Military establishment has reasons for being suspicious of Democratic presidents. President Carter canceled more military programs than any U.S. President since Harry Truman. While President Lyndon Johnson increased our commitment of troops in Vietnam, he purposefully did not try to build public support for the conflict because of his fear that support for our Vietnam commitments would take support from his "Great Society" social programs. Because of this, service personnel returning from duty in Vietnam were literally spit upon by anti-war protesters that Johnson did very little to control (although when he did, such as at Kent State, the result was disastrous). President Clinton, exulting in the Reagan-caused collapse of the Soviet Union, tried to leverage the so-called "peace dividend". The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah of Iran and rise of militant fundamentalist Islam in Iran and elsewhere, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1998 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen all occurred during Democratic administrations. Many in the military believe that these relatively unpunished acts encouraged the greatest act of terrorism ever experienced, which were the September 11, 2001 assaults on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and possibly the Capitol building or the White House.

Only during the American Civil War did large elements of the regular military establishment openly defy the President of the United States. Otherwise, the U.S. military has been a devoted and faithful servant of the American people, directed by the legal orders of their President. To characterize West Point or any other military establishment as the camp of the enemy is absurd and an unwarranted accusation against the honorable men and women who learn the trade of war in order to preserve the peace and security of our people.

Tiger Woods Gives the Press the Finger (Metaphor). Good For Him.

Unless you are living in a dark cave somewhere in Tennessee or Southern Utah, you probably are aware that golfing legend Tiger Woods, the most successful athlete in the history of modern sports, had a little one-car automobile accident last week in the wee early morning hours not far from his home.

According to Woods' agent, Mark Steinberg, Florida law requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident to provide the police his driver's license, the registration for his vehicle, and proof of insurance.

And Tiger has decided that that is all he is going to give the police and the press. This is probably the backlash from the revelation in the tabloids that Tiger has been seen in the presence of a New York party girl. It is noteworthy that the accident investigation has already determined that Tiger was travelling away from his house when the accident occurred, not far from his home.

Tiger has decided he is not going to give the police, and thereby, the press and paparazzi, any details that would further compromise his family situation. One can only guess why Tiger was driving from his home, apparently out of control, in the middle of the night, but not under the influence of alcohol or medications. And it's going to stay that way. Tiger has no intention of feeding the ravenous beast any salacious tidbits. And if he is interviewed by the police, we darn well know that six hours later that the information would be on the front page of every tabloid from LA to London.

Tiger will be cited, probably with something like "failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle" and pay his fine. He'll then call up GM and ask them to ship them another Cadillac CTS-V and he'll knock a few thousand off the fee for the next commercial he does for Buick.

America (and the world), get over it. Tiger's private life and foibles is none of your business, and his family problems (if there are any, that's only alleged) should be allowed to be worked out in private.

Adulation of the MAN vs. the INSTITUTION (Follow up to previous posting)

The American system of government is greater than any one man or even group of men. This why adulation for the MAN instead of the INSTITUTION is so scary to me and many who share my point of view.

Barack Obama's accomplishment of becoming the first American President "of color", especially considering our checkered history with the institution of slavery, specifically the slavery of Africans is momentous. But the accomplishment of Barack Obama pales when viewed in light of the greater context that our system permits any person regardless of creed, race, sex to achieve the highest levels of success and authority.

But are these children being taught to praise that system? I doubt it. I suspect that Dr. Denise King, the principal of the school where this song was recorded, would probably say that the American system is full of inequalities and injustices and that minorities are repressed. She is probably teaching children that capitalism is "evil" and "uncaring". She probably dwells on the mistakes of our nation's past, such as the nearly successful genocide of the Native American or the institution of African slavery.

I suspect she does NOT teach much about the indentured servitude (economic slavery) of Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles and Italians in the 1800's or the Chinese and other Asians in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I also bet she doesn't talk much about the current genocide taking place in both eastern and southern Africa, where Africans are enslaving or destroying whole other tribes of Africans solely on basis of clan affiliation. Or how about the sexual enslavement or mutilation of African women by African men? Hmmm? Or how about the current repression by China of Tibet and it's eastern Muslim population, or the destruction of millions of lives in Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

Then there's India with it's caste system. Does she spend much time talking about the purely social discrimination of the Bhangis ("untouchables") by the Brahmins, even though those people are genetically the same family? Or the "honor killings" practiced in much of the Islamic world? Or the outright racist attitudes of most Asians? To this day, Japanese print media depicts Africans with big lips and low foreheads and the book "Little Black Sambo" is a popular children's picture book. In fact, there is no redress for "hate crimes" in Japan because there is NO JAPANESE LAW protecting civil rights.

The American system of government and the society it has created is far from perfect. And by definition, a capitalistic economic system means that people will fail although that does not mean that those people are failures. People become failures only when they prove unable to overcome adversity. But in our society, which is now dominated by an arguably corrupt and non-representing representative system, the charged are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and people like Bernard Madoff or the CEOs of corrupt companies like TYCO, Enron or MCI Worldcom go to jail for destroying the financial future of others. While perfection eludes us what other nation on Earth presents as much opportunity as the United States? Even in decline with possibly our best days now behind us are still one of the freest, safest places on Earth to live.

So when I see children pouring out their adulation for only a MAN instead of the INSTITUTION, in my opinion I am justifiably concerned. If this is an innocent act then it's wrong. If it's purposeful then it can only be called one thing: INDOCTRINATION.

Ben... It's the UN. Of Course They Have No Shame!

An excerpt from the dramatic speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu: "But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

He was addressing the UN. Therefore this was clearly a rhetorical question.

Comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the "New Face of the KKK". You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has now taken the political debate to yet a new low, showing that the Black Congressional Caucus and the Democratic Party is completely prepared to throw the "race card" down on the table at any time that it looks like it might create political advantage.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) blurted out "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's September 9th speech promoting his health care reform plan to Congress. Wilson personally apologized to the President the following day, and that apology was accepted.

However, since Congress is a tank of sharks that just love the smell of blood, and partisan rhetoric is just as rancid and raucous as ever, the Democrats wasted no time in debating and then voting on a censure of Wilson today (September 15th). Of course CNN was there to cover this debate (where were they on Van Jones, ACORN, All the President's Czars, etc?). CNN caught Johnson on camera and he had this to say:

"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man, I would say it instigated more racist sentiment and feeling. 'It's OK. You don't have to bury it now. You can bring it out and talk about it fully.' And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on uh, white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And uh, you know, that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude, uh, is not rebuked. If Congressman Wilson represents, uh, he's the face of it."

I've never cussed on this blog before. But I'm going to now. You've got to be shitting me. Joe Wilson is now the face of racial intolerance and hatred in the United States of America because he disagrees with the President's assertion that SR3200 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits? You got all that from two words?. In my opinion that's one helluva stretch. This just demonstrates and proves what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and all the other conservative talkers have been saying since Obama started campaigning for election, which is that you cannot disagree with the President on any topic and then avoid being charged with opposing the President because you are a racist and he is an African-American.

I'm sure that were I to have an opportunity to speak directly to Representative Johnson, and he were willing to actually waste his time defending himself to me, that he could come up with some convoluted explanation about how he can rationalize the connection between Rep. Wilson to the KKK by the evidence of the two words "You lie!" In my opinion, this can only be rationally explained by Saul Alinsky rule #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." By portraying Wilson as a personalized face of racism, Johnson successfully demonizes Wilson and weakens him and what he stands for. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and this certainly fits the data.

Political discourse in this country is dying. And the rules are skewed. Nobody will defend Wilson against this ridiculous, baseless and from my point of view, irresponsible charge because no white guy is going to get fair representation.

ACORN Contradictions in Tax-Evasion/Prostitution Advice Scandal.

Jim O'Keefe released a video through www.biggovernment.com that shows himself and a young, attractive woman disguised as a pimp and prostitute trying to get advice from a pair of ACORN "community organizers" on how to buy a house in order to lodge over a dozen young females from El Salvador. During the conversation, the undercover couple let the following "facts" be known to the ACORN workers:

1. Their business was prostitution.
   
2. They would be housing 13 young women from El Salvador.
3. They weren't paying income taxes.
4. If they were to start paying taxes, what should they claim in terms of income, occupation and dependents.

The response from the ACORN representatives is truly stunning. They tell the undercover couple that they can file under the classification of "Performing Arts". They tell them that since the 13 young girls don't have Social Security numbers, don't worry about them. They completely ignore the implication that the girls are probably illegal aliens, that they are underage, and that they will be working in their "business". The advice received concerning how to avoid paying taxes given is "Don't file." Even though the undercover couple indicate that their annual income would be about $96,000, they are told to declare $9,600 in income since they are probably doing mostly a cash business.

If it weren't as grotesque as I've just described it, this would be hilarious. But it gets better.

On Wednesday, ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson said "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at 'gotcha' journalism." The national headquarters also stated that there would be no further comment until they saw the "entire" video. This notwithstanding the "entire" video is currently available for download at www.biggovernment.com right now and has been since September 5th.

On Friday it was reported by ACORN Maryland chapter leader Stuart Katzenberg that the two employees were fired because "they did not meet ACORN's standard of professionalism." Whoa. I though ACORNs position was that the video was misleading, "false and defamatory". Yet two employees were fired? Seems contradictory to me.

Oh wait, it get's even better! (Or sicker, depending on your point of view.) Fox News is now reporting that in addition to the Baltimore office being "stung" by Jim O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, they managed to pull the same stunt off at an ACORN office in Washington, D.C. as well. In this NEW tape Lavernia Boone, an ACORN "mortgage consultant" and Sherana Boone, an ACORN "housing employee" (are they related?) allegedly give the undercover couple similar advice as the Baltimore office did.

So... I think we've got some contradictions here.
ACORN believes the videotape is "false and defamatory" and yet two "community organizers" lost their jobs because of their "unprofessional standards". ACORN would also have you believe that the Baltimore employees were part-time temporary help and that no senior staffers were in the office at the time. This is clearly intended to get people to believe that the situation was unique to "Tonya" and "Shira" at the Baltimore office and that they were acting beyond ACORN rules and regulations. And yet... here comes the DC video! And what advice does the DC office give? The exact same advice as in Baltimore. To wit; lie on your taxes, tell the kids to shutup, keep your prostitution business low-key or somebody will get nosey and call "Fox".

"Healing Parks" and America's 9/11

I opened the Arizona Republic this morning and on the front page, there was a photograph of a fireman helping to set up a "healing field", which is a large field with thousands of U.S. flags in it on white poles. Each flag, in this case, represents a life lost on 9/11/2001 as a result of the infamous jihadist attacks against the United States.

Since Americans have such short memories, I remind you that on 9/11/2001 that 2,974 innocents were killed when 19 Islamic jihadists intentionally flew two hi-jacked airliners into the New York World Trade Center, one hi-jacked airliner into the Pentagon building. One additional airliner was hi-jacked but the passengers rose up against the hijackers and the aircraft ended up crashing into a farmer's field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

I do not understand healing fields. I don't need healing. I don't desire healing. I expect that those who lost loved ones in those attacks don't really want healing as much as they want justice. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, Americans may have planted flags in fields. But what was far more important is that Americans enlisted in our armed services. Our industrial might began building vast numbers of tanks, bullets, rifles, helmets, warplanes and warships. Our President informed Congress that "we would win through to the absolute victory, so help us God."

I will be healed when the governments that supported this horrendous act are held responsible for the "stateless" persons that perpetrate these crimes of terror against "soft targets". I will be healed when the world recognizes that no person can be "stateless" and that if the nationality of a terrorist perpetrator is determined, that nation will be held to account. I will be healed when any nation or group of people is made to understand that the price for committing acts of terror is far too high in terms of the suffering that will be levied upon their homeland.

Update to Baltimore ACORN Faux pas.

Oh yeah, one more thing...

Where the hell is the main-stream media on this? At 6:19 PM Eastern today (September 10th, 2009), the following news organizations were NOT reporting this story, even though it actually broke on www.biggovernment.com last Saturday:

1) www.msnbc.msn.com
2) www.abcnews.go.com
3) www.cbsnews.com
4) www.nytimes.com
5) www.latimes.com

Only Fox News is running with this story, largely through the efforts of the Glenn Beck show (5PM Eastern), who in turn got this information from Andrew Breitbart's new website www.biggovernment.com. That's one heckuva scoop, Mr. Breitbart.

Other than that, most of the other news outlets that had picked up on the story were blogs and smaller local news sites (Phoenix, Baltimore, both were Fox affiliates).

And the politicians and left elites are wondering why those of us who are either moderate or conservative have only the radio and Fox News to inform us about very serious issues like this one.

ACORN Offers to Help Setup a Brothel.

Wow. I thought I'd seen it all...

Then I see a video on www.biggovernment.com that shows two young white students posing as a prostitute and her pimp in trying to use ACORNs consulting services to secure a loan to purchase a house. The video completely speaks for itself and every American should be casting severe distrust against this organization.

ACORN responding by saying that the video was "false and defamatory" and an attempt to "smear" their organization. False? How? This was a video of two of their employees providing the following advice:
1) Run a prostitution brothel under the IRS classification of "Performance Arts".
2) Avoid paying taxes by using the following tactic: "Don't file."
3) Continue to assist with tax form preparation even when the couple states that they will also have numerous young girls from El Salvador working for them "in the trade" and living in the house.

What should have happened at that point is that the ACORN employees (or representatives or whatever) demand the couple's identification or even make a citizen's arrest. What this couple were "pretending" to setup was a child pornography/sex slave operation working out of the house that ACORN was going to assist them in purchasing with falsified tax documents.

And President Obama wants to use these same people to collect 2010 census information and funnel them 8.9 billion dollars?!?

I agree with Glenn Beck. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. This is a corruption issue. And it is clear that ACORN and the politicians that support/protect them are about as corrupt as it gets.

More about ObamaCare: August 27, 2009

ITEM 1:
According to a Fox News report, both ABC and NBC news are refusing to run a national ad critical of Pres. Obama's health care reform plan. The ad was created by the League of American Voters, which describes themselves as a "national non-partisan and 501(c)4 non-profit organization created to keep our elected officials in Washington and across the nation accountable." The ad features a neurosurgeon who admonishes that the current health care reform plan will affect the U.S. industry much like the rapidly failing public single-payer systems in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Quotes from important newspapers scroll across the screen, proclaiming dire consequences if the current plan is enacted into law.

An ABC News spokesperson responded to criticism for this decision by stating that "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."

Really? So when ABC essentially gave an entire day to discuss the plan with Preisdent Obama back in June, when did ABC plan on giving the same amount of time to the loyal opposition to provide their views on this complex legislation. This is an example of where the "Fairness Doctrine" could certainly be applied to broadcast TV as opposed to just AM talk radio. 33 seconds vs. most of primetime for a day. To me, it still seems that ABC is in President Obama's hip pocket.

ITEM 2
I read on Breitbart.com that Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), head of the Health subcommittee on the House Ways and Means committee has declared that the "Blue Dogs" (a fiscally conservative faction of roughly 50 Democratic representatives) are "brain dead" and "just want to make trouble" with their opposition to President Obama's health care reform plan. He went on to essentially accuse the Blue Dogs of siding with big-money insurance companies and health care providers in order to "raise money". The political discourse in this country has absolutely gone to the dogs (pun intended). Why can't either side of this debate admit that the other side believes what they want is the best without slandering their character or intentions? Sure... the constituency for the Blue Dogs has nothing better to do than send representatives to Congress who just want to make trouble. I find it interesting that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives. Maybe they have not yet been convinced that ObamaCare won't actually cause our federal budget deficit to skyrocket to the point where we might actually owe more money in debt than our gross national domestic product. And this at a time when foreign countries are actively considering dumping U.S. dollars in favor of a new "world currency" or a fund made up of several currencies, not just U.S. dollars.

ITEM 3
TimesOnline.co.uk: Apparently the Democrats, realizing that the August recess has only shown a weakening of public support for Pres. Obama's health care reforms, are trying to capitalize on the recent passing of Senator Edward "Ted" M. Kennedy (D-MA). Senator Robert Byrd suggested the health care reform plan (currently the United States Nationalized Health Care Act) should "bear his name", while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) opined "Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality healthcare for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.” While there is no question that the Chappaquiddick... er ... Massachusetts senator made public health care a major policy priority during his tenure as a elected servant, isn't this getting just a bit operatic?

ITEM 4
This is from CBSnews.com. ObamaCare would require that the IRS (yes, THOSE guys) would be required to divulge taxpayer identity information to include filing status, modified adjusted gross income, number of dependents and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. This information will then be used by the Health Choices Commissioner (a new position mandated by USNHC (ObamaCare)) to determine if someone qualifies for "affordability credits". Don't believe, go to Section 431(a) of the bill. I'd give you the page number, but this thing keeps getting rewritten so the section keeps moving. This is also restated in Section 245(b)(2)(A). Uh, wait a minute... I think I remember reading that the Privacy Act requires that agencies get their information directly from individual, not from other agencies. This would mean that thousands upon thousands of government employees would suddenly have very easy access to some of your most important information, namely, your income. What's to prevent those agencies from using this information in other ways?

Well, that's enough for today... oh yeah, and still no addition of Tort reform in USNHC. Which absurdly brings me to DNC Chairman Howard Dean's opinion on that subject.

ITEM 5
From SFExaminer.com: SFExaminer reporter Mark Tapscott accurately described this slip as "incredibly candid" when he reported on the following. At a townhall meeting hosted by Jim Moran (D-VA), an audience member asked why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (Tort reform). DNC Chairman Howard Dean, himself a former physician, responded by saying "The reason tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that's the plain and simple truth." Well, great. So it's ok to take on doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharamceutical companies, but those trial lawyers just FIGHT TOO HARD so we'll not take them on, and incidentally, cut U.S. national spending on healthcare by possibly as much as two-hundred million dollars as the result of smaller malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous settlement amounts. Incidentally, you WERE aware that the most common prior occupation for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is "lawyer", right?

Cash For Clunkers a Preview of Things to Come.

There are a whole lot of things about "Cash for Clunkers" that I don't like.

One thing I don't like about it is that they are basically taking $3,500 or $4,500 from the average American taxpayer and basically GIVE IT to somebody else. That is redistribution of wealth, period. That's socialism.

However, what I hate even more is the fact that this program, which was estimated to run through November 1 of this year, is already being cancelled because it's running out of money.

What I hate even more is that this morning, Congress indicated that they will add 2 billion to the program. That's more socialism.

What I hate the most... Our government couldn't even manage this relatively simple little program predictably or competently. Yet that same government thinks that they can somehow rush into law a seriously complicated health care reform that is arguably flawed and definitely not fully understood by anybody, and expect us to believe that they can manage this program any better than Cash for Clunkers.

Let's just see. Congress originally estimated that the Cash for Clunkers would run from August to November at a cost of $1 billion. One week into the program (1/12th of the total program period), they had to add $2 billion more to meet the demand.

Let's extrapolate that to the health care overhaul...

Retired Navy Pilot Highlights Danger of Old Age.

Read this: Article.

Virginian pilot John Pendergrast, a retired U.S. Naval Aviator, created havoc in the controlled airspace of John F. Kennedy airport when he wandered into the landing approach for runway 22L while trying to figure out where the heck he was.

He was trying to find Republic Airport in Long Island, while flying an home-built experimental Ryan RV-7A.

It is clear from maps provided of the blundering pilot's aerial escapades that he must have been flying under visual flight rules and mistook Long Island for Captree Bridge island, where he then intended to turn north.

Just like when a lost person drives a car, when that person finally realizes that they are lost, they often do crazy and unsafe things while driving that can create havoc for the others that are sharing the roadways.

What is extremely surprising is that as a former naval aviator (we don't know the type of aircraft he flew, could be anything from propeller cargo aircraft to high-speed jet fighters) he should be highly experienced with the use of navigational aids as well as communication protocols when flying through controlled airspace.

Could it be that Mr. Pendergrast is simply too old to be permitted to fly? How else do you explain the amateurish mistakes made by a man who likely has thousands of hours of flight time in highly controlled environments. To compound his error he circled through the approach lanes for JFK airport in an attempt to get his bearings. In doing so he forced controllers with whom he was NOT in communication to divert several aircraft and an Eva Boeing 747 had to abort a landing approach.

Fortunately, the NY police department sent a helicopter to guide him down to Republic Airport, where he was able to land his aircraft safely without further incident. What is likely to be much less fortunate is that I would expect that his pilot's license will be either revoked or he will be cited and heavily fined for essentially putting the lives of hundreds of people in serious jeopardy.

If you look at national statistics with regards to who causes car crashes, we find that the most common offenders are teenagers with very little time behind the wheel of a car. This is followed by elder citizens, who have lost the motor skills or eye-hand coordination to safely operate a car. It has been my opinion for a long time that anybody above 59 years of age should be required to take a driving test every two years. Remember: Driving a car or piloting an aircraft is a privilege, not a right. Unsafe drivers need to be taken off the streets or out of the air. The consequences are simply too tragic to ignore these statistics.

President Obama Oversteps His Bounds.

President Obama's background, like most U.S. politicians, is law. Prior to his political career he was a lawyer. A Constitutional lawyer if you read his own bios.

So why would a highly-regarded lawyer inject himself into a situation that has not yet even resolved itself yet?

The situation is between Professor Gates of Harvard university, an African-American (how I hate hyphenation) who was arrested just outside his own home for disorderly conduct. The arresting officer was James Crowley. Officer Crowley was responding to a report of a crime in progress. Apparently, Prof. Gates may have locked himself out of his own house (whom among us haven't done that once or three times in our lives?) and was trying to force his way in. This gave the appearance of a break-in, which some concerned neighbor responded to by reporting the activity.

When Officer Crowley showed up, Prof. Gates had managed to get into his home. According to Officer Crowley Prof. Gates initially refused to show his identification and immediately started yelling imprecations at the officers.

We don't really know the facts of the case. But what I do know, as a WHITE man, is that when a police officer asks for your ID, you hand it to them. And you do so in a non-threatening manner. Prof. Gates' behavior, if it is as documented in the police report, would only heighten suspicion amongst the officers on the scene.

Nonetheless, President Obama has now stated from the bully pulpit of the White House that this officer "acted stupidly". I seriously doubt that our Fearless Leader has all the facts of this case. And considering his long law experience, I find it fascinating that he would make such a perjorative statement prior to the initiation, much less conclusion of any investigation that the authorities might conduct.

Is there racism in America? You bet. There is much intolerance on both sides of this debate and it may never be fully solved. But I still say that we can't be doing too badly when we have persons of color currently sitting in the White House, the Attorney General's office and other high positions of government.

And as for Prof. Gates. A lesson in how to respond when stopped by a police officer might be in order.