Barack Obama and Abu GhraibI have

I have a TEST of this "patritotissm" that Barck  Obama professes to have. (See today's speech, where the operative reaction perhaps should be:  "Me thinks he protests too much.")

This question cries to be asked of Barck Obama:  What do you thing of this Federal lawsuit trying to rehash Abu Ghraib four years later?  Do you think those former inmates should be allowed to sue?  Even if they are allowed to sue, do you think that should be allowed to be used as an excuse  to to rehash all of the allegations against the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib?  By the way, what do you think of the many investigations by Democrats in Congress as to alleged "tortuure" by the U.S. since 9/11?  Do you think that sort of thing really "brings us together"?

Don't hold your breath asto Obama being asked questions anything like that, much less:  "Do you belive that anti-American leftists are behind this lawsuti for POLITICAL purposes?"

See the previous entry, and earlier entires and comments today about the "patriotism" of the left and the mainstream media.

Abu Ghraib: Leftists Show True Colors Yet Again

Remember Abu Ghraib?  Donald Rumsfeld was "shocked" by the pictures.  Soldiers were prosecuted.  Yet, no one died, or apparently was physically injured.  The whole thing, disgraceful as it was, was OVERBLOWN by an American media that is ANTI-AMERICAN, and by leftist Democrats (includnig elected politicians) who carry their attacks on the Bush Administration well byond the pale--again to the point of being ANTI-AMIERCAN.   Yes, this same attiatude has carried over to Guantanamo, where one of the detainees (TERRORIST, especially in this case) has just been charged with the murderous al-Qaida attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

Okay.  Say you were an employee of the Associated Press, and AOL "News".  That means that you are either ANTI-AMERICAN, or willing to cater to anti-American leftists who regard the Bush Administration as a greater enemy than al-Qaida.  What yould be your reaction if 3 Abu Ghraib "detainees" were to sue U.S. DDEFENSE CONTRATORS, alleging torture at Abu Ghraib. Right.  You get the picture.

If you were with the despicable Associated Press, or AOL, this would be a perfect opportunity to REHASH the whole saga of Abu Ghraib--your GLORY days before Iraq started going WELL and Americans ceased to care very much (other than to hope we might acutally WIN, which true leftists like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest do NOT hope).

Yes, that is what has happened tonight.  The despicable AP is running a story about 3 Abu Ghraib former inmates suing U.S. defense contractors for alleged torture at Abu Ghraib (more about that later).  The AP/AOL story is accompanied by that picture of a woman soldier holding an Iraqi man on a lease, which has NOTHING to do with the lawsuit (but EVERYTHING to do with the anti-American agenda of the left and the AP, which also happens to be behind the lawsuit).  Here is the lead:

"Three Iraqis and a Jordanian filed federal lawsuits Monday alleging they were tortured by U.S. defense contractors while detained at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003 and 2004."

First, ask yourself:  Is this OLD NEWS?  Read the above paragraph.  Of course it is old "news" (perhaps so old as to bring the statute of limitations into play).  The above paragraph refers to 2003 and 2004.  This is UNIMMPORTANT STUFF.  It is only important to the despicable Associated Press, and the rest of the mainstream media, for the very reason that it gives them a chance to TRASH the U.S. military once again.  These are the same people (leftists) who say they "support the troops".  Like Hell they do!!!

Then ask yourself whether these three "former inmates" came up with this idea on their own.  Again, like Hell they did!!!  This is a ploy of the ANTI-AMIERCAN LEFT--international AND American left.  It is a direct attack on the United States of American, ounting on the support of the anti-American mainstream media.  As expected, they are already getting that support. 

Do I KNOW this.  Damn right I do.  Guess what?  My younger, feminist (sometimes leftist) daughter, Kyla, was a law student at the University of Virginia School of Law.  She graduated in May.

What was one of her papers in her last semester?  You probably have not guessed.  It was about theories upon which people allegedly tortured by American government employees could sue in Federal Court.  That is actually, for all intents and purposes, IMPOSSIBLE, and my daughter was unable to come up with a convincing reason why it was possible.

WHY is it impossible?  It is because of a little doctrine called sovereing immunity.  That doctrine prevents people suing the U.S. without permission.  The only "permission" is containted in a statute called the "Tort Claims Act", which does NOT give foreign prisoners the right to sue.  Nor can foreing nationals sue under OUR Constitution for violaton of the Constitutional rights they do not have.  But what about EMPLOYEES of the Federal Government--you know, the CIA agents and soldiers themselves?  Weel, they have immunity as well, and Federal court decisions indicate that people like these Abu Ghraib inmates cannot sue employees either for "torture". 

I asked my daughter WHY anyone would WANT to sue mere employees, who usually don't have assets worth getting, although I well knew the answer.  It is the modus operandi of the LEFT to attempt to USE the Federal Courts for their POLITICAL purposes.  The point here is NOT money (which civil lawsuits are supposed to be about).  The point here is to EMBARASS the U.S. in court--whether it means taking on patriots doing their best, soldiers who made mistakes, or anyone else.  

These, again  (the leftists doing everyinthing they can to rehash OLD grievances against the U.S., which were overblown to begin with)are people who want to be called "patriots".  I am sorry.  Hell will freeze over before I will call these people patriots.  I call them what they are:  anti-American leftists.

Now these leftists obviously could do no better than my daughter (maybe not even as well--she is pretty smart) in figuring out a way to sue the U.S. or U.S. soldiers or employees.  What to do; what to do.  Well, someone obviously came up with the bright idea that independent contractors do not have this immunity that the U.S. and its employees have.  Then they obviously sought out , and probably prepped, some Abu Ghraib inamates to make plausible enough allegations to try to take on the U.S. BY PROXY, in Federal Court--to advance the anti-American, leftist agenda in Federal Court, which is one of the things that leftists DO.

The question arises:  Do I PAY leftists to prove me RIGHT (see earlier entries and comments today on "patriotism")?  Nope.  I don't.  I could never make this stuff up.

Here is my post under the AOL story earlier today, which is somewhat repetitive of the above, but still accurately sets forth my sentiments:

Anyone who doubts that the despicable Associated Press (not to mention AOL) is DESPICABLE should consider this story.  Is this story really about the LAWSUIT (for example, how hard do you have to look to see who the LAWYERS are, and whether this lawsuit was really promoted by AMERICAN leftists, probably in combination with anti-American, international leftists)?

 

Nope.  For the truly despicable, anti-American Associated Press, and AOL, this story is about AMERICAN SOLDIERS abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, and about REHASHING that story again.

 

These leftists are people who want to be considered PATRIOTS.  I am sorry.  They are NOT.  See my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative".

 

Mitt Romney: Religious Bigots Surface

AOL is carrying a story from politico.com sort of touting Mitt Romney as McCain's VP choice.  There is no PURPOSE to the story, as it contaions nothing new--even the reference to unannamed "Republican insdiers" is not new.  You can be assured I have no access to "Republican insiders" (THANK GOD), but I said the same things in this blog months ago (same things as politico.com says about Romney as VP).  My prediction as to McCain's choice remains the same:  Governor Crist of Florida (NOT my preferred choice).  However, McCain does not have to choose before Obama, and he WILL NOT.  therefore, these REPETITIVE speculative guesses serve no function, at this point. 

However, there is one advantage to a story like this on Romney.  It smokes out the RELIGIOUS BIGOTS, and the LEFTISTS who are either religtious bigots, or are perfectly willing to cater to religious bigotry.  As the politico.com story says,  Romney has led a "queaky clean" life, which makes you wonder about people who attack his RELIGION.  However, the religious bigots surface every time there is a story on Roomney.  Here is an example from under the AOL story, along with my reply:

"REPUBLICANS NEED A BRAIN IN ROMNEY?HE IS A FOLLOWER OF A CULT RELIGION. DOES THAT MAKE ROMNEY A BRAIN?"

Now the above is RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY, pure and simple.  If you compare the Mormon Church (mainstream Mormon Church which abandoned polygamy in the 19th Century), with REVERND WRIGHT'S CULT variation on the Church of Christ, to which Obama belonged for 20 years, I dare you to conclude which church is more accurately described as a "cult".  Then compare the LIVES that Mormons seem to live, with the LIVES most "old line"  Christians seem to live, and you might ask whether the Mormon Church does not instill Christian VALUES better than most.  I say that as a person who is not religious at all.  But I hope McCain does pick Romney (my original choice for President), if only to expose leftists (and some others) for the RELIGIOUS BIGOTS they are.

Unpatriotic Leftists: Seymour Hersh and CNN (not to mention AOL)

Here is the "lead" from another one of those AOL featured stories (this one from CNN) enabling TREASON and endangering American soldiers/agents (not to mention Americans and pro-Americans of all types):

"The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday."

Leftist Democrats often have a conniption fit when they perceive their "patriotism" being questioned--a word only THEY attempt to use as an offensive weapon because the rest of us realize that the word has no objective meaning--especially after leftists are through "defining" it.

Well, let me be blunt here.  I don't "question" the patriotism of Seymour Hersh and CNN with regard to this story.  I KNOW they are unpatritic.  In fact, I have no doubt at all they they are, at least morally, TRAITORS.

Are not any 'spying"/comando activities in Iran CLASSIFIED?  Sure they are.  Is CNN saying we should NOT be "spying" on Iran?  What EXCUSE is there for ENDANGERING not only our commandos, but our sympathizers in Iran, with a story like this.  Will CNN and Hersh have BLOOD on their hands if Iran takes this seriously (as Iran has shown in the past it will take even FALSE allegations seriously enough to IMPRISON or KILL Americans/sympathizers in Iran.  They presumably will now work harder at KILLING our commandos.

Nope.  Seymour Hersh and CNN (not to mention AOL News) are UNPATRIOTIC.

Health Care Insanity

"The Bush administration said Monday it is freezing a scheduled 10 percent fee cut for doctors who treat Medicare patients, giving Congress time to act to prevent the cuts when lawmakers return from a July 4 recess.

Physicians have been running ads hinting that as a result of the cuts, patients may find doctors less willing to treat them."

Remember the defnition of one form of insanity that I have often quoted:  "Doing the same (destructive) thing over and over again with the expectation of a different result.

What is the lesson to be drawn from the above story (which is such a "hot" story that it was on the Saturday morning Doug Stephan, "Dr. Ken", program)?  Clue:  the correct lesson is NOT that MORE Federal involvement in health care is the "solution" to problems in our health care system.  That conclusion would be INSANE (read definition again).  Yet, it is the conclusion that leftists draw.

Of course, this is exacty what has happened in Canada and Great Britain.  People do not have care available to them that is available to people in this country BECAUSE they have national health insurance.  Long ago I cited the EXTENSIVE SWEDISH STUDY that the U.S. was among the BEST at getting life saving cancer drugs to patients, while Great Britain was among the WORST--again, BECAUSE of the National Health Service in Britain. 

Governor Arnold Scharzenegger, who is about the onlly person in America to the LEFT of Barack Obama (nope, McCain does not quite qualify), has been unbable to get DEMOCRATS in Calitornia to adopt his health care plan because it will BANRUPT the state (which does not stop Democrats from wainting to banrupt the Federl Government, since that money is "free").

To the sane, the lesson here is clear.  What we need is LESS Federal involvement in health care, and vitually everything else.   One of the few clear lessons of history is that central planning does NOT work.  COommunism failed for a reason.  Yet, we continue our insane (by definition), leeming like rush toward ever more CENTRALIZED "soltutions" to our problems.  We will deserve what we get (probably more than the clinically insane deserve what happens to them, although I am no fan of "insanity" as a total excuse for bad conduct). 

From Bill O'Reilly to John McCain (see previous entries), the insanity seems to be spreading.  Leftist Democrats like Barack Obama, of course, never were sane in their unending faith in MORE Federal Government, despite the lessons of failure after failure (inclluding Katrina).

The American Medical Association long ago BETRAYED physicians by endorsing the Federal Government "solution".  This is what they deserve, and what they get--noat that all doctors deserve it , but that the "establishment", AMA type deserve it, as do "establishment" REpublicans in general (like John McCain and Doug Stephan).

Sodom and Gomorrah Meet the Supercollider

Nope.   This is not a review of another one of those Hollywood movies full of (boring?) special effects.  The title is my way of highlighting the difference between the way the leftist media treats leftist kooks, and the way they threat fundamentalist preachers, and others on the right, who they really believe are kooks.   Here is the lead from the KOOKS at the despicable Associated Press (and AOL "News"):

"The most powerful atom-smasher ever built could make some bizarre discoveries, such as invisible matter or extra dimensions in space, after it is switched on in August.

But some critics fear the Large Hadron Collider could exceed physicists' wildest conjectures: Will it spawn a black hole that could swallow Earth?"

Here is the ridiculous headline from the KOOKS at the AP, and AOL "Nes" (to thesse KOOKS, this is the IMPORTANT part of the story):

"Critics Fear Collider Could Doom Earth"

Do you realize that if you are a RIGHTEST kook, there is no chance that you will be taken seriously.  You doubt me?  Ask yourself when is the last time that you saw this headline:  "Critics Say that Our Immorality Will Result in the Destruction of the Earth", followed by a respectful, neutral description of this view. 

Yet, as I have said in my AOL blot, "The Maverick Conservative", the Sodom and Gommorah concept is pretty attractive.  I often wish I believed in religion so that I could believe in that alone (not to mention Hell, without ACLU appeals to the Supreme Court (or will Hell for ME be full of the ACLU--a given--being treated BETTER than me?).

There is no more "scientific" evidence for the KOOK idea that an atom "smasher" willl destroy the Earth than there is for Sodom and Gomorrah.  Actually, there is considerably MORE evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah.

But the despciable Associated Press is composed of leftist KOOKS, and therefore leftist,  kook "critics" get a respectful hearing.

Obama's Supporters: Are They REALLY This Dumb?

I was so tickled by the following feftist comment under the AOL story about the attack on McCain's military record (see previous entry--watch the Obama media take off on this subject as a SERIOUS queston, as they already are by giving it this big a play, when they refused to take the "Swift Boat" attacks on Hohn Kerry seriously) tjat I just HAD to quote it in the blog, with my response:

mmmikepp 08:42:43 PM Jun 29 2008

Report This! "Mcain, Portman and all you FREE TRADE ADVOCATES are either traitors or IDIOTS"

Barack Obama says he believes in free trade.  In fact, he implied, in those infamous San Francisco remarkds, that people who don't believe in free trade are HICKS.

Now you may believe, and I may believe, that Obama is trying to DECEIVE (somebody--one way or the other).  However, that is what he SAYS.

Is Obama a "traitor" or an idiot?  I could be convinced as to both.

 

John McCain's MIlitary Record

Can Democrats successfully attack John McCain's military record, as Barack Obama's campaign continues to make a mociery of Obama's lofty rhetoric--showing contnually that there is NO substance behind Obama's rhetoric.  I don't think Democrats can succeed on that level, when Obama was not even in tthe military.  But here is the "I can't make this stuff up" lead paragraph as to the ATTTEMPT by Obama surrogate, and truly squishy soft, former gerneal Wesley Clak:

"Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle."

Clark's really despicable comment was that McCain was just a mere fighter pilot who managed to get shot down.  Clark, as far as I know, did not analyze Barack Obama's military record.  (sorry, there is somebody talking to me here, causing me to interrupt this entry.  I will put in quotes what I am saying to the OTHER person here:  "Huh.  You say that Obama has NO military record to criticize.  Isn't Clark treading on pretty dangerous ground then, if your are right?  Obama has alomst NO experience of ANY kind in either national, foreign or military affairs.  His experience BEFORE he started to campaign for President is just as an Illinois state legislator.  Uh-huh.  You say that is your point:  That Wesley Clark showed himself to be clueless when he ran for President as a Democrat, and is still showing himself as clueless as an advisor to Barack Obama?  Okay.  I can accept that.  But don't interrupt me anymore").

Still another example, I guess of Obama "bringing us together", I guess.  So much for Obama staying away from personal attacks.  Will Oama do what McCain has done with MORE JUSTIFIED attacks on Obama, and trash his ally (as McCain seems to ENJORY doing with conservatives--one of my many problems with him).?

Lest you misunderstand, I am NOT sure that Wesley Clark is really AGAINST McCain.   A man with a questionable military record, like Clark, can only HELP McCain with this kind of attempted smear.

Are leftists hypocrites of the intellectually dishonest kind?  Of course thery are.  Remember how unfair they thought it was to attack John Kerry's military record?  Sure you do, and to a degree it was, but there is no doubt that what they REALLY thought was unfair was that THEY were not doing it (as they did to President Bush's admittedly less impressive military record).

Absolute fact:  McCain's military record is better than that of Obama--as John Kerry's was better than that of President Bush, although Bush at least served in a BRANCH of the miilitary.

 

Illegal Immigraton: Obama and McCain

Part of the "news" the past few days has been this story over whether it is Obama or McCain wwho can DECEIVE the most of illegal immigration.  I think Obama is ahead, but it remains close.

They both made speeches befor an Hispanic organization this weekend.  As we all know, Obama is not really popular with HIspanics (Hillary Clinton won that class of voters).  Therefore, Obama decided to attack McCain to help himself with Hispanics (expecting his usual helpful press from the mainstream media pro-Obama PAC).   Therefore, Obama accused McCain of abandoning the "change"  (lol) of "comprehensive immigration reorm", because JcCain started talking about "securing the border firs" whem he was in trouble in the Republican nomination fight (without ever changing his assertion that the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was the correct policy).  By attacking McCain on this, Obama risked exposing that Obama is an "opern borders", leftist who does not want any real enforcement of immigration laws.  Indeed, McCain immediately attacked Obama for faovring "killer" LEFTIST amendments which made it more difficult for McCain to forge a "compromise", which were MORE LENIENT toward illegal immigrants than even McCain wanted to be (although you get the feeling McCain was willing to accept almost anything which would get the bill through, but these amamendments made it harder because they made it ven more obvious that the goal here was to REWARD illegal immgiration.   This "firght" over who wants to help ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS the most would be FUNNNY, if it were not such a sad commentary on the present state of our politics.  I will translate for you (azs the mainstream media will not).

Translation (needed because those who want NOT to enforce our immigration laws are all about DECEPTION--as I conclusively showed in more than FIFTY entries in this blog--see archives--under the general heading of "illegal immigration deception"): 

Obama is for the leftist Democrat policy of "open borders" (NO effective enforcement against illegal immigration, now or in the future) now embodied in the policies of "sancutary cities" like Los Angeles, San Francisco and New Haven (Yale).  Obama uses "comprehensive immigration reform as a DECEPTIVE term to conceal that his party has no intention of enforcing immigration laws (Obama eventualy revealed that he pretty much though the SAME as Hilltary Clinton ondriver's licenses--Clinton's confused answer on Governor Spitzer's proposal to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses probably costing her the nomination).  This is NOT "change".  It has been essentially President Bush's policy.

McCain faovrs amnesty too, and--unlike Obama--has been willing to "reach across the aisle" to get it.  He has merely changed EMPHASIS (more deception) in recogniton that the PUBLIC is AGAINST amnesty--at least until we PROVE that we can STOP all further illegal immigration (which we can't do if we encourage it with ANY kind of amnesty anytime in the near future).

In short, Obama is WORSE than McCain, but only slightly, as they BOTH try to DECEIVE.

The dirtly little secret t here is tha only CONSERVATIVES, an people who agree with conservatives (whether they realize it or not), are right on the issue of illegal immigration.  Too bad neither McCain nor Obama is a conservative.  I am perfectly aware that McCain is more conservative than Obama (who isn't?), but that does not  mean that a McCain Presidency will end up in Federal Government POLICIES that are any more conservative than under an Obama Presidency.  Remember how much McCain likes to "reach across the aisle"!!!

New York Times: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points

there was never any doubt this week, althogh Massachusetts Congressman William Delahunt gets an honorable mention (along the same lines) for suggesting (in one of that endless series of Democrat "investigative" hearings into the treatement of TERRORISTS--Barack Obama STILL not having been asked whether all of those Democrat investigations of matters often more than half a decade old "bring us together") that he hopes al-Qaida is paying attention to who is defending "torture" against them.  In other words, Delahunt seemed to INVITE al-Qaida to note who its enemies are in the Bush Admiistration, and perhaps do something about it.  Delahunt tried to suggest he said something other than what he said (which was basically that he was glad that "they"--al-Qaida--were probably paying attention on C-Span to this official's appearance before Delahunt), alleging that he said "I" instead of "they" (that reference to al-Qaida).  Unfortunately, what the Congressman said is on tape, and he said "they". I digress, as usual.

"The Finger" (my reincarnaton of the ond "Laugh In" award represented by a statuette of an INDEX finger) firmly pointed at the New York Times for its total, sanctimonious hypocrsiy, and intellectual dishonesty, in identifying a U.S. agent who interrogated the "blind sheik" (I think, although it could be some other terrorist).  The point is that the New York Times, for no apparent reason other than it COULD, gave the NAME of an U.S. agent who conducted interrogations--virtually putting a bulls eye on this agent if terrorists are looking around for targets.  You will remember that the New York Times is one of those truly hypocritical media organzations who made such a big deal of the NON-STORY of Valterie Plame, and her "outing" as a mere employee of the C.I.A. (NOT as a secret agent).  The incredible New York Times explanation (after participating in the Valerie Plame witch hunt for 5 years or so):  "We don't believe this person is an "uncercover agent", and therefore there is not reason not to publish his name (this from the kind of mainstream media people who refused to publish those Danish CARTOONS because it might make Islamic extremists mad, and "endanger" media employees).

I'm sorry.  This is EVIL stuff.  The name had no "news" significance.  As I said, the New York Times apparently published it because it could.  While William Delahunt could be regarded as having put abulls eye for al-Qaida on the chest of a Bush Admistration official, it is actually unlikely that Delahunt's gaffe was of much signficance.  It is NOT so unlikely that the New York Times has put one or more agents of the U.S. in actual DANGER.  We know, of course, that the New York Times was perfectly willing to compromise CLASSFIED activities against terrorists in the past, as with regard to the NSA surveillance program.  This story showed that the New York Times is not only willing to enable treason, but that it is willing to invade the privacy of our intelligence agents for NO PURPOSE. 

Yes, this award has tended to go to a media organization, when it is not going to Barack Obama.  The New York Times has again shown WHY.  Just when you think media people cannot get any WORSE, they top themselves.  Again, see the entry earlier this week.

The New York Times is beneath contempt for this one.  There has never been any doubt that they are on the side of the terrorists, and theere is none now.  But this targeting of an individual's privacy, for absolutely NO discernible reason, is way beyond the pale.

Award ceremony:

Again, as a visual aid (rather than an assertion as to how Dick Martin would regard this), you need to imagine Dick Martin presenting this award to the camera on "Laugh In" (no video or high tech graphics on this blog--I should draft my cartoonist (hobby) older daughter to do cartoons.  I have toyed with the idea of getting her to do cartoons of Muhammad.  I digress yet again.  If you have got your mind in the right imaginative state, here is the (virtual, without video or graphics) award presentation:

Visualize Dick Martin THRUSTING "the Finger" at the camera, and saying:  "New York Times, this is for YOU; you DESERVE it.  No wonder your revenue is down and you are laying off people.  You DESERVE not only "the Finger", but to disappear into the dustbin of history."

P.S  I add my view to that of the award presentation.  NO business should advertise in the New York Times.  NO ONE should read it (no, I did not; I saw this story discussed elsewhere by both left and right panelists).  Yes, the AP and AOL are just as bad (although I did not see this terrible "journalistic" sin repeated there), but I have to read SOMETING to know what the mainstream media is saying.  I have chosen AOL, and AOL relies lpretty much on the despicable AP (although sometimes using CNN, the New York Times, USA Today, etc.).  Further, as I have previously said, I regard myself as a MOLE within AOL, sacrificing myself to educate others.  I have promised to be the last person to leeave, and to turn out the lights when the party is over (reference is to Don Meredith singing on the old "Monday Night Football").

P.S. 2:  I am interested in whether anyone would really like to see cartoon illustrations from my daughter on this blog.  She may be too busy (as a Boston lawyer) to do it.  And there may not be enough readers to make it worth her time.  But I would still be interested in any comments on the subject--as to a regular cartoon feature on Muhammad, or just illustrations in the nature of caricatures.

Utah Listens to the Blog

You will remember this blog's conclusively logical suggestion that the Federal Government should set an EXAMPLE by cutting its own use of gasoline by 20% in 30 days--showing not only the way for others but showing that the Federal Government IS willing to "sacrifice" itself instead of imposing burdens on others (or at least that the Federal Government is willing to share the burdens). 

Now I was not interested, and you should not be, as to HOW the Federal Government does this.  The President should just issue an executvie order that ie be DONE--even if it takes bicycles or walking.

However, I did, in another entry, mention measures that my brother suggested.  One was a 4 day work week, which has the additional benefit of perhpaps saving gasoline on fewer COMMUTES.  Well, Utah has listened to my brother (okay, I am aware that they MAY not have known about this blog, although they SHOULD).

Utah has instituted a 4 day work week in government buildings to save energy.

As I said, when O'Reilly (not to mention politicians) indicate that nothing can be DONE, they are lying.  Any number of things can be done, BY GOVERNMENT, to limit demand and influence the psychology of markets in gasoline and oil.  Of course, one of those things that can be done is to make it CLEAR that we are going to allow DOMESTIC development of our oil reserves--including ANWR, offshore, and oil shale.

This leftist Democrat idea that nothing can be done is FALSE--not to mention stupid.

Global Warming Propaganda: It Never Ends

It is summer.  That means it is time for "global warmg" PROPAGANDA, including propanda about the sea ice allegedly melting over the North Pole by the end of summer (an insignificant event, IF it were to happen).  Note that we are not talking about even a FACT, but speculation by one of those environmental groups as to what MIGHT happen.  Note further the AOL/CNN (despicable as they always are, with CNN standing in this time for the equally despicable AP) FALSE statement of FACT (when it is no such thing) that any melting is the result of "global warming", when the story itself refers to "eather patterns" affecting the melting.  Here is the propaganda lead:

"The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado."

How can this non-important, speculative event be the result of "global warming"?

The Earth STOPPED warming (from wahtever causes) in 1998.  NASA robots have PROVEN that the OCEANS are NOT warming--at least over the past 5 years.  The Earth has COOLED over the past year or so, and German scientists have suggested that we are entering a phase of "global cooling" because of ocean currents that may last until 2015 (the scientists trying to suggest that COOLING will not affect the validity of global WARMING theory, which is ridiculous).

Since the Earth has NOT "warmed" over the past decade, what is causing arctic ice to melt?  Well, as NASA said last summer (one part of NASA), OCEAN currents (those same currents causing recent COOLING in the Atlantic and Pacifc) are a likely suspect.  There there is the deiscory of recent VOLCANIC activiy under the North Pole.  What we KNOW is that recent melting CANNOT be caused by globlal WARMING, because the Earth has NOT been "warming".

Yep.  This is PROPAGANDA, pure and simple.  It is so obviously propaganda that any "journalist" should be ashamed of spreading it.  But CNNN and AOL have no shame, and there are no real journalists there anyway.

Bill O'Reilly: Reality Check

I have often been critical of Bill O'Reilly in this blog, as well as complimentary of him for his criticixm of other media people (criticism that he seems unable to aplly to himself).  O'Reilly tends to go on emotion instead of facts, while falsely claiming "no spin".  I have correctly labeled him a kook (media type) for his presentation of "body language" and handwrinting analysis as something worthy of national presentation as useful types of inquiry.  O'Reilly has little intellectual depth, and often seems to shift with the wind as to what he "thinks", and what he regards as important.  He likes villains (e.g. NBC News and the oil companies), and heroes, even if he has to exaggerate both.  He seems to like ratings more than anything, and I think there is a legitimate question as to whether he is anything more than an entertainer.  Rush Limbaugh, who admits to being an entertainer, although one with a serious intellectual message, has much more intellectual rigor and consistency to what he says.

Yes, Bill O'Reilly can be fun to watch, atlhough his act has grown somewhat tiresome for me.  The question arises:  Is O'Reilly a PHONY?  He constantly claims to be looking out for the "folks", and yet that seems to be just his "shtick", rather than a real connection with the "folks".  In other words, I distrust someone who says "folks", and continually seems to say and do (body language) things because he thnks they will be popular with the audience.  It is often hard to figure out where O'Reilly really stands on "issues", because he shifts around so much, and so easily.  Where does O'Reilly REALLY stand on illegal immigration, once you get beyond his (self-serving?) crusade against CRIMINAL illegal aliens?  You are delluded if you think you know.

Then there are those internet tapes of O'Reilly still floating around (admittedly OLD).  There is the video of his Jekyl and Hyde transformation as he curses like a drunken sailor off air, only to look calm and composed the moment the camera is back on him.  There are the "sex" audiotapes of what he said to that woman he was accuaed of sexually harassing (that is, I think it is that woman).  Now I have said before that hypocrisy is a vastly overrated sin, and a lot of this may mean nothing more than O'Reilly is a complex man unbable to always hold to his own principles (like ALL of us).  But O'Reilly has begun toannoy me with his cable TV willingness to say outrageous, and outrageously false, things.

Last night is a case in point (I bet you thought I would never get to the point).  O'Reilly said that Big Oil companies have the largest profits in the history of man.  In any real sense, that is a LIE.  GOOGLE is a MUCH more profitable company.  I have (correctly, unlike O'Reilly's demagoguery) discussed this in this blog.  If 100 oil companies have total profits of 100 billion dollars, that is NO different from 10 oil companies with total profits of 100 billion dollears, where those ten companies are ten times as large.  It merely means that Big Oil companies have become extremely LARGE, without being as profitable as many other, samaller companies.  I have told you that this has occurred by MERGERS we should never have allowed, and that the companies should not have been allowed to get that large BY MERGER, but that is not O'Reilly's point.  He wants to focus on oil company PROFITS, and that is exactly the WRONG place to look.  As I have said, O'Reilly shares a quality with most oil comany executives (at least as to how these executives operate in their own industry):  O'Reilly does NOT believe in free markets.  He is hardly alone there, but he is willing to engage in outrageous FALSEHOODS to try to make his "pont".  This assertion that oil companies are more profitable now than any comnay in the history of man is one of those outrageous falsehoods.

Then O'Reilly talked about how much money oil company executives are making--something which is really only the business of their SHAREHOLDERS (albeit the SEC perhaps should make it a little easier for SHAREHOLDERS to challenge that sort of thing).  You (or O'Reilly) doubt me on this (O'Reilly really is a fool if he doubts me!!!!)? 

Consider Alex Rodriguez, or Tiger Woods, or  Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie or (pick your own rock star, movie actor, sprorts star, etc.).  Some make much MORE than oil company executives (when all sources of income are included).  Some make somewhat less.  But they ALL make a LOT of money.  RUSH LIMBAUGH makes amounts not too far from that of Big Oil CEO's (maybe even in their range.  O'Reilly may not understand this, but it is really none of our business.  It is only the business of the people PAYING those amounts.  Further, executives in many other public companies, including executives who gravely HURT their companies (Albertson's and Home Depot come to mind here--my pharmacist brother can hardly contain his anger over the Albertson's CEO who virtually RUINED the company, and walked away with uncountable MILLIONS--but there are MANY others).   Oil companies have at leas done WELL recently (which O'Reilly does not like either).

Bill Gates accumulated a fortune of 50 BILLION dollars or more because of Microsoft--more than ANY oil company executive.  No, Bill Gates did NOT make the money in SALARY, but it would have perhaps been more honest if he did.  It is a GIMMICK of tech companies generally, and many other companies, for their executives to make most of their money in stock and stock options.  Nope.  I don't think there is any basis for complaint by the general public that some people earn too much, although SHAREHOLDERS may well have a basis for complaint.  Or people might want to refuse to pay the ticket and/or concession prices at Yankee games made necessary by the salary of Alex Rodriguez (and others).  In a free enterprise system, some people are going to make a LOT of money.  So what?  We should be concerned at making sure that our "free markets" are truely "free", and that people who are impacted--like shareholders and prospective shareholders--have transparent information.

O'Reilly is not interested in the real issues involved here. He (like leftist Democrats) is merely interested in VILLAINS (which oil compnay executives generally ARE, but NOT for the reasons O'Reilly is hyping--at least not for many of those reasons).

Then O'Reilly (last night again) went totally into the mainstream media/leftist Democrat tank (in this phony? effort to connect with the 'folks").  He said that (paraphrasing, but accurately):  "I don't care what anyone says. We are in a recession."

Will, I don't care what anyone (leftist Democrats and the mainstream media, plus O'Reilly) says:  We are NOT in a recession.  Yesterday's economic figures AGAIN emphapsized that out economy has not even had ONE down QUARTER.  By DEFINITION, a recession requires TWO down quarters.  Thus, even if the June quarter is a down quarter (unlikely, although possible), we are STILL not yet in a recession.  What function does it serve to assert otherwise?  Is it not PHONY?  I say it is.  It means that you want to bea demagogue, rather than discuss the real facts.  Sure, you can say (as I have) that it does not make much difference whether the economy grows .5% (it actually grew 1% last quarter), or contracts .5%.  Either way, the economy is neither doing very good nor especially bad (in comparison, for example, with the CLINTON recession as President Bush came into office). 

O'Reilly has a segment on his Fox show called "Reality Check".  He needs to evaluate himself under the standards of that segment. 

Baci to the question:  Is O'Reilly a PHONY?  Well, that may be irrelevant.  To one extent or another, we all are.  I can't get into O'Reilly's head.  I am sure he convinces himself of a lot of what he says (as truely taltented con men and unbelieving evangelists often do).  Nevertheless, my own answer  to the question is "yes".

More importantly, I really don't see much reason to watch O'Reilly anymore.  The annoyance factor is beginning to overcome the entertainment factor (plus the fact that O'Reilly has been a source of a lot of entries for this blog, as he WILL highlight stories that the rest of the media will not--I may continue my present policy of surfing the beginning of O'Reilly to see what he is covering without watching much of his program).

P.S.  Did I mention that Bill and Hillary Clinton made 109 MILLION dollars over the past few years, as shown by their tax returns?  Well, O'Reilly forgot to mention it as well.  Nope.  It is pure and simple demonizing to post salaries of oil company executives as "evidence" of their evil.  Barack Obama and his wife, of course, are also "rich", although not in this league (WAY "richer" than ME, however).   And McCain has his wife.  It is absolutely amazing how many RICH Democrats ("rich" by their OWN defintion) demonize "the rich", as if not talking about themselves.

Obama and Democrats: Sanctimnious Hypocrites

I have accused Barack Obama, correctly, of being a sanctimonious hypocrtie for his meaningless statement that he disagreed with the Supreme Court "dictatorship of the judiciary" opinion that Louisiana could not execute child rapists.  In fact, Obama is the sam hypocrite on the death penalty itself, and on the Second Amendment (where he has said both that he believes in the Second Amendment AND that he supported the BAN on handguns in Washington, D.C.).  That is because Obama well knows that the JUDGES he appoints will be leftists voting to impose a dictatorship of the judiciary, just like the present, recognized leftist justices on the Supreme Court--at which point Obama will throw up his hands and say the Supreme Court has spoken.  If you don't believe that, ask yourself what Obama has said he would DO about that child rapist decision with which he has said he disagrees?

Let us go to OIL, however, for more examples of rank hypocrisy by Obama.  What did he say TODAY on oil?  He said that his GOAL is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 2030--to have us importing only 35% of our oil from foreign sources then rather than the present 65%.

That is TWENTY TWO YEARS FROM NOW.  I could never make this stuff up.  If you can't see the total, sanctimonious hypocrisy here, you are not listening.

Obama, and Democrats, OPPOSE more domestic drilling for oil (that is, they oppose letting PRIVATE companies do that, at no cost to taxpayers) in ANWR, offshore, and in addition to opposing the development of oil shale resources.  What do they say when it is suggested that is INSANE, when gasoline and oil prices are destroying our economy?  Come on.  You know what they say.

They say that more drilling, and development of oil resources, will not reduce the price of gasoline NOW, but will take 5, 7, or l0 years to have any impact.  Do you SEE the rank hypocrisy yet?  Obama is talking about 2030--TWENTY TWO YEARS from now.  There is no question at all that domestic drilling and exploration NOW will mean a LOT 22 years from now. 

Can you get any more stupid.  It does not even make any sense.  Leftist Democrats don't WANT the prcie of gasoline to go down, and do not WANT us to produce more domestic oil.  It is almost a religion with them, and they are willing to practice any deception, no matter how obvious, to avoid confronting their own insanity.  HOW do we even reduce our dependence on foreing oil to 35% by 2030 without developing more domoestic resources?  Even if we could, is it not obvious that we could then reduce our dependence even more with successful domestic development of ouor oil resources (in combination with whatever reasonable "alternative" energy policies we adopt)?

The Democrat position on oil is not even rational.  This was exposed today by Barack Obama, as he talks about 2030.   See my own previous entries about how we CAN DO something about gasoline prices NOW if we combine a change of market psychology (by making it clear that we ARE going to aggressively develop our oil resources, nuclear power, etc.) with an IMMEDIATE 20% cut in the use of oil lby the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (with challegnes to industry to match it).  CAN the Federal Government cut its use of gasoline by 20% within a month or two?  Yes, it CAN.  Many families have.  It just takes the WILL for the Federal Government to sacrifice like the rest of us.

Regardless of whether you like my solutions to gasoline prices, however, the total hypocrisy of Obama and the Democrats is obvious.  This, alone, should disqualify them for public office.   (I know, McCain is only slightly better, but that is the cross we conservatives now have to bear.)

Supreme Court: Dictatorship of the Judiciwary?

 

Recent Supreme Court decisions show that the Supreme Court is ONE VOTE away from being totally out of control.  We are ONE VOTE away from abolishing the death penalty (99% probability, if a Democrat President gets to replace any of the four "conservatives" now on the Court, or Justice Kennedy)--despite the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Obama's meaningless statement that he "did not agree" with the decision prohibiting the death penalty for child rapists (see my blog entries yesterday and today). 

 

We are ONE VOTE away from eliminating the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

 

In fact, we are ONE VOTE away from what amounts to a DICTATORSHIP of the judiciary, imposing the policy preferences of far left justices on the rest of us.

 

Obama, if elected, will provide that vote by appointing justices just like those 4 now willing to abolish the death penalty and the Second Amendemnt (replacing the elderly leftists who retire with the same type, and replacing any conservatives with the same type of leftisst).   Yesterday's Supreme Court decision in favor of child rapists (Kennedy joined the leftists) shows where we are headed.

P.S.  You might wonder whether replacing a presently leftist justice with a conservative will lead to the imposition of conservative policy preferences on the country--making it solely a matter of POWER, with no principle involved either way.  If you wonder that, you do not understand what is going on here.  Say Roe v. Wade were reversed, and states allowed to pass laws against abortion on demand in all stages of pregnancy.  Does this IMPOSE the policy preferences of conservatives?  Of course not.  It merely reinstates the issue to the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, where it should have been all along.  As I have repeatedly said, leftist Democrats do NOT believe in democracy.  Leftist Democrats similarly want to SUBVERT DEMOCRACY, and impose a dictatorship of the judiciary, on any number of issues--includnig abolishing the death penalty, imposing gay marriage (as they have done in California and Massachusetts), making it impossible to deport illegal imigrants or to deny them government benefits, forcing us to give "rights" even to FOREIGN terrorists (earlier Supreme Court decision this month), and a host of other things.

 

Did not the Second Amendment decision"imose" conservative policy preferences to overturn a democratically passed law?  Nope.  THIS particular "policy preference" was SPECIFICALLY set forth in the Constitution.  We, as a country, adpoted it when the Constitutioin was enacted, and the Second Amendment ratified.  That is NOT true of the leftist attempts to impose their policy preferences on the country--policy preferences often contrary to the policies in effect when the Constitution (or Amendments) were adopted, and which no one at the time imagined would have the effect the wannbe DICTATORS of the left now want to twist them into meaning.    Even on the Second Amendment, it is still the LEFT tlrying to impose their views--this time on the CONSTITUTION--different from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment itself.  Even if you wanted to abandon the concept of the Supreme Court determining the meaning of the palin language of the Constitution (as distinct from using vague language to impose a dictatorship of the judiciary, this would leave conservatives solidly on the side of democracy.  All you have to do is consider things like school prayer, and posting the Ten Commandments in public places, to realize just how far leftists have taken decisions away from the people.  Nope.  The ONLYL danger here is of a LEFTIST dictatorship of the judiciary.  There is NO danger (now, as distinguished from 1900-1935) of a conservative dictatorship of the judiciary.  Even NINE conservative justices would do nothing but return/leave issue like abortion and homosexual marriage to the PEOPLE--whre such issues belong.

Economy: Better, but Not to the Despicable AP

Here is today's AP headline as to the GOOD economic news today (a RAISE in the GROWTH experienced in the first quarter GDP from the previous government estimate--itelf a modest rise from the previous quarter):

US economy logs better growth, but still subpar

Notice the absolute inability of the truly despicable Associated Press, and AOL, to give "news" STRAIGHT.  The headline is not ALLOWED (I am sure there is a memo somewhere, as there is a memo on not using the term "Islamic extremists" or "Muslim terrorists") to merely say that the economy GREW faster in the first quarter than originally estimated.  The headline MUST contain "..but still subpar", and th estory MUST talk about how "fragile" the economy is.

My brother is co-owner of a trucking compnay, and he confirms what is likely true:  We are ON TRACK for continued, and better, GROWTH in the second half of this year.  He can tell by freight levels.

What can DERAIL this "recovery" (we have not gone into recession in the first place)?  PANIC by Congress!!!!  Foreclosure bail out measures, etc. can HURT the eoncomy (as well as the deficit), while SANE actions--such as merely ALLOWING more drilling for oil oofshore and in a SMALL part of the icy wilderness of ANWR--are bypasssed in favor of MORE SPENDING.

P.S.   A much fairer headline would have been "No Recession, Despite Democrat Assertions", but I don't live in a fantasy world.  That is NOT a headline you are going to get from the despicable AP, or the rest of the mainstream media.  Nevertheless, it is absolutely ture:  All of these assertions that we are in a "recession" have been PROVE to be false--more DELIBERATELY false than anything President Bush ever said about "weapons of mass destruction".

Guns and Obama

The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amerdment was meant to guarantee Americans the "right to bear arms", as it certainly was--against the FEDERAL government.

Remember, as I have noted before, the Bill of Rights originally did NOT apply to the states, but ONLYL to the Federal Government, making a mockery and a LIE of the ACLU assertion that the Founders intended to make this country totally a SECULAR county--totally separating church and state.  Even disregarding that the language of the Frist Amendment says nothing about "separation" of church and state, the First Amendment was not in the original Constitution for the very reason that the Second Amendment was not:  the FEDERAL government was supposed to be a government of limited powers--SP{ECIFICALLY granted.  It was not supposed to have any powers not granted--INCLUDING the power to interfere with religion and the power to interfere with gun ownership.  However, many people (NEVER in the history of man has any group of people been more right) feared that the Federal Government would get out of countrol and assume unlimited powers.  Thus, they insisted on a Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY limiting the power of the FEDERAL govenment.  States were still free (if their own Constitution allowed) to not only have prayer in the schools, but to have a STATE RELIGION if a state so chose.  ACLU assertions to the contrary are a LIE.

Thus, the Federal government should not have the power to interfere with the "right to bear arms", even without the Second Amendment.  But, as those prescient people originally feared, the Federal Government has become a government of unlimited powers, by expansion of such things as the power to regulate "interstate" commerce and the power to BLACKMAIL (spending, and threat of spending cutfoff).

It was not until the FDR, more liberal, U.S. Supreme Court started applying the Bill of Rights to the stattes THROUGH THE 14th AMENDMENT, in the 1930's, did it even become an issue as to the meaning of the Bill of Rights with regard to the states.  Once the Supreme Court started doing that, there was NEVER any excuse not to find a "right to bear arms" for all citizens.  After all, the FIRST AMENDMENT says, in relevant part, "CONGRESS shall make no law...."  By its terms, it says nothing about state legislatures.

Yet, the decision was only 5 to 4, indicating that lefitsts are THAT close to eliminating the "right to bear arms"--the conservative bloc, plus Kennedy, prevailing here where they could not prevail on the death penalty for child rapists and the supposed "rights" of foreign terrorists (see yesterday's entries).

What if Obama becomes President, and is able to appoint a replacement for ANY of the conservative bloc (plus, of course, the ridiculosly OLD Justice Stevens--who makes McCain look like a KID--and others in the present leftist bloc)?  In that case, there is just no doubt that the "right to bear arms" is GONE--as lefitst POLICY is imposed upon us all by the JUDICIARY (even if they can't get what they want from Congress).

The NRA should worry a LOT (I am sure they do) about Obama  ANYONE who respects the Cnostitution, and does not want rule by the judiciary, should worry a LOT about Obama.  There is simply no doubt about the judges he will appoint.  From the death penalty to homosexual marriage to "global warming", an Obama Presidency may well mean LEFTIST RULE by the judiciary.  We are close as it is.

Will McCain be better?  There is a CHANCE, while there is no chance with Obama.  So I sympathize with those conservatives who are holding their nose and voting for McCain.  I just can't do it.  Even now, Stevens and Souter (two of the MOST left of the justices of the Supreme Court) were appointed by Republicans.  Kennedy, appointed by REAGAN, has turned further and further left (although he profvided the fifth vote here).  A Republican President does NOT mean good appointments, although President Bush came through with his two appointments (after the doubtful Harriet Myers was shot down by conservatives joining leftists who did not see a good ting when they had it).

MAYBE McCain will choose a Vice President that will allow me to support him.  I doubt it (I think it will be Crist of Florida, and worry about who it will be if it is NOT Crist).  The thought of voting for McCain makes me ILL.  However, I still fully recognize what an Obama Presidency will mean (meaning that I can't vote for him either).

Child Rapists and Obama: Political Deception

See my entry earlier today on the Supreme Court decision holding that imposing the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional (subverting the demoratic will of the people of Louisiana, and other states).  Obama weighed in with a totally deceptive "opinion" on the Supreme Court opinion (deceptive whether he means it or not), as follows:

"Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment."
This is the height of dishonest, sanctimonious hypocrisy (something in which leftist politicians, and leftists in general, excel--see previous entry today on the New York Times).

Obama well KNOWS that judges he appoints to the Supreme Court will declare the entire death penalty unconstitutional for ALL crimes (in all likelihood).  It is the LEFTIST bloc on the Supreme Court (with the addition of Antony Kennedy) which is responsible for this decision, AND for the recent incredible decision that FOREIGN terorirsts picked up on FOREIGN battle fields have a right to Constitutional rights of the same type as American citiziens.  The only two judicial appointees of Bill Clinton were in the leftist bloc responsible for both 5 to 4 decisions.  It is true that 3 Republican appointees (two neverless of the FAR LEFT--Souter and Stevens) joned them, but the four "conservative" dissenters were ALL Republican appointees OPPOSED by leftists like Obama--and by the type of people that Obama is surely going to appoint as justices.

Does Obama support a Constitutional Amendment to REVERSE this decision?  Does he PROMISE that no justice appointed by him will vote to eliminate the death penalty, or to support this decision?  Of course not.  As I said, he is a sanctimonious hypocrite in essence CONCEALING from the American people what his (future, if he wins the Presidency) judicial appointees will do.

This is POLITICAL  DECEPTION--Obama giving a personal opinion he KNOWS is totally meaningless in the hope of deceiving voters as to the type of judges he will appoint.

Here is a comment from AOL, and my response, to further claify this point:

"We invest millions of dollars, thousands of people, and hundreds of organizations to protect children across the world....yet we can't even protect the children in our own country. This is not about democrat or republican, race, gender, etc. It is about our children and everyone should come together to protect them. Whether conservative or liberal, our court system failed our children today."

I don't disagree with the above.  I especially agee that the PEOPLE, in a democracy, should be making these decisions (which may be VITAL to protect our children)--not LEFTIST judges imposing their POLICY preferences on the country.  What the above ignores is that the LEFTIST bloc on the Suprme Court (plus Kennedy) was responsbile for this decision, while the CONSERVATIVE bloc on the Court opposed it.  Thus, you live in a FANTASY world if you believe there is not an ideological component to this--where Obama is on the WRONG side as to what kind of judges to apporint.

Child Rapists and the Supreme Court

:eftists (ACLU) type have distinguished themselves lately by standing tall for the "rights" of terrorists and child rapists.  The same 5-4 leftist (Kennedy "swing" vote) Supreme Court majority that found that foreign teoorists picked up on a FOREIGN battlefield have Constitutional rights like a citizen (surely news to FDR, who put Japanese AMERICANS in detention camps, much less Nazi and Japanese ENEMIES) has now found  that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a state (Louisiana) to execute a child rapist, under any circumstances short of murder.  This, of course, is despite the fact that the PEOPLE of Louisiana have chosen, through the democratic process, to execute child rapists under sufficiently aggravated circumstances.

The issue here, of course, is NOT whether child rapists should be executed or not (even when they "kill" the realistic future life of the child).  The issue is WHO should make that decision.

As I have said repeatedly (and accurately), lefitsts (including leftist judges) do NOT believe in democracy.  They believe in IMPOSING their ideas of correct policy on the rest of us, by any means they can.

This is still another decision imposing DICTATORIAL fiat of FIVE judges on the country,  with no justification in the Constittution.

By the way, the prvious decision on TERRORISTS also overturned lthe democratic process by declaring an Act of Congress unconstitutional (in part).

P.S.  Aside from national security (no small thing), this is the ONLY reason to vote for John McCain.  That is not because you can count on McCain to nominate federal judges who will stop this insanity--stop imposing a DICTATORSHIP OF THE JUDICIARY--but because you can be 100% certain that Barack Obama will put jusices on the Suprme Court who WILL impose their leftist views on the rest of us.  In short, you CAN'T trust McCain to do what he says he will do.  But you CAN trust Barack Obama to do wthat leftists do.  So McCain MIGHT appoint better judges who respect democracy, as leftists do not (a Democratic President will PROBABLY mean the end of the death penalty altogether, by the time judges he appoints get to decide the "issue").

New York Times: Sanctimonious Hypocrites, Intellectual Dishonesty and Treason

Those of you who read this blog may wonder if I PAY the mainstream media to prive me right, or make this stuff up.  But the fact is that I could never even imagine all of the things the mainstream media does, much less make this stuff up or pay for it.

If you read this blog, of course, you know what to expect (even if even I could not imagine how obvious the mainstream media could be in proving it).  Remember Valerie Plame?  Remember the OUTRAGE of the New York Times (and the truly DESPICABLE Associated Press--an organization whose employees should ALL be ASHAMED to work for) about the "outing" of a CIA agent--supposedly putting a CIA agent in DANGER (even though Valerie Plame was an OFFICE employee at the time).?

Let me remind you.  Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was "ssent" to Niger by the CIA (at the SUGGESTION of his wife, who was a CIA employee) to soupposedly "investigate" whether Iraq was seeking weapons grade uranium in Africa.  Wilson was not asked to sign any confidentiality agreement, and really gave no report (none was ever sent to the White House, where they knew nothing about it).  Wilson essentially did nothing, and his alleged "findings" (that Iraq was not seeking nuclear materials were communicated to no one important.  Wilson, although a former ambassador, had NO intelligence qualifications (other than the employment of his wife, who had previously done a few "secret" things as an agent for the CIA).

At the time of the Iraq War, Wilson suddenly surfaced as an opponent of the Iraq War.  He is a leftist Democrat, and former ambassadors are a dime a dozen.  WHY would Wilson have any credibility as an "expert" on Iraq?  You guessed it.  Wilson LIED.  He said he was sent, BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION,  as an "expert", to find out what Iraq was doing in Africa.  He said (a flat out lie) that he reported to the Bush Adminstration that Iraq was no threat, but was ignored.  Wilson (and hs wife) promptly became leftist celebrities.  As the Washington Post later noted, in calling this a false "scandal", Joe Wilson himself was responsible for the "outing" of his wife as a CIA agent, when he started talking about his CIA "mission" (which a real CIA agent could never do), because that inevitably focused attention on Valerie Plame (whose employment was the REASON for this strange "mission" of Wilson to Africa for the CIA). 

A LOT of "journalists" (there are NO real journalists anymore, and therefore I always put the word in quotes) wondered WHY the Bush Amdinistration had sent a CLINTON former ambassador to Africa on a CIA "mission"   Well, a media FAVORITE was willing to talk about it.  That was Richard Armitage, who was one of those relatively liberal State Department employees under Secretary of State Powell (who, you remember, made the case for invading Iraq before the U.N.).  Armitage talked to Bob Woodward.  He also talked to Robert Novak.  He did NOT "identify" Valerie Plame as a cover CIA agent.  In vact, his comments on Valerie Plame had NOTHING to do with HER activities with the CIA, or with "punishing" her for her husband's anti-war acitivites (as he USED this to become a leftist hero and MAKE MONEY--something Valerie Plame herself soon did).   Armitage merely commented that Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA seemed to be why her husband was sent to Africa.

Robert Novak went about trying to confirm the Armitage identification of Wilson's wife as a CIA employee--thous raising the question as to whether his wife really was responsible for Wilson being sent to Africa.  He called Karl Rove, amond others.  Rove merely confirmed that he had "heard" the same thing--hardly the same thing as Rove being responsible for "outing" Valerie Plame (although the DESPICALBLE Associated Press was stating as a FACT the LIE that "Armitage and Rove" "outed" her in the last few months.  Have I mentioned that you are working for an EVIL organization if you work for the depsicable AP).  Novak decided that the Armitage information had been sufficiently confirmed, and cited an "anonymous source" in his column that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (thus possibly explaining why Wilson was "sent" to Africa). 

As I said thoroughout that manufactured "scandal", the media usually has no problem with "anonymous sources", even if those sources are committing TREASON.  For example, the New York Times and Washington Post ENABLED persons to commit TREASON (committing moral treason themselves) by revealing the secret NSA activities against terrorists (including the warrantless surveillance AND the tracing of money).  They further ENDANGERED CIA and American lives by "revelations" about the CLASSIFIED CIA "secret prison" program for holding terrorists.  This was all from anonymous sources, and the entiremedia showed no interest in those sourcs.

However, AS I SAID AT THE TIME AND THROUGHOUT THE DESPICABLE PLAME "SCANDAL", the media was willing to forget all about the "sacredness" of anonymous sources with regard to Robert Novak and other "journalists" involved in the Valerie Plame non-story, because they saw a chance to "GET" KARL ROVE.  They ultimately failed, but they tried for some FOUR YEARS.  As I again said at the time, the whole non-story was only made possible by the indefensible media use of "anonymous sources".  That is the same indefesnible "policy" that allows TRAITORS to use the "news" media to advance TREASON by protecting the sources committing the TREASON. 

IF Richard Armitage had come forward immediately, there would have been NO story (as there pretty much was not when his name was finally revealed).  He was NOT Karl Rove.  the whole Valerie Plame "scandal" was designed to "get" Karl Rove--using the "anonymous source" absurdity as a WEAPON to spread rumor and innuendo.  IF Rober Novak had revealed his source initially (IF that was not a "journalistic" crime), there would have been NO story--at least no story that lasted beyond a day.  BECAUSE of the ricidulous, EVIL, use of "anonymous sources" by "journalists", we ended up with a YEARS long "investigation" by a special prosecutor which resulted in NO charges from revealing Valerie Plame's "identity" as a CIA employee.  Sccoter Libby was NOT charged with revealing her name, but with a "crime" created by the investigation itself (AFTER Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, already KNEW that Armitage was the source of the "leak", and that no crime had been committed).

Novak had NOT revealed Valerie Plame as a COVERT CIA employee.  He had merely revealed her as an employee of the CIA.   Later, it was alleged that she was really classified as a "covert" employee, even though she was then working in the U.S. at the C.I.A. main offices.  SO WHAT (if this doubtful classification were accepted).  She was NOT refvealed as a "covert" agent.  That was not the purpose, or effect, of Novak's column, or of Armitage's oringinal "revelations". 

All of that is merely the PROLOUGE to the incredible, sanctimonious hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty, of the New York Times, the despicable AP, and all of the rest.  As I said throughout the Valerie Plame matter, these are NOT "journalists".  These are PORPAGANDISTS who could not care less about national security, revealing the names of CIA agents, or finding out who is revealing secrets to the "news" media.

THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS NOW, FOR NO REASON, REVEALED THE NAME OF THE CIA AGENT WHO INTERROGATED ONE OF THE TERRORISTS IN OUR CUSTODY (I think the famous "blind sheik").  Does lthis not ENDANGER this man's life much more than any possible danger (of which there was NONE) in revealing Valerie Plame to be a CIA agent?  Does this not endanger OTHER CIA agents engaged in sensitive matters more than the "revelation" of Valerie Plame as a mer CIA employee?  Of course it does.  Does the New York Times CARE (it was asked not to reveal this name, as it has been asked not to reveal other secret information it has revealed)?  Of course not.  It does not MATTER to the New York Times that there was NO reason to reveal the man's name (as distinguished from the case of Valerie Plame, where identifying her as Joe Wilson's wife employee of the C.I.A. was extremely relevant to his LIES). 

What does the New York Times say to this?  I really can't make this stuff up.  The New York Times "explained" that the man was not an "undercover" agent, and therefore it did not wrong, or violate the law, to reveal his name (not that the "law" applies to the media in the first place, as they assert the RIGHT to enable treason). 

You may rightly look at that and marvel.  We went through all of those YEARS of MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE over Valerie Plame, when all that needed to be said in the first place was that the people who revealed her name did not believe her to be an "undercover" agent.  Can you get any more intellectually dishonest than this, and than "news" organizations like the AP who refuse to note the sanctimonious hypocrisy involved here?  Of course you can't. 

Again, this is the very thing I said in my MULTIPLE entries over the YEARS on the stupid Valerie Plame "scandal".  It was NEVEr a story, and the media NEVER really cared that the name of a C.I.A. agent had been revealed.  It was ALWAYS all about Karl Rove and President Bush (not to mention the Iraq War).

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.  These people (New York Times, Assoiciated Press, and the rest of the mainstream media) EXPOSE themselves without clothes every day, and I expose them virtually every day.  They should be ashamed, exceptthat they have no shame.

Is it possible for the New York Times to FAIL to win the "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" for this week?  Well, leftists and the mainstream media are so bad that it is POSSIBLE.  All I can say is that "the Finger" has, for now, stopped spinning, and is pointing firmly at the New York Times.

"The Incredible Hulk" (2008)

Movie rating:  64 (on scale of 0 to 100)

I liked this movie VERY slightly more than "Iraon Man" (rating 63), even though the movie has enormous flaws.  At the family reunion, only my older daughter agreed with me on that (because she HATED "Iron Man", as most of the family (who had seen "Iron Man") liked "Iron Man" better.  The raters on Internet Movie Data Base also disagree--rating "Iron Man" 8.2 (out of 10) and "The Incredible Hulk" 7.8.  Both are incredible OVERRATINGS.  "The Bridge on teh River Kwai" (one of the best movies ever made, and easily a raing of 100 on my scale), for example, receives an average rating of 8.4 on IMB.  Alred Hitchcock's "Spellbound", which I rate at 100 (see review of "Iron Man" for explanation of rating scale), receives a rating on IMB of only 7.7.   Neither "Iron Man" nor "The Incredible Hulk" is in the same league as "Spellbound".  I notice that new movies receive an inflated rating on IMB--perhaps a natural thing, but making IMB ratings ridiculously inconsistent.  You will note that my ratings tend to go the opposite direction (correctly).  I tend to rate older movies much HIGHER than modern movies, because they were BETTER.  I generally see AT LEAST 3 or 4 movies a week (without even counting any I may watch that I have seen before) better than either "The Increidble Hulk" or "Iron Man", because I mainly watch Turner Classic Movies. I digress.  Back to "The Incredible Hulk".

The plot of the movie is the SAME as "Iron Man" (sort of amazing for obviously connected movies, since Tony Stark makes an overhyped, cameo appearance in "The Incredible Hulk").   "The Incredible Hulk" is about "good" Incredible Hulk battling "bad" Incredible Hulk, as "Iraon Man" ends up with a battle of "good" Iron Man vs. "bad" Iron Man.  In both movies, the villains are military type men (although in "Iron Man" it was a weapons manufactdurer for the military while here it is the military itself) wanting to use the "super power" as a weapon.  The only difference is that "Iron Man" uses hardware and software, while "The Incredible Hulk" is about biolobical super powers induced by ratdiation.  Still, there is little difference in the movies, in terms of plot.

Further, the first 15 to 20 minutes of "The Incredible Hulk" are incredibly DULL (incontrast to "Iron Man", where the development of the suit at the beginning of the movie is one of the more interesting parts of the movie.  As an aside, this inexplicable obsession with SUBTITLES at the beginning of action movies is disturbing.  It is done in BOTH "The Incredible Hulk" and "Iron Man", but is truly ridiculous in "The Incredible Hulk".  I am a little prejudiced here because I have trouble following subtitles on the screen (eyesight--do not pick up details quickly enough). 

The beginning of "The Incredible Hulk" also makes little sense.  There is not much reason for Bruce Banner to be where he is, and the whole dull beginning accomplishes nothing other than to get the movie (and Banner) to where it (he) should have STARTED. 

Further, part fo the publicity for the movie is a GYP.  Robert Downey, Jr., as Tony Stark, is NOT part of "The Incredible Hulk".  He is NOT a character with any role in the movie.  He merely makes a token appearance at the end, to no purpose in this movie (except to set up a future movie).  His appearance merely highlights that the film makers were AWARE (how could they not be?) of the similarities in the plot of this movie and "Iron Man".

Further, "The Incredible Hulk" is essentially humerless (the few attempts at humor are not very successful).  The brash Robert Downey, Jr. lends a comic tone to "Iron Man" that is not present here, and there are more truly (and intentionally) funny scenes.

Still, I liked "The Incredible Hulk" slightly better, with all of its enormous flaws, and think it is marginally worth seeing.  WHY?

Well, the battle of the monsters (rather ridiculous in "Iron Man") is more fun in "The Incredible Hulk", even if no more believable.  I found the Hulk a more interesting "super hero" than a man in a metal suit.  The animation really is well done.

True, Downey plays a more interesting, and complex, charachter than Ed Norton.  Yet, that is a fault as well as a virtue.  Downey plays "Iron Man" as CAMP.  Ed Norton plays Bruce Banner as a real person concerned with doing the right thing.   Downey "grows" into that view in "Iron Man", but we always feel that he is taking none of it seriously.  In my view, that is wy critics reacted so favorably to "Iron Man".  Critics LIKE cynicism generally, and in this kind of movie in particular.  In other words, Downey is HIP.  Norton comes across as almost a nerd, in comparison.  

Even though (or perhaps because) I am the most cynical of men, I like Norton's approach slightly better, in terms of the whole movie, even though Downey gave a more showy, and probably better, performance. 

Theese are fantasy movies.  You are not menat to believe them.  However, I think it is a MAJOR virtue for the characters in these movies to come across as REAL people who just happen to be in an unreal situation.  With a wink, "Iron Man" tells you that it does not take the characters at all seriously.  In contrast, "The Incredible Hulk" characters seem to rave a greater reality.  One of my favorite movies is "Nashville" (easily a l100 rating again).  I saw one review that said that the virtue of the characters in that movie is that you believe that they live, breathe, and bleed real blood.  Although on a MUCH lower level, you come closer to that belief in "The Incredible Hulk" than in "Iron Man".  More humor (of the kind with warmth) would still have helped.  There is, however, a more convincing love story in "The Incredible Hulk", even though the "new boyfriend" makes NO snese, in the context of the movie, and disappears from the movie without any reason for his existence in the first place. 

All in all, I liked the better "battle" scenes enough, and the more "real" characters, enough in "The Incredible Hilk" to MILDLY recommend it, and to prefer it (slightly) to the superior humor of "Iron Man", even with the more interesting, showy performance of Downey. 

My older daughter, Kenda, thought "Iron Man" to be thoroughly dull (liking it less than I did, even though I barely thought it worth seeing).  She is the ONLLY one who agreeed with me that "The Incredible Hulk" is the better movie, even while also recoginizing its flaws.  IMB agrees with everyone else.  It is close

But where I assure you I (and Kenda) am RIGHT is that NEITHER "The Incredible Hulk" nor "Iron Man" are really GOOD movies.  They are merely mildly worth sseeing, with some enjoyable moments.

McCain Lurches (Slowly) Toward the TRUTH

Here is today's story abut John McCain's "new" idea to have the Federal Government adopt the same "green" technologies that McCain wants the rest of us to adopt (and Obama wants to FORCE on us).  The problem, of coure, is that McCain is still stuck in this fantasy world where the "solution" is to switch to expensive, "green" technologies over some long period of time.  Here is the lead paragraph of the story:

"Republican John McCain said Tuesday the federal government should practice the energy efficiency he preaches, pledging as president to switch official vehicles to green technologies and do the same for office buildings."

This is MY idea (see archives of this blog), from at least a month ag), although not taken far enough, and McCain goes off in the WRONG direction of gradually replacing government vehicle with "green" vehicles and buildings (or building systems) with "green" buildings.   Sure, the government should set an example there, but that is NOT the same as the Federal Government CUTTING BACK immediately on gasoline use and energy use.

What I suggested is that we CAN DO (part of the title of the entry on a CAN DO attitude toward gasoline prices) something about gasoline prices.  The FIRST thing we can do (not the last) is for the Federal Government to TIGHTEN ITS BELT, as private citizens have to do..  That means an Executive Order, to be IMPLEMENTED (not "studied") within THIRTY DAYS, that ALL Federal agencies (except in combat zones) reduce their use of gasoline by 20%, and move toward the same goal in all other energy use. 

In other words, teh Federal Goverfnment CAN reduce its OWN demand by 20%, and then can CHALLENGE private employers, and all private citizens, to do the same.

As it is, the Federal Government acts like it is immune from cutting back--a concept so STUPID as to alone tell you why the leftist "solution" of the Federal Government "solving" all of our problems is so ridiculous.

The idea that nothing can be done immediately about gasoline prices is absurd.  As I have said, if we combine a strong commitment to drilling (and things like nuclear power) with an IMMEDIATE cut in demand by a VOLUNTARY program LED by the EXAMPLE of the huge Federal Government, gasoline prices can be driven down IMMEDIATELY (punishing the "speculators" and price "gougers" more than a thousand new regulations).

Contrast this with the what Democrats want todo, which is NOTHING to reduce the price of gasoline ("windfall profits tax" would tend to RAISE the price of gasoline).  Yes, Barack Obama is talking about "demand", but he is talking about LONG TERM reduction in demand imposed by government FORCE (while the government keeps growing).  In other words, leftists want to MANDATE a change in lifestyle and DIRECT the way it is done (the way you live).  They want to USE the price of gasoline to FORCE government control of the economy on the country.  These people are insane.

"Get Smart"

Saw the new movie reincarnation of "Get Smart" at the family reunion.

Rating 57.

Is it fair for a person to review a movie when the person LOVED the TV show (as I did the original "Get Smart" with Don Adams and Baraara Feldon).  Probably not, since the movie is never going to seem as good.  However, that kind of thing has never stopped me before.

There was virtually unanimous opinion at the faminly reunion that this movie is, in fact, NOT as god as the old TV series (among those familiar with the old TV series).  I will say that most liked the movie a little better than I did, although mainly agreeing with the criticisms I have.

The basic problem with the movie, as with the new adaptations of "Mission Impossible" and "Bewitched,  is that the movie merely ussed catch phrases and the idea of a "spy spoof" from the original TV series, without really wanting to recreate a screen version of the TV series.  Thus, the "Mission Impossible" series has been a mere action series, without the CEREBRAL idea and feel of the original series.  I gave "Mission Impossible III" a 25 rating, and I assure you that is not too low.  More importantly for this point, the BEST part of MI3 was the part that invoked the feel of the olf TV series (in the first half of the movie).  The last half, where a "Mission Impossilbe" type "plan" was abaondoned, in favor of specail effects and "action hero stupidity" (a phrase I am coining here for the syndrome of having an action hero do totallly stupid, even immoral, things with the idea that the audience does not care so long as they get their action sequences and special effets).  "Bewtiched", of course, just abandoned the original series completely in favor of a stupid twist on the old concept.  I think this has to do with ARROGANCE of movie makers today not wanting to be bound by the "old fashioned" stuff, and wanting to put a modern "edge" on it.

This "Mission Impossible" debacle is more than relevant on the "Get Smart" movie.  That is because the film makers went the wrong direction.  They decided to make "Mission Imppossible III", WITH JOKES. rather than do the broad farce of the original TV series.  Thus, you have a convential, unoriginal action storty, with basically SERIOUS characters (including Maxwell Smart and Agent 99), onto which has been attached some of the "catch phrases" of the origianl TV series and way too subtle a spoof of action spy movies.  "Would you believe ("Would you believe Chuck Norris with a bb gun"), "sorry about that, chief", and "missed it by THAT much"are thus all there, but without the FEEL of the original.

Yes, there are sometimes amusing attempts to parody action movies.  The "Jaws" sequence from a James Bond movie (falling without a parachute) was recreated vitually action scene by action scene in this movie, with some comic twists.  Problem:  that James Bond movie was virtually a PARODY in itself of earlier James Bond movies, as the James Bond movies with Roger Moore incorporated a lot of FARCE elements, and the James Bond movie may have been FUNNIER. 

Similarly, at one point a villain askes why they are blowing up a building, and no one can give a logical answer.  However, Mission Impossible III was like that for the entire last half of the movie.  It made no sense at all.  You cannot parody a movie by repeating today's excesses in action movies, because they parody themselves.  It just is not funny.  The explosions, and special effects, are the PURPOSE of those movies, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that "Get Smart" is trying to have it both ways:  to BE one of those action movies, while trying to parody it. 

The "Austin Powers" movies, with their broad farce, are more true to the spirit of the "Get Smart" TV show than is this movie.  I would give the first "Austin Powers" movie an 87, and it was the movie this one should have been.  In fact, the gimmick of that movie would have been a better way to do this movie (by having Maxwell Smart somehow transported into th future).  Instead, you have the "origin" of Maxwell Smart as some sort of nerdish "analyst" wanting to be a "field agent".  This pretty much eliminated the broad farce aspects of bumbling Don Adams as a super-stupid, bumbling incompetent being mothered by a bemused, competent Barbara Feldon. 

Steve Carell looks a lot like Don Adams.  However, he plays the role more like Buster Keaton (the "great stone face").  This fits in with the character he has previously played and become famous for (an actual person not acting, rather than an actor playing a part).  It does not fit well with the broad, physical comedy of Don Adams, or the broad, farce timing in that confused, but arrogant, nasal whine.  Anne Hathaway does a perfectly good performance as an action movie heroine, but lacks the MATERNAL warmth of Barbara Feldon and the broad body language. 

Then there is the attempt to put a 21st Cenutry "edge" on this movie that hurts it badly (unless you are dealing twith an "Austin Powers" displacement out of time).  There is the bathroom type humor.  There is the homosexual humor, including Max kissing a man (somewhat funny, but not really within the "feel" of the original or even the "feel" of this movie--just thrown in for "edge").

Internet Movie Database gives this movie a 75 (7.5 on its 10 scale).  I give it a 57 (on my scale of 100, where I rate the first "Austin Powers" movie an 87, and the sequels highter than "Get Smart").    Is my rating too low, however, because no movie could come up to my rose colored memories of the original TV series.  Possibly.  The criticisms are nevertheless valid.

There are enough funny moments, in an action polot better than MI3 (not saying much), that I believe this movie is one of those movies interesting enough to see, even though the ratiing is below 60 (that is, merely in the top 44% of all movies made).  I don't recommend it highly, however.  The members of my family did generally rate it higher than I do, although not as highly as Internet Movie Database raters (where 7 is abpve a GOOD rating--often a very good to excellent movie gets a rating no higher).

 

Obama and Clinton: Equal Opportunity?

AOL is presently featuring one of those typical pro-Obama stoires about Obama's assertiona that he is more "for equal pay for women" than John McCain--based on letislation (unexplained by the Associated Press), which Obama supported and McCain did not.  The legislation would actually would merely make it EASY from women to sue (whether they are right or wrong), by making procedural changes in what is ALREADY THE LAW.  As challenged below, I dare you to find read the full AP story on AOL and figure out what the legistaltion really does, and what the issue really is.  All the AP does is quote a single line of McCain's response to the effect that he "supports equal pay" (of course he does, since it has been the law from all of these DECADES), but opposes this legislation (again, see if you can figure out from AOL and the AP WHAT legislation) because it merely encourages lawsuits.

Equal pay for (substantially) the same job has been the law of this land for some 40 years.  In fact, employment discrimination in general has been the law of the land (by act of Congress in the same Cvil Rights Act that probited discrimination on the basis of race, for more than forty years.

It is classic Obama (playing his role as the leftist Messiah) to suggest that "equal pay" is HIS idea (undoubtedly causing some women to faint even as the Democratic Party failed them with Hillary, and Obama opposed her despite LESSER qualifications--a classic case of employment discriniation, and violating Obama' own previous statement, in Illionois, that he would be embarrassed to ask somone to vote forhim as President before he had proven  himselfin his newlwy elected job as U.S.Senator). 
oven

In fact, as a lawyer I SUED  Continetal Arilines more than THIRTY years ago for (allegedly) giving a job to a LESSER qualified male.  That is what the Democratic Party has done with regrad to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The way this story is presented is totally biased BS.  The issue is clearly NOT equal pay.  IF a law were to say that women suing corporations wre enttiled to automatically win (without showing their employer did anyting wrong), would that be a good law?   For leftist Democratts, maybe it would be.  That is the ISSUE with regard to the legislation Obama supports--whether it makes it impossible for an employer to avoid litigation with any disgruntled woman employee--whether or not the employee has a legitimate claim).  I challege you:  See if YOU can figure out what the legislation actually IS (factually) from this article.  Then consider just how bad the despicable Associated Press is to OBFUSCATE the real "issue" here (remember, NOT "equal pay for equal work"), rather than illuninate it.

 

P.S.  Yes, I survived my "family reunion" (not groans of disappointment, please).  I am back.

Family Reunion

This will be the last new entry, probably, until Tuesday morning.

After surviving my week long visit to see my two daughters in Boston, I will see them again, along with 3 of my four brothers and some assorted nieces and nephews, in Denton (outside of Dallas/Fort Worth) over the weekend.  This partial family reunion is in the home of my phramacist brother who my daughters think of as Jeff Foxworthy.  He does have a normal--even better than normal--wife.  Who knows why she married him.   Lest you think women ar totally insane, however, be comforted with the knowledge that none is willing to marry ME (ok, one did, but she realized her mistake).

ILL I survive yet further contact with my family, after barely surviving Boston?  You will have to check back on Tuesday to find out.  You will further have to deal with "news" over the next four days without my expert guidance.  GOOD LUCK.

Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Again Points to AP and AOL

With thestory referenced in the previous entry, the despicable Associated Press and AOL once again blew away the competition (including Barack Obama--see prvious entries today), to become multiple winners of the coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle of Fate award.

For those not in the know, this is my weekly, unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for conspicious stupidity--represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger.

See the previous entry as to why the despoicable AP, and AOL, are yet again deserving winners of this award.   "....state media reportted" INDEED.   "Journalism" just does not get any worse than this.

Award ceremony:

This is a virtual ceremonty, with not video, taking place entriely in the imagination--using Dick Martin merely as a visual aid to the imagination:

IMagine Dick Martin THRUSTING thestatuette of "the Finger" at the camera and saying:  "Associated Press and AOL, this is once again for YOU; you DESERVE it more each time."

Iran Propaganda and the Despicable Associated Press

As I have told you before, the despicable Associated Press, and AOL, are reliable distributors of anti-American propaganda--whether originating with al-Qaida, leftists, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad (President of Iran), or any other anti-American source.  Let ANYONE attack the Bush Administration, and the despicable AP is up and running--joined by AOL.  If you remember, the despicable AP faithfully reported the endrosement by Hugo Chavez and his government officials, WITH QUOTES seriously presented as worthy of being treated as "news",  of the leftist conspiracy theory that President Bush was complicit in 9/11.

And there is at least one person who dared to bring up the "Swift Boat" ads against John Kerry as spreading outrageous untruths.  Compared to the despicable Associated Press, and AOL "News", the Swift Boat veterans were models of responsible journalism.

The despicable AP proves it every day.   Here is tonight's example, featured (as usual) on AOL:

"TEHRAN, Iran (June 19) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday accused the United States of plotting to kidnap and assassinate him during a visit to Iraq, state media reported."

WHY is this "news"?   Is the despicable (no news organization on this planet, or on any planet in any universe is worse) Associated Press citing the Iran state media as a reliable source?

You say that this kind of statement needs to be reported so that we know the crazy stuff this guy is saying?  Not so.  I say, much more accurately, that if that is the reasoning the despicable AP needs to be reporting the truly evil stuff that the President of Iran routinely says IN IRAN.  The despicable AP does not do that. 

We are back to the AP spreading anti-American PROPAGANDA from Iran.  That should not surprise anyone.  Anti-American propaganda is what the despicable AP (not to mention AOL) DOES.

P.S.   Note especially the way the AP/AOL paragraph I quote above ends:  "...state media reported."   NIce of the AP to include Iran state media in the fraternigy of "journalists", just as good as the AP.   Come to think of it, the AP has lurched, by accident, into the TRUTH.  Iran state media IS at least as good as the AP.

Barack Obama: Old Style Politician

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well."

See previous entry.  Barack Obama has been PACKAGED as a "new" type of politician.  He is not.  He is just another leftist Demcrat willing to say or do almost anyting for POWER--just more leftist than your average  bear (cartoon reference here).

The examples come every day--seomtimes twice a day.  Even the sycophantic media is having trouble maintaining the new "Messiah" message.

WHY is Barack Obama flip flopping on public financing (you know, that McCain idea, which Obama previously endorsed, that private money corrupts politics)?  There is not mystery there.  Barack Obama has a BIG advantage in fund raising over McCain.  Getting elected is more important than principle.

One of the firts indications that the Gingrich Republican "revolution " of 1994 was NOT going to lead to a lot of PRINCIPLED Republicans in office was how quickly the idea of TERM LIMITS was abandoned.  In fact, too many conservatives quickly revealed that they were more about power than principle by abandoning the idea once REPUBLICANS were the incumbents.

Do I "blame" Obama?  Not much.  It is a lot to expect a politician to give up this big aan advantage.  However, that is the point.  Obama is an ordinary POLITICIAN (less qualified to be President than most, by experience alone).  He proves it every day--including his lack of qualfications to be President (with gaffe after gaffe). 

You can't give too much credit to McCain for being willing to accept public financing.  It is to his ADVANTAGE, even if it fits his long term positions on the subject.  Now, you suspect that McCain MIGHT stick by his guns if he were in Obama's position, because McCain is that DUMB (ok, if you like him you can regard him as being willing to stick by his guns, even when it is not to his advantage).  But you can't be sure, because McCain is NOT in that position.

What you can be sure about is that Obama is an ordinary, power seeking politician PRETENDING (with media help) to be an extraordinary politican.