| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
A Podcast Interview With Tom Tancredo At Meet The New Press
ABC PAC: Give To The Presidential Contender Of Your Choice
Air Congress
Ankle Biting Pundits
Argghhh!!!
Jules Crittenden
The David All Group
Ga. Teens Admit To Killing Puppy In Oven
My Newz 'n Ideas
The Official Site Of Duncan Hunter For US President In 2008
The One And Only
Sen. James Inhofe: America Needs a Stable, Diverse and Affordable Energy Supply
Professor Bainbridge
Toys In The Attic
Right Wing News emailed more than 230 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a ranked list 1-5 of the candidates that they would most like to take the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and the 1-5 candidates they'd least like to see as the Republican nominee in 2008. Representatives from the following 50 blogs responded...
The Absurd Report, The Agitator, AnalPhilosopher, Argghhhh!, Atlas Shrugs, Bad Example, The Baseball Crank, Bit's Blog, BizzyBlog, Boi From Troy, Brainster's Blog, BrothersJudd Blog, Conservative Outpost, dcthornton.com, Drumwaster's Rants, Eckernet, Election Projection, Euphoric Reality, Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media, GayPatriot, GOPUSA Northeast, GraniteGrok, Guardian Watchblog, The Hedgehog Report, The House of Wheels, IMAO, Moxie, Newmark's Door, The Nose On Your Face, The Nose On Your Face (Potfry), Peaktalk, Damian Penny, PoliPundit, PoliPundit (Oak Leaf), PrestoPundit, Riehl World View, Right Angle Blog (Amanda Carpenter), Right Thinking Girl, Right Wing News, Shots Across The Bow, Don Singleton, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Stop The ACLU, Don Surber, Texas Rainmaker, Toys In The Attic, Vox Popoli, WILLisms, Wuzzadem
All participating bloggers were provided with the following list of potential candidates although they were also allowed to select nominees who were not listed:
Sam Brownback
John Cox
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
As I mentioned earlier, the bloggers were allowed to make 1-5 ranked selections. Those selections were weighted as follows...
1) Worth 2 points
2 or 3) Worth 1.5 points
4 or 5) Worth 1 point
So, for example, a candidate who received two first place votes (4 points), a third place vote (1.5 points), & and three fifth place votes (3 points), would receive a grand total of 8.5 points.
Also, keep in mind that the scoring cut-off to be included in the lists below was 5 points. If a candidate received less than that, his/her score was not listed.
Here are the selections that were made with the total number of points each candidate tallied following his/her name in parentheses...
Most Desired Nominee For 2008
14) John Cox (4)
13) Jeb Bush (5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Ron Paul (8.5)
10) Condi Rice (11.5)
9) Mike Huckabee (14)
8) Tommy Thompson (15.5)
7) John McCain (19)
6) Sam Brownback (20)
5) Tom Tancredo (31.5)
4) Duncan Hunter (35.5)
3) Mitt Romney (43)
2) Rudy Giuliani (45)
1) Newt Gingrich (52)
Least Desired Nominee For 2008
13) John Cox (4.5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Tommy Thompson (9)
10) Ron Paul (10.5)
9) Mitt Romney (11.5)
8) Mike Huckabee (12)
7) Newt Gingrich (13.5)
6) Rudy Giuliani (17)
5) Sam Brownback (21)
4) Tom Tancredo (30)
3) George Pataki (49)
2) John McCain (60.5)
1) Chuck Hagel (64)
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2005 edition)
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2006 edition)
Update #1: One of Duncan Hunter's staffers was reading this poll, along with the comments, and he noticed some people saying Hunter had voted for McCain-Feingold. Hunter actually voted against it.
-- The top 5 candidates weren't a big surprise to me, since they're the only ones creating a positive buzz in the blogosphere, although I was a little surprised that Hunter beat Tancredo in the most desired category. Once you get past the top 5, the next batch of candidates is either disliked or ignored.
-- The biggest surprise in the most positive list? That would have to be Tommy Thompson's 8th place finish with 15.5 points. Granted that's not very strong, but still, I'm not sure I've heard a single soul talk up Thompson since the race started, so it's a little surprising to see him finish that high. Of course, a lot of his votes were near the end of people's lists and it could just be a case that the field is weak and the bloggers wanted someone to round out their lists. And since Thompson is better known than say Jim Gilmore or John Cox, he got the nod.
-- Republican politicians could learn a lot from Newt Gingrich, who has been slowly creeping up this list for a long time. Back in 2005, he finished 5th. Last year, he finished 4th. This time around? He took the top slot. And that's during a time when a lot of Republicans have been losing popularity with the base. That could be because of the weakness of the field, but when you see a guy like Newt, who has very high name recognition, making that kind of progress, it's probably an indication that people like his message.
-- You know, the conventional wisdom in the Senate seems to be that the war is unpopular, so it's smart to stand against it and that comprehensive immigration is the safest way to go as well. However, look at Chuck Hagel. Here's a guy who sticks to conservative orthodoxy for the most part, except on those two issues, and he finished dead dog last in this poll. That would seem to be a strong hint that the conventional wisdom may be more than a bit off kilter.
-- Here's the order of the candidates if you subtract their least desired numbers from their most desired numbers:
Newt Gingrich +52 / -13.5 = 38.5
Duncan Hunter +35.5 / -3.5 = 32
Mitt Romney 43 / -11.5 = 31.5
Rudy Giuliani +45 / -17 = 28
Tommy Thompson 15.5 / -9 = 6.5
Mike Huckabee +14 / -12 = 2
Tom Tancredo 31.5 / -30 = 1.5
Jim Gilmore +5.5 / -5.5 = 0
John Cox +4 / -4.5 = -.5
Sam Brownback +20 / -21 = -1
Ron Paul 8.5 / -10.5 = -2
John McCain +19 / -60.5 = -41.5
George Pataki 1 / -49 = -48
Chuck Hagel +1 / -64 = -63
(This is the unedited version of the column which I like better than the edited version which ran in Human Events)
It's not unusual any more to see people in Libertarian circles attacking the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. In my opinion, that is misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable theoretical concepts in the real world.
For example, you often hear advocates of drug legalization say that we're never going to win the war on drugs and that it would free up space in our prisons if we simply legalized drugs. While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs, we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either. Moreover, it's true that it would free up lots of space in our prisons if we legalized drugs, but you could say the same thing about most crimes. In fact, we could reduce the crime rate to zero and save enormous amounts of money on police, lawyers, and courts if we simply made everything legal. But, that doesn't mean it would be a net plus for society.
Another point that's often brought up is that if we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders "had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction offense." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or alcohol? No, both products are too societally accepted for that and perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of revenue from their sale. Do we really want to get into that same position with Crack, Acid, or Meth? Do we really want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin, but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an exorbitant rate?"
Moreover, the drug legalization crowd claims that we can manufacture drugs here in the U.S., tax them heavily, thereby making money for the government, and yet still be able to sell the drugs cheaper than the dealers can. That would seem to be a dubious proposition. Drug dealers who pay no taxes, have no unions, and don't have to pay their labor the minimum wage, may very well be able to produce drugs more cheaply than corporations in the U.S. that will be under strict FDA guidelines (It typically costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market), that will be faced with a never ending stream of lawsuits, that will have to pay taxes, and then, additionally, will have to sell a product that will be taxed to the high heavens. That means it's entirely possible that the cost of illegal drugs could go up, not down, with the government running the show and that would be a problem in and of itself because currently, "16% of convicted jail inmates said that they committed their offense to get money for drugs."
Of course, the number of people using what are currently illegal drugs would skyrocket if they were legalized, so we'd see a new wave of drug addled burglars if we "legalized it." Now, maybe you think that's not the case. Some people certainly argue that if illicit drugs were legalized, their usage would drop. However, the fact that drugs are illegal is certainly holding down their usage. Just look at what happened during prohibition if you want proof of that. Per Ann Coulter in her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must:"
"Prohibition resulted in startling reductions in alcohol consumption (over 50 percent), cirrhosis of the liver (63 percent), admissions to mental health clinics for alcohol psychosis (60 percent), and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct (50 percent)." -- P.311
That's what happened when alcohol was made illegal. However, on the other hand, if we make drugs legal, safer, easier to obtain, more societally accepted, and some people say even cheaper as well, there would almost have to be an enormous spike in usage.
Certainly that's what happened in the Netherlands where "consumption of marijuana...nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds" after the drug was legalized.
But, some people may say, "so what if drug usage does explode? They're not hurting anyone but themselves." That might be true in a purely capitalistic society, but in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country, the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs -- and that's even if you forget about the thugs who'd end up robbing our houses to get things to pawn to buy more drugs. Even setting that aside, we make laws that prevent people from harming themselves all the time in our society. In many states there are helmet laws, laws that require us to wear seatbelts, laws against prostitution, and it's even illegal to commit suicide. So banning harmful drugs is just par for the course.
And make no mistake about it, drugs do wreck a lot of lives. Of course drugs aren't the only things that wreck lives and not every person who does drugs ends up as a crackhead burglar or a dirty bum living in an alley. Heck, Barack Obama, a man some people would like to see as our next President has used cocaine -- and doesn't it seem like every few weeks we read about another celebrity who comes out of rehab and goes on to have a successful career?
Sure, that's true. But, every person who plays Russian Roulette doesn't end up with a bullet in his head either. Look at the flip side of the equation. How many homeless people are drug addicts? How many women have had crack babies? How many people are in jail today because they got high and committed a crime? How many lives have been wrecked in some form or fashion by drug use? There's probably not a person reading this column who doesn't know someone who has faced terrible consequences in his life because of drug use.
That's why once, way back when William Bennett was the drug czar, he responded like so to a caller on the Larry King show who told him that he should "behead the damn drug dealers."
"I mean what the caller suggests is morally plausible. Legally, it's difficult. But somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all." -- Bill Bennett
Bennett was right then, he's right now, and my guess is that most parents, upon finding out that someone was peddling drugs to their kid, would agree with him. Since that's the case, do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit? No, we don't.
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
Mary Katharine Ham: John Edwards' Crib: "At 28,000 square feet and 100 acres, if there are two Americas, I'm sure John can pony up and house at least one of them."The Huffington Post: Greg Gutfeld: The "patriotic terrorists" here at the Huffington Post.
The Corner: Black media and black "leaders" have so successfully integrated the idea upon blacks, especially poor, that supporting republicans is tantamount to selling out (to white people).
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
This is video of some Iraqi troops that catch three insurgents with mortars. The British news agency that filmed it is horrified that the Iraqi troops beat the living crap out of them while the American troops sat back and laughed about it.
But, here's the reality: these are non-uniformed terrorists who follow no rules of war, have no qualms about murdering civilians, and will happily torture our soldiers to death. Moreover, they were caught red handed with mortars on them, so there's no question that they're guilty. In WW2, our troops would have simply lined people like that up against a wall and shot them without having a second thought about it. So, if these terrorists got roughed up a little, not only did they get off light, they are still being treated better than our troops would have been if the situation had been reversed.
Now, would I approve of American soldiers beating these terrorist? No. Would I prefer that these Iraqi soldiers didn't beat the terrorists? Yes, because it's unprofessional and even if these guys deserve it, if you get into the habit of delivering beatings, the next person may not.
On the other hand, am I going to pretend that my heart's breaking because the Iraqi troops beat the hell out of some insurgents? No way. They deserved everything they got and much, much, more. Heck, if anything, it was great to see the Iraqi troops in the lead and showing some enthusiasm for their jobs.
PS: However, I will say this, our troops should have made sure that the embeds didn't film this. That was a mistake.
Hat tip to Hot Air for the video.
I still do not think it's a good idea to drag the RNSC into this fight over the non-binding resolution against the surge, but I do think it is a huge issue, one that's worth drawing a line in the sand over with the Republicans in the Senate who are considering selling out our troops.
Below is a list of the key senators to contact in order to fight against the Warner Resolution (I cribbed it entirely from Hugh Hewitt's page. I don't think he'll mind in this instance.), a non-binding resolution opposed to the surge.
If you contact these senators, make sure to be polite (There's no point to abusing the poor staffers who may not even agree with their bosses' stand) and make sure to let them know if you happen to be one of their constituents. Their ears really perk up when they realize they're dealing with someone from back home.
Please tell the candidates in the ’08 cycle especially –Alexander, Collins, Coleman and Smith and would be presidential nominees McCain and Brownback—that a vote for the Warner resolution is the end of support for them.Senator Alexander’s phone: (202) 224-4944. His e-mail is here.
Senator Brownback’s phone: (202) 224-6521. His e-mail is here.
Senator Coleman’s phone: (202) 224-5641.His e-mail is here.
Senator Collins’ phone: (202) 224-2523. Her e-mail is here.
Senator McCain's phone: (202) 224-2235. His campaign e-mail is here.
Senator Smith’s phone: (202) 224-3753. His e-mail is here.
Senator Voinovich's phone: (202) 224-3353. His e-mail is here.
Senator Warner's phone: (202) 224-2023. His e-mail is here.The GOP leadership, which need to announce that no resolution will voted on that encourages the enemy, and that includes the Warner resolution or any cousin of the Warner resolution:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s phone is (202) 224-2541. His e-mail is here.
Minority Whip Trent Lott’s phone is (202) 224-6253. His e-mail is here.
Senator Jon Kyl’s phone is (202) 224-4521. His e-mail is here.
Senator John Ensign’s phone is (202) 224-6244. His e-mail is here.
Update #1: Hugh Hewitt had John Ensign, the head of the NRSC on his show yesterday and although Ensign made it clear that he didn't support a non-binding resolution against a surge, he also told Hugh that the NRSC isn't going to withdraw support from the senators that break with the party on that issue.
And let's face it, even setting aside the fact the NRSC exists solely to get Republican senators elected -- so if this pledge runs counter to the purpose of its existence, they'd be dumb to give in because what would happen if the NRSC were rolled on this issue? Well, next week, I'd be leading the charge to do the exact same thing on amnesty and someone else would be leading the fight on embryonic stem calls and you can go on and on with this.
That's the reason the pledge is a bad idea: it puts the NRSC is a no win situation. They cannot possibly give people what they want, no matter how many people sign the petition. So, in the end, yes, you're going to put pressure on the bad actors in the senate with this, but that could have been done without bringing the RNSC into it in the first place. By going about it in this way, it may cost the RNSC a significant amount of fund raising dollars and then, as a consequence, we may see key conservative senators going down to defeat in 2008.
I pointed this out right from the beginning, even before this went live, and nobody was willing to listen. Big mistake.
Here is an excerpt from Hugh's interview:
John Ensign: Well, you know, people are going to have to make their own decisions on who they support. As the chairman of the NRSC, you can’t pick one vote and say if you don’t vote here, we’re not going to support you. You can’t have litmus tests like that on virtually anything, because Ronald Reagan, and I live by his adage, he said that somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time, that’s your friend, not your enemy. And as we go forward, we have to look for people that are with us the vast majority of the time, and certainly because the other side, you know, if you elect a Democrat over a Republican, you’re going to end up with somebody who’s against you 80% of the time, if not more.Hugh Hewitt: So I gather, Senator Ensign, the NRSC will not change its policy of supporting incumbent Republicans, regardless of how they vote?
John Ensign: Oh, I mean, we have a policy right now, I do, I’m the chairman, I set the policy over there, that we have to make sure to try to get back into the majority, and you know, we can’t do that without defending our 21 incumbents. But at the same time, I’m trying to recruit the best people I can recruit out there to try and get us back in the majority. You know, Hugh, you know where I’ve stood on the positions, you know my record well, and I am a Ronald Reagan type of a Republican. I believe in limited government, a strong national defense, and believe our party is best for this country. And sometimes, that means having people in our party here in the Senate that we don’t necessarily match up exactly with. But that…it still can bring us to the majority, to where then we can control the agenda. When we’re in the minority, we can’t control the agenda. And sometimes, we get upset with our other members who don’t vote the way that we would want them to vote, and sometimes it’s one person, and sometimes it’s another.
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Link #5
Link #6
Listen to a special post State of the Union edition of the GOPUSA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude! podcast show. Joining me & Richard Ross was John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com.In addition to the State of the Union, we also discussed the NRSCPledge, and the ‘08 presidential race.
You can listen to it by clicking here.
Good for them. Tom Tancredo has a great line here:
“The president worked hard to get a Congress that agrees with him on this and now he’s got it,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, in reference to the Democratic takeover of both chambers of Congress in the November elections. “But we’re still going to fight him on it.”
Ouch!
You know something is wrong when a republican president receives more applause from the democrats then his own party on something he says in a speech:
Mr. Bush on Tuesday reissued his call to welcome foreigners with a guest-worker plan, and he called for a path to citizenship for millions of those here illegally.“We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals,” Mr. Bush said in his speech to uneven applause. “We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country, without animosity and without amnesty.”
More Democrats than Republicans rose in applause.
Ted Kennedy praises G.W. Bush!!
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, welcomed “the president’s renewed commitment” to comprehensive immigration reform. “The president has been a leader on this issue and I am hopeful that he will continue his efforts with members of his party so that we can pass legislation that will solve the problem once and for all,” he said after Tuesday’s address.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
"ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq..." -- The Washington Post
Wednesday's Bill Gave Partial Voting Rights On The House Floor To The Elected Delegates From The Four U.S. Territories Of American Samoa, Guam, The Virgin Islands And Puerto Rico As Well As The District Of Columbia. It Passed 226-191 On A Mostly Party-Line Vote. (Unconstitutional)
McCain Bashes Cheney And Rumsfeld Over Iraq Policy
McCain Crafting 'Benchmarks' Resolution for Iraq War
Funds Set Up For Border Patrol Agents. Supporters Of Jailed Men Have 3 Ways To Financially Help Their Families
Former President Jimmy Carter Once Complained There Were "Too Many Jews" On The Government's Holocaust Memorial Council
Time Poll Of Registered Voters: Hillary 40% Vs. Obama 21% Vs. Edwards 11%
4 of 5 Americans Killed in Iraq Helicopter Crash Shot Execution Style in the Back of the Head
Bombing At Hotel In Pakistan Kills 1
Curfew Imposed In Beirut After Clashes
Iran Has Converted Its Most Powerful Ballistic Missile Into A Satellite Launch Vehicle
Daniel Henninger: Talking Ourselves Into Defeat
The Wall Street Journal: Congress Has No Constitutional Power To Micromanage A War
Nibras Kazimi: Turnaround In Baghdad
Oliver North: Does Anyone In Congress Care?
Amanda Carpenter: The Non-Binding Congress
Lorie Byrd: Many Democrats Won't Stand For Victory In Iraq
Air Force Reveals Weapons Tests That Sparked Global UFO Frenzy
A 35-Year-Old Man From The Western Dutch Town Of Hellevoetsluis Convinced Local Authorities To Issue Him An Identity Card With A Picture That Shows Him As The Joker
A French Muslim Who Attacked A Male Gynaecologist For Examining His Wife Just After She Had Given Birth, Saying It Was Against Islam, Has Been Jailed For Six Months By A Paris Court
Letterman's Top Ten Surprises In George W. Bush's State Of The Union Address
Website Of The Day: Cox And Forkum
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is all huffy because Glenn Beck used the word f*ggot on the air:
"Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Neil G. Giuliano today criticized CNN host Glenn Beck for his flippant and gratuitous on-air use of an anti-gay slur during his Jan. 22, 2007 program.The host of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck was discussing the Isaiah Washington story when he had the following exchange with radio host Dave Glover:
BECK: But anyway, Dave, what is the—what is the controversy? One of the guys called another guy a naughty name.
GLOVER: Yes. Basically you have Isaiah Washington, who's one of the stars of the show, who referred to one of his co-stars during a heated argument as a derogatory term for a gay man that starts with “F”, rhymes with maggot. Did it a couple more times after that. And do you like how I did that?
BECK: Yes.
GLOVER: And…
BECK: Do you know that “The New York Times” wouldn't even print—I mean, we can say the word. We're having an adult conversation here. Wouldn't even print the word “f*ggot.”
GLOVER: Right.
BECK: Wouldn't print it. I find that amazing.
Glover's attempt to identify the epithet without using it on-air was in keeping with how other broadcast and cable outlets – including CNN – have approached it since the 64th Annual Golden Globe® Awards incident that sparked a national dialogue about the slur and the impact of anti-gay prejudice. Throughout CNN's coverage of the Isaiah Washington controversy over the past week, Beck appears to be the only host to have repeated the epithet on the air.
"Beck's obnoxious repetition of the slur -- and his flip dismissal of it as simply a 'naughty name' – speaks volumes about his appalling ignorance of its impact," Giuliano said. "Beck added nothing to the audience's understanding of the issue, except perhaps to demonstrate his juvenile belief that repeating an anti-gay slur makes him an 'adult.'”
As to the word f*ggot being a 'naughty name,' in my book, it's no better or worse than most of the other nasty names out there and considerably less offensive than some of them. So, 'naughty name" isn't an inapporpriate way to refer to the term. More importantly, it's incredibly hypocritical for GLAAD to complain about this when they used the word f*ggot in a press release about exactly the same subject that Beck was discussing, a mere 8 days ago. From GLAAD's own website:
"Los Angeles, Calif., January 17, 2007 -- Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Neil G. Giuliano today condemned Isaiah Washington's on-air use of the word "f*ggot" during a backstage press conference at the 64th Annual Golden Globe Awards, calling on him to apologize and make amends for this second use of the slur in the past four months."
That's right. 8 days ago, GLAAD did exactly the same thing in a press release that they're criticizing Glenn Beck for doing on the air.
PS: You could make an intelligent argument that Beck shouldn't have used any curse words on the air, but of course, it's difficult to make that argument when, like GLAAD, you freely print them on your own website.
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
The Political Pit Bull: Video: Blitzer Asks VP Cheney About Mary's Pregancy and Cheney responds by burning a hole in Wolf's chest with his patented Darth Dick death stare. It's quite possibly the most awkward moment in cable news that I've ever seen.It Shines For All: Cindy Sheehan surrenders to President Bush?
Outside The Beltway: The Glenn Beck other "f-word" controversy
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
Normally, I wouldn't bother posting about a 17 year old kid who went to jail for having consensual sex with a 15 year old because it's really not all that uncommon. Unfortunately, it's a sad byproduct of statutory rape laws, which, although they're good laws overall, have a tendency to be too broadly applied. However, in this case, the attention might actually do some good. Here's ESPN explaining why:
"Genarlow Wilson is standing on a threshold all right, at the end of the last hall of Burruss Correctional Training Center, an hour and a half south of Atlanta. He's just a few feet from the mechanical door that closes with a goosebump-raising whurr and clang. Three and a half years after he received that letter, he's wearing a blue jacket with big, white block letters. They read: STATE PRISONER.He's 20 now. Just two years into a 10-year sentence without possibility of parole, he peers through the thick glass and bars, trying to catch a glimpse of freedom. Outside, guard towers and rolls of coiled barbed wire remind him of who he is.
Once, he was the homecoming king at Douglas County High. Now he's Georgia inmate No. 1187055, convicted of aggravated child molestation.
When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.
...Yet no one will do anything to free him, passing responsibility around like a hot potato. The prosecutors say they were just doing their job. The Supreme Court says it couldn't free him because the state legislature decreed the new law didn't apply to old cases, even though this case was the entire reason the new law was passed. One possible explanation is that Bernstein, an admitted neophyte at backroom dealing, simply didn't know enough politics to insist on the provision. That haunts her.
...The legislature still could pass a new law that would secure Wilson's freedom, so Bernstein is pushing hard for that. One such bipartisan bill was introduced this week, pushed by state Sens. Emanuel Jones, Dan Weber and Kasim Reed. This is Wilson's best shot.
"I understand the injustice in the justice system," Jones says, "and when I heard about Genarlow and started studying what had happened, I said, 'This is a wrong that must be righted.' Everyone agrees that justice is not being served."
Afterward, Bernstein can file a writ of habeas corpus, which could get him out of jail, but those are legal Hail Marys. She's a true believer, but if the legislature denies this latest attempt, she knows she might not be able to save Genarlow Wilson. Until it's over, nothing's off the table. Not even simple positive thinking. Sitting at a midtown-Atlanta Chinese restaurant on a lunch break from all the political wrangling, she picked up her fortune cookie, smiled thinly and said, "Gimme a good one: Genarlow will be free."
She's still working every angle, from the capital to cookies, riding up an elevator to the 53rd floor of an Atlanta high-rise to see David Balser, the attorney who got Marcus Dixon out of jail. The Dixon case was similar: As an 18-year-old, he had sex with a 15-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years before the conviction was overturned."
I'm for law and order all the way and this may be it, but it's not justice. So, if the Georgia legislature wants to retroactively apply the law and get all the Genarlow Wilsons out of their penal system, I think that would be something worth doing.
Believe it or not, there are people whining that Bush didn't mention New Orleans and Katrina in his State of the Union Speech:
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the January 24 CBS Evening News story:Katie Couric: "In his State of the Union Address, President Bush took note of the unrest in Lebanon as well as the suffering in Darfur, but there was not one mention of Katrina, though the suffering and hardship continue. The federal government has spent $80 billion on recovery efforts in the Gulf region, but there are still 13,000 people living in FEMA trailers. And as chief investigative reporter Armen Keteyian reports, some who lost everything are asking, 'What about us?'"
Armen Keteyian: "It sits on a flat gravel mud-soaked lot, the irony of the name [“Mt. Olive Gardens”] not lost on its residents. Seventeen months after Katrina, nearly 200 people uprooted by a hurricane still live in Mt. Olive Gardens, whole families packed into 200 square foot FEMA trailers they now call home."
Chris Davis: "God can't let this happen."
Keteyian: "Chris Davis is one of the displaced from New Orleans now living near Baton Rouge. Like many here, he watched the President's speech, his rage rising with every word."
Davis: "At this time, I almost broke my TV and knocked it off the stand, you know?"
Keteyian: "A Vietnam vet, Davis lost a job as a ship builder to Katrina, now in a place where crime's a constant worry, and children rarely venture outside. He's long since lost hope."
Davis: "It gets hopeless and more hopeless every day."
...Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-LA): "The pains of the hurricane are yesterday's news in Washington."
Raymond Jetson, Louisiana Family Recovery Corps: "There's been a lot said, very little done, and now we've evolved to the point where there's even very little, if nothing, being said."
Keteyian: "To a point where in places like Mt. Olive Gardens, words like 'relief' and 'recovery' now seem as empty to them as last night's presidential address. Armen Keteyian, CBS News, Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
Guess what, Kathleen Blanco? Hurricane Katrina is "yesterday's news." Not only did it happen in 2005, the federal government has spent more money on Katrina than any other disaster in U.S. history. It's actually a little disturbing to find out that we're still providing government-run trailers to people more than a year after Katrina. If your house burns down tomorrow, are they going to provide you with a new house? No. You're expected to take care of yourself. So why in the world should we still be providing people with places to live more than a year after Katrina?
You know, in this country, we've got this cult of perpetual victimhood developing. You have the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Michael J. Fox, Max Cleland, Chris Davis and his ilk up in New Orleans, you could go on and on with this. Something bad happened to them and instead of acting in accordance with the fine American tradition of sucking it up and getting on with their lives, they want to milk every single, last drop of sympathy from anyone they can find for their own personal profit and/or political advantage.
Don't these people have any close friends who care about them enough to say, "Everybody has tragedy come into their life at some point. Bad things happen to good people, people you love die, you have terrible things happen to you. But, after you take a little while to recover from the blow the best you can, you get up off the ground, and you move on."
As far as this story goes, yes, Katrina was a terrible event, but in my book, if you're still living in a 200 ft. government trailer a year after Katrina and moaning about it, you're a little pathetic and "sorry." Granted, you're not supposed to say something like that, because in politics you're supposed to appear compassionate and show how much you care about everybody, but geeze, it needs to be said and there are some people who desperately need to get that message.
Yesterday, I was invited to a blogger teleconference that had been called about a proposal that was designed to pressure the GOP senators into standing up against a non-binding resolution that would condemn the surge. Later in the day, that pledge that was discussed went live online -- and you may have heard about it. It's getting positive attention all across the blogosphere.
Now, me? While I think it's disgraceful that any Republican would sign onto such a resolution and strongly favor putting heat on them over it, I think this pledge is misguided. After you take a look at it, I'll tell you why:
"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."
Would a non-binding resolution be encouragement to the enemy? Yes, it would. Do I have a problem with people saying that they won't contribute to any senator who signs on to such a non-binding resolution? Not at all. Personally, if you vote for this or you vote for amnesty, it's a deal breaker with me. So, up to this point, I think everything in the pledge is a good idea.
But, here's the part that's problematic:
Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
Look, the chances of the NRSC agreeing to something like this are practically nil. In fact, they shouldn't agree to it because their whole job is to get Republicans elected in the Senate. Moreover, if this catches on or even just makes a really big splash, you're going to have people trying to do the exact same thing on amnesty, embryonic stem cells, and who knows what other issues over the next two years. There are a myriad of different issues that could draw in thousands of people to sign a pledge like this.
So, while this effort will create pressure on these senators, which is a good thing -- what it's also going to turn into is a list of people who are pledging not to donate money to the NRSC. As I write this, there are already 6,138 people who are basically promising not to give money to NRSC in 2008. Is that supposed to be a good thing, well, for someone other than the Democratic Party?
If that last paragraph had just been left off, if it focused on cutting off funds to the actual senators involved and calling these senators and the senate leadership to get our message out, this pledge would have been something I could support. But because it's in there, it has turned this pledge into a sister tactic to a protest vote. You know, "I'm mad because all those Republican senators voted for amnesty so I'm not doing anything to support any Republican on the ticket this year!" That's exactly the sort of attitude that probably cost Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, and George Allen their seats, thereby handing control of the Senate over to the Democrats. And who knows how many Republicans in the House went down because of it? Now, we're in January of 2007 and we're already getting right back into the same mentality, except more people are participating this time.
Of course, I made these points in the blogger teleconference on this subject last night and even on the Hugh Hewitt show after he invited me to talk about it, but as far as I can tell, I'm the only dissenter on this.
PS: It does make a big difference if the NRSC is starved of funds and, no, people won't just give the money elsewhere. After doing some fund raising last year, I can tell you that a big part of it is simply taking the time to ask for money. If people don't give to the NRSC, they may not be asked elsewhere and that may mean millions less for GOP senatorial candidates in 2008. If you take millions of dollars out of the pocket of the NRSC, it's not going to just hurt any Republicans who sign onto a non-binding resolution, it's going to hurt every Republican senator in a close race, including senators we're going to desperately want to see elected.
PS #2: I certainly hope these Republicans can be turned on this issue and failing that, I'm hoping that Mitch McConnell has the votes for a filibuster if need be. That's the right thing to do and as a bonus, it might end up freeing however many thousands of people sign onto this petition from their promise not to donate money to the NRSC.
The Republicans in the Senate have sent out a press release directing people's attention to this article, which exposes the hypocrisy of ACORN, a left-wing outfit. Here's part of the release:
Minimum Wage: activist group ACORN demands a minimum wage increase without relieving the burden it imposes on small businesses:It’s time for Congress to do the right thing and raise the minimum wage! [...] Call and e-mail your Representative and urge him or her to support an increase in the minimum wage [...] Ask your Representative to ONLY support a clean bill with no tax breaks for businesses...
Ironically:
"While advocating living wages, though, ACORN has opposed paying even minimum wages to its own workers. This was made apparent back in 1995, when ACORN sued the state of California to be exempted from paying its own workers the minimum wage. According to the December 21, 1995 ruling of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District:
"ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws ... are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy. According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates.
Republicans are insisting on the inclusion of tax relief for small businesses in the minimum wage bill. Quotes from Democrats who, once upon a time, supported small business tax relief are appended to the end of this email."
What have conservatives been saying about the minimum wage? It'll put poor people out of jobs. What does ACORN say about the minimum wage? That if they're forced to pay it, they "will be forced to hire fewer workers." What are the Democrats telling us about American Samoa? If you force them to pay minimum wage, it'll kill their canning industry!
So, why push the minimum wage? Because they think it's good politics. They can say, "Look how we helped poor people! We got them more money." But, they never get concerned about all the poor people they help right out of jobs unless it has an impact on their own selfish interests.
Yesterday, as I was perusing an article called, the "10 Strangest Inventions," I ran across this:
Automobile burglar alarm consisting of a detection circuit and a flamethrowerCharl Fourie and Michelle Wong (Johannesburg, South Africa) invented an automobile burglar alarm consisting of a detection circuit and a flamethrower, to provide a deterrent to carjackings. With a rising crime rate, carjackings became a serious concern in South Africa. The Blaster car modification functions as a liquified petroleum gas flamethrower; when a carjacking occurs, the driver steps on an additional pedal next to accelerator and flames erupt from outer sides of both front doors, "neutralizing" the assailant. The inventor claims it is unlikely to kill but would "definitely blind" the assailant. In South Africa, it is legal to use lethal force in self-defense if in fear of ones life, and ownership of flamethrowers is unrestricted.
Can you believe that someone invented a device that shoots flame at carjackers in a country other than America? We are apparently slipping farther than we may have thought in the science geek category.
Kerry Won't Run For President In '08
Senate Panel Rejects Bush's Iraq Troop Plan
Former Duke Lacrosse 'Rape' DA, Nifong, Charged With Withholding Evidence, Misleading Court
Hezbollah Strike Brings Beirut to a Virtual Halt (Free NYT Reg Req)
Ann Coulter: I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore!
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby: Democrats' Silence On The Global Jihad
Michael Medved: Hillary's Dilemma: What To Do With Bill
Scientists: Drilling Caused Indonesian Mud Volcano
Rare Primitive Shark Captured On Film (W/ Freaky Pic)
The 10 Strangest Inventions
Mexico: The police department has issued about 60 slingshots to officers in the violent border city of Tijuana
Website Of The Day: Dr. Melissa Clouthier
There didn't seem to be much excitement around the right side of the blogosphere about Bush's State of the Union speech -- and I mean that literally. There didn't seem to be a lot of scathing criticism (although the immigration portion of the speech predictably rankled a lot of bloggers) or soaring praise. In fact, most of the nuggets from around the blogosphere on the State of the Union speech were about side issues, rather than things the President actually said. Still, here they are:
"There’s not doubt that Dikembe Mutombo, who was seated next to the First Lady, and who the President was “proud” to call an American citizen has done some great work on behalf of charity. But this was also the same guy - a married father of 6 - who was getting oral sex from whores at the notorious strip joint “The Gold Club” in Atlanta. As a Sixers fan I’m also upset because Dikembe couldn’t stop Shaq in the 2000 NBA Finals.But to his credit, Mutombo is also responsible for the single greatest pick-up line ever (even if there’s a dispute as to whether he actually said it) - “Who Wants To Sex Mutombo?”, which has achieved the status of urban legend." -- Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundits
"No matter what is said, who applauds, who abstains, none of these weasels are able to overcome their own weakness and the inertia of our system. They will not work together, they will sway with the polls, they will waste most of every dollar they spend, they are a force of idiocracy, not good.Our entire way of life is actively under attack by tens, maybe hundreds of millions of Muslim nuttahs and yet we are unable to maintain our stones after several thousand deaths in this war?
FFS people, we are living more prosperously than, oh say 99.99999999999999999% of all humans ever. We have lost an understanding of how different the lives of most other earthlings are. We are so coddled, we require instant victory and lack the fortitude to endure discomfort, let alone actual sacrifice. I do not minimize the sacrifice, or loss of those who have been affected by these efforts, but in context they are small next to the goals and dangers.
A good look at our Congress reminds me why they are hardly an answer to any big problem. W is not much, even as a figurehead, but he's all we've got. I have some hope for a military win, only because the alternative is a loss that will cripple us for decades and so we must prevail." -- Uncle Jimbo, Blackfive
"I had to laugh at this passage (From Webb's rebuttal):As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
Did he? Does anyone really think the Korean War ever came to an end?" -- Captain's Quarters
"9:01: Laura looks fab in red. Smart of her to avoid royal blue, navy blue, and orange in order not to telegraph any administration support for either the Colts or the Bears....9:09: Hypocrite Hand-Shake Watch. Dennis Kucinich leans in, but gets no kiss.
...9:27: Immigration talk. Obligatory shot of the Tanc, who shakes his head, sadly.
...9:34: Asks for up-or-down votes for judges by appealing to the fact that the American people deserve a quick-acting, fully staffed judicial system. Pelosi looks down and scratches the back of her neck.
...9:46: Talks about more troops in Baghdad and Anbar. Is Pelosi even listening? She's chewing the inside of her bottom lip. Stop that, Nancy. You know you're on screen the whole time.
...9:51: Increase of Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in next five years. Ooh, cute Marine. Who is he?" -- Mary Katharine Ham
"Imagine that you’re John McCain. You’re running for president for the second time, and this time you’re widely considered the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Knowing that, you’ve got to expect that whomever is directing the television coverage of tonight’s speech is going to point the camera your way. You’re going to be on primetime TV, no doubt. With that in mind, you’re going to want to stay awake. If you’re McCain, who will be over 70 by 2008, you’ll want to make doubly sure to demonstrate your alertness and vigor. You definitely won’t want to slump in your seat, out cold, when Bush starts talking about Iraq. And yet that’s exactly what McCain did tonight, napping on camera for ten agonizing seconds. Lack of self-control? An expression of contempt? Embarrassing in any case." -- Tucker Carlson at Hardblogger
"Still, it’s revealing that the Democrats stand up when the President mentions Darfur–where there are no US troops and won’t be any US troops–but sit on their hands when he mentions Iraq–where there are US troops and where there will be US troops fighting hard for a while to come. What possesses a group of people to take Sudan more seriously than Iraq as a crisis? What possesses a group of people to rank the importance of international crises in an inverse relationship to those crises’ effect on US national security?" -- Hot Air
"There we go. The magic, meaningless words: "Comprehensive immigration reform." Everybody stand up! Other low moments so far: The commander-in-chief mentioning "battery research," "wood chips," "agricultural waste," and "global climate change." Inspiring rhetoric from those overworked White House speechwriters." -- Michelle Malkin
"Bush mentions disrupted plots. I thought it was particularly smart for the president to mention plots that have been disrupted. The American people don't hear enough about the successes that we've had in this war and that certainly contributes to the notion that the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are for nothing.There's a fine line between scaring the American people about the threats against the homeland and mentioning the successes of those that protect homeland. I thought the president stuck the right balance tonight." -- The Political Pitbull
There were two important lines about Iraq that Speaker Pelosi (along with many her Democratic colleagues) declined to applaud at all. One was the president's call for us to "find our resolve, and turn events toward victory." The other was his statement that "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East [and] to succeed in Iraq." -- Paul Mirengoff, Powerline
"It was telling that more Democrats clapped longer and louder for a free Darfur than victory in Iraq." -- Erick from Redstate
"Anyone else notice how the Dems didn’t stand up en masse and applaud when the President talked about the pursuit of victory and security in the WOT? Telling, but not exactly ‘revealing’ to most of us." -- Sister Toldjah
"The highlights of the Bush speech:1. Surrender to Al Gore’s pseudo-science. (”And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” )
2. Surrender the borders. (”Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program.” )
3. Put on Jimmy Carter’s sweater. (”Let us build on the work we’ve done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.” )
Tough times call for tough leadership. Look at George Bush run.
But the good news was Pelosi rejected Bush’s domestic plans out of hand.
In fact, old Pelosi gave an on-going analysis, blinking up to 30 times a minute as the president spoke, according to Broadcasting & Cable. Nice to know Blinky Pelosi brings the maturity of a grandma to politics." -- Don Surber
"The War on Terror - take the fight to the enemy. A standing 'O' and number of whistles. Nancy really looks uncomfortable now.We uncovered all kinds of al Qaeda plots and we owe a debt thanks to those who put their lives at risk to stop these plots. Nancy jumped out of her seat at that one.
Hillary looks like she's about to fall asleep.
The best, and most accurate, line of the night so far:
"In the six years since we have been attacked on September 11, and I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use the every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty to find these enemies and to protect the American people." -- Kim Preistap, Wizbang
From a press release I just received:
Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan Face Off in a Beliefnet “Blogalogue”This week, two leading thinkers take sides in an extraordinary “blogalogue” about God, faith, and religious violence. Best-selling author Sam Harris, author of the controversial books “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation,” explains why he’s an atheist and why religion, to him, is the force most to blame for tragedies like 9/11. Uberblogger Andrew Sullivan, pro-religion author of “The Conservative Soul,” responds to Harris’ Beliefnet posts on his own blog—countering that faith and reason aren’t mutually exclusive.
Andrew Sullivan is supposed to be the "pro-religion" side of a debate? You're talking about a guy who thinks most of the Christians in this country want to live in a theocracy and who once held up Madonna as a shining example of Christian behavior.
Having a debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan over religion would be like Karl Marx and Ted Kennedy debating which economic system does more to help the poor, Communism or Capitalism.
John McCain was born on August 29, 1936. In 2008, he will be 72 years old. If he were reelected in 2012, he would be 80 years old by the time he left office. Is he really still energetic enough to handle a job as important and demanding as the Presidency? Maybe...
Maybe not.
Hat tip to Hot Air for the pic.
It's amazing to see how this story is being broken down along racial lines when it doesn't appear to be a story about race:
A potentially explosive dispute in the City Too Busy to Hate is taking shape over a proposal to break Fulton County in two and split off Atlanta's predominantly white, affluent suburbs to the north from some of the metropolitan area's poorest, black neighborhoods.Legislation that would allow the suburbs to form their own county, to be called Milton County, was introduced by members of the Georgia Legislature's Republican majority earlier this month.
Supporters say it is a quest for more responsive government in a county with a population greater than that of six states. Opponents say the measure is racially motivated and will pit white against black, rich against poor.
...The legislation calls for amending the Georgia Constitution to allow the return of Milton County, which succumbed to financial troubles during the Depression and was folded into Fulton County in 1932.
The former Milton County is now mostly white and Republican and one of the most affluent areas in the nation. Atlanta and its southern suburbs are mostly black, are controlled by Democrats and have neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in America. (Buckhead, a fashionable Atlanta neighborhood of clubs, restaurants and mansions, would remain in Fulton County.)
"The only way to fix Fulton County is to dismantle Fulton County," said state Rep. Jan Jones, the plan's chief sponsor. "It's too large, and certainly too dysfunctional, to truly be considered local government."
Jones, a former marketing executive who lives in the Fulton suburb of Alpharetta, cited the county's troubled library and public transit systems and a jail that was taken over by a federal judge because it was filthy and unsafe. He denied the move is racially motivated.
Don Petree, the 62-year-old owner of Don's Hairstyling in Roswell, another northern Fulton suburb, said many of his customers "feel like they're not being taken care of like they should be with the tax dollars they're spending. I think there's some truth to that."
Milton County would have a population of about 300,000, instantly making it Georgia's fifth-largest county.
Residents of north Fulton represent 29 percent of the county's population of 915,000 but pay 42 percent of its property taxes, according to a local taxpayers group. A split would lead to the loss of $193 million in property taxes alone for Fulton County.
About 25 miles to the south in downtown Atlanta, the Rev. J. Allen Milner said he is afraid the tax revenue loss would have a devastating effect on those who need government help the most."
So basically, the citizens in North Fulton are paying high property taxes, which are then funneled over to the rest of the people in Fulton County. Meanwhile, the residents of North Fulton are looking at the lousy public services and the mediocre local government and saying, "We're getting screwed here," -- and they are.
Notice that no one is making the argument that the people in "Milton County" wouldn't be better off if they formed their own county. That's because it would clearly ring false. Obviously, the real beef these Democrats have with this is that if North Fulton goes off on its own, they can't use it as a piggybank to support the rest of Fulton county. But, if they say that, then everyone gets to see that they're taking advantage of the people in North Fulton. So, they're crying "racism" instead and hoping that all reason will be thrown out the window as a result.
Joe Lieberman had the audacity to ask Gen. David Petraeus, "if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort." Then Petraeus answered honestly and lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald got all upset. Here's part of his commentary:
But yesterday, Lieberman reached what might be a new low. During the confirmation hearings of Gen. David Petraeus, Lieberman provoked this truly reprehensible exchange with Gen. Petraeus, as summarized by The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks:Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
Using the terms to" give comfort" and the "enemy" in the same phrase has no conceivable objective other than to invoke accusations of treason. The Constitution's definition of "treason" is exactly that -- giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy. For Lieberman to purposely track the Constitution's treason language when describing opponents of the "surge" plan -- and to invite the new Iraq War Commander to agree with his accusation -- reveals so inescapably what Lieberman is. That's just the basest and most despicable smear one can imagine.
How hypocritical. Of course, a resolution against the surge is boosting the terrorists. Of course, the mainstream media and anti-war movement's attempt to undercut the war have helped Al-Qaeda. How could it be any other way?
What does Al-Qaeda want in Iraq? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run. Then they can crow about how they defeated America and more importantly, they can try to create a state within a state in Iraq or, with a little luck, create another pre-9/11 Afghanistan there. As long as the US military is in Iraq, that can't happen. Moreover, if Bush's plan works in Iraq, that can't happen.
So, what does the anti-war movement want? What do the senators who oppose a surge want? They want us to tuck our tails between our legs and run, just like Al-Qaeda does. How could that not encourage the terrorists to hang in there just a little longer? The terrorists can never defeat the US military, but they understand that they don't have to defeat them. All they have to do is break our will here at home, then we'll give up, and they'll have a chance to defeat us by default.
With that in mind, what is a non-binding resolution against the surge? It's a message to the terrorists in Iraq that says, "If you can keep it all going just a little longer, we'll give you what you want. So resist, murder more innocent people, kill more of our troops and it will pay off in the end!"
What message do people like Glenn Greenwald imagine our enemies will take from our wavering and losing our will to fight? "Gee, I think they're going to give up, so maybe we should give up, too?"
Give me a break.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “What effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval, of this new way ahead that you embrace, what affect would it have on our enemies in Iraq?”Gen. David Petraeus: “Sir, as I stated in the opening statement, this is a test of wills at the end of the day, and in that regard, speaking purely as a military commander if confirmed… a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like to the enemy to feel that there’s no hope.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “And a – a Senate passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that – some clear expression that the American people were divided?”
Gen. David Petraeus: “That’s correct, sir.”
Text Of Bush's State Of The Union Speech
Imprisoned Agent's Wife: President Is A Hypocrite. Calls State Of The Union Speech 'Total Sellout Of The United States Of America To Mexico'
761 Illegals Rounded Up in Southern California Sweep, One of the Largest Ever
Hundreds Deported After LA Sweep (Good)
White Atlanta Suburbs Push For Secession
High School Bans U.S.A. Chant At Basketball Games
GOP Urges Berger Lie Test
'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached'
Claim: North Korea Is Helping Iran To Prepare An Underground Nuclear Test Similar To The One Pyongyang Carried Out Last Year
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… Assured That The United States And The Zionist Regime Of Israel Will Soon Come To The End Of Their Lives."
China Confirms Missile Test
China Sticking To One-Child Policy Despite The Fact That It's Causing 118 Men To Be Born For Every 100 Women Throughout The Country
Israel's Politically Powerful Justice Minister Led The Growing Chorus Of Calls On Wednesday For President Moshe Katsav To Resign Over Impending Charges Of Rape And Abuse Of Power
Kathleen Parker: Hollywood's Sick New Movies
Tom Price: The Democrats' Unconstitutional Power Grab
Walter Williams: Fearmongering Over Global Warming
Michelle Malkin: The Coming Amnesty Disaster
Jonah Goldberg: Let's Not 'Do It For The Children'
Biggest Threat To US Drinking Water: Rust?
Film's Child Rape Scene Causes Stir
Bam Bam Bigelow Passes Away
Psychologist Evaluates 'Jungle Woman'
Website Of The Day: Newsbeat 1
(9:01) Here's the thing that disappoints me about this speech going in. George Bush is missing a real opportunity to do a turn-around here. We've already got a new plan for the war, Bush is doing some good things on fiscal conservatism now -- if only he would bend on illegal immigration.
Imagine his announcing that he doesn't support citizenship for illegal aliens, that he's pardoning both those border patrol agents, and that he's not going to support a guest worker program until the wall is built. It could be the start of a political earthquake.
(9:07) I already have 3 or 4 press releases from congressmen in my email on their reaction to the State of the Union speech. They're all, "Embargoed Until Delivery." Why not just wait 35 minutes and send them out?
(9:09) Dennis Kucinich wants to shake hands with the President. That's always silly. They want their face time with him on camera and they'll be shredding him as soon as the speech is over.
(9:11) You know what would look great right now? An Atlanta Braves style tomahawk chop in Congress.
(9:13) Madame Speaker....that was gracious, but still ***gag.***
(9:16) I care which side of the aisle you sit on!
(9:17) 41 months of job growth.
(9:18) The Democrats don't like that bit about not raising taxes.
(9:19) Earmarks, huh? Take a bow, porkbusters, and Tom Coburn. This part of the speech is because of you.
(9:20) Cut the number and cost of earmarks in half by the end of the session. Good stuff!
(9:20) Ted Kennedy is already nodding off. He probably had a few before this got started.
(9:21) Where are the No Child Left Behind statistics? They're impressive. He should have used them.
(9:22) A call for vouchers. Good!
(9:25) A standard tax deduction for health care, 15k for families. $7,500 for singles. This will benefit self-employed people. Very good. Loving it. He left out the tax increase on people with company sponsored health plans that are very expensive.
(9:26) Grants to states? Not sure that's a good idea. Health savings accounts and association health plans? Fantastic! Price transparency and medical liability reform? Excellent!
(9:27) Illegal Immigration? Boo!
(9:28) Oh, yeah, a guest worker program will solve our problems -- until people figure out they can get illegals cheaper than the guest workers.
(9:28) Our amnesty plan isn't amnesty because we don't call it amnesty. Gag.
(9:30) They always say this stuff, hippy fuels (which don't work) and clean coal and nuclear which Democrats oppose.
(9:31) Reduce gas by 20% in the next 10 years. Ok. 5 times the current total of ethanol, switch grass, etc., etc. -- I'm not sure that's a good idea.
(9:32) Double the strategic petroleum reserves? Good idea. They should triple or quadruple them.
(9:33) Yeah, that's right! Vote in our judges, you Democratic jerks!
(9:35) To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy. That question has been settled? Don't tell the Democrats that. They're in favor of cowering and appeasement.
(9:36) Al-Qaeda was going to use anthrax against the US and fly a plane into a West Coast building and we stopped them? Wow. They should be talking that up more often.
(9:40) Al-Qaeda, bad guys. They want us to retreat and abandon the cause of liberty. Shia extremists like the Iranians. Hezbollah = evil. The dangers have not ended. Oh, come on, the Democrats are clapping for that? Like the Democrats support protecting the American people from terrorists. Since when did they decide to veer away from their, "curl up in fetal position and blame any attacks on Bush," strategy?
(9:41) We are advancing democracy and, woah, Condi looks mad! What's up with that?
(9:42) Need proof McCain is too old to run for President? He's asleep!
(9:44) It's not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it's the fight we're in. We wish the war were over, but it's not. It's still within our power to shape the battle in Iraq; let's win it! Democrats aren't standing for winning the war.
(9:45) The Iraqis need our help to stop sectarian violence. Lot of Republicans clapping for sending troops. That's good.
(9:48) They have to send more of their troops into the fighting, stop giving breaks to Shiite extremists, meet the benchmarks, lift restrictions on our troops, and take over every province. We've talked about this from every approach. It provides the best chance for success. We must not fail!
(9:49) If we run, a real civil war could start in Iraq that could draw in the whole region and it would be an enormous opportunity for Al-Qaeda. It would invite another 9/11. We must succeed in Iraq. Nancy is not clapping on succeeding in Iraq.
(9:50) This is a generational struggle. A special advisory council from both parties? Does anyone in the Democratic Party want to win the war on terror other than Joe Lieberman?
(9:51) 92k more troops in the next 5 years. That's a lot of troops. I like it.
(9:53) We won't allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons! Nancy clapped on that? Please...give us a break.
(9:53) Polite applause on the peace in the Middle East line. Nobody thinks that's right around the corner anymore.
(9:54) Let somebody else save Darfur. We're saving enough people as it is.
(9:54) Now we're responsible for curing hunger, poverty, and disease, too? Give me a break.
(9:56) Have any of the leaders of these African countries thanked us for helping them fight malaria and AIDS or for the expanded debt relief? Sure, we may be showing generosity, but as far as I can tell, not a soul appreciates it.
(9:57) Dikembe Mutombo is doing great stuff in the Congo? Perfect. That's exactly what should happen. Private citizens, private organizations doing that sort of work.
(9:58) How long is Bush going to spend on this mamby pamby stuff? Who cares about Baby Einstein? How many people put malaria and AIDS in Africa on the top 25 issues that matter the most to them?
(9:59) Now, Wesley Autry? He's pretty cool.
(10:00) Ok, we could do without all the hand gestures, Wesley.
(10:01) Sgt. Rieman -- now that's cool, too. A Silver Star winner.
(10:02) We have been through a lot together...God Bless. Nice close.
(10:05) Sheila Jackson Lee and Jesse Jackson, Jr. sucking up to Bush and asking for autographs. Gag.
Quick Final Thoughts: Very good delivery -- for Bush anyway. The speech was a little short on detail and could have used some more oomph, but it was better than I thought it would be overall. Overall Grade: B-
Update #1: The James Webb rebuttal:
(10:16) There are two big differences between Democrats and Republicans. We like socialism, Republicans oppose socialism. Republicans want to fight terrorism; we do not.
(10:18) The proletariat realizes that the bourgeoisie is robbing them blind and only by giving the workers power through the Democrats, can we level the playing field.
(10:20) My family and I served in the military, so when I say to surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you can trust me!
(10:21) The President recklessly took us into this war. No one wanted to go except him (And the majority of Democrats in the Senate).
(10:22) We've got to move forward in the war on terror by surrendering -- strongly!
(10:23) Oh, good grief, now he's comparing today's situation to when the robber barons and monopolies were running industries.
(10:23) Dwight Eisenhower didn't cut and run in Korea, despite what Webb seems to think.
Quick Final Thoughts: Still, James Webb did better than the average Democratic rebuttal -- although that's not exactly hard.
I just got off of a teleconference with Tony Snow about the President's State of the Union speech tonight. Tony did as good a job as anyone possibly could trying to sell the thing, but I can't say that much of anything Bush will be talking about seems particularly exciting except for the health care plan, which I like.
PS: I will be live blogging the speech tonight at 9 PM, EST.
Here are my notes (not quotes), from the teleconference.
Tony Snow's Opening Statement
The first half of the speech will be domestic policy. The 2nd half will be foreign policy. Bush isn't going to cover the same ground he did in the speech last week although the President will discuss how failure in Iraq would hurt the US not only in security, but in economic issues. He will also briefly mention Iran and Syria.
The first half will begin with congrats to Nancy Pelosi for being the first woman speaker. The Democrats claim they want to work with the President and he is happy to do it. Here are five major planks:
1) Deficit reduction to balance the budget within 5 years. Bush wants the line item veto, to extend the tax cuts, and to cut earmarks in half. He will also make the case for entitlement reform.
2) Energy: 20 in 10 plan. Reduce energy consumption 20% in 10 years. That will be done in part by increasing and rewriting CAFE standards. We will also want to double the strategic petroleum reserve.
3) Health Care: Now, tax deductions for health care only come through work. That bias would be gone. The President's plan would create price competition and a tax credit for the self-employed. For chronic conditions, he is encouraging states to put together risk pools.
4) No Child Left Behind. Extend to everyone through high school. Expand school choice options.
5) Immigration: He will propose comprehensive immigration reform.
He wants to expand the size of the military by 92k slots and he will talk about AIDS and malaria prevention in Africa.
Q&A Session
Q: 600 militia men arrested in Iraq and a high level Mahdi army guy arrested -- does that mean the Iraqis are catching on?
A: The Iraqi PM has said to the militias, "You're on your own now." I'm not rendering final judgment, but these are signs of progress.
Q: On the health care issues, why has it taken him this long to propose something?
A: I can't address the timing issue. But, I think this is an important initiative. This system currently is geared towards corporations, not individuals. We want to change that. I can't answer why now, but why not now?
Q: How do you expect the Democrats to respond?
A: We'll see, but Democrats realize that they have to accomplish something. Just saying, "no," isn't accomplishing anything. There are a lot of areas that the Democrats can work with the President to get things done.
Q: These speeches are usually split between the foreign policy and domestic issues. Has the foreign policy part been scaled down here?
A: No, the President will hit foreign policy. Also, if we run in Iraq, the neighboring countries will lose confidence and cut side deals with countries not friendly to us. If we finish the job, people realize that we're serious and they may even see that, hey, democracy in Iraq can be pretty nice. It may inspire them to want the same thing. The State of the Union won't be what sways people on Iraq though, it'll be results on the ground.
Q: How far will he go on Social Security tonight?
A: I think he is going to hit the same ground he has also covered.
Q: Bush's approval ratings are as low as Nixon according to Drudge. Does Bush have a plan to bring his approval rating back up via the State of the Union Address?
A: The President doesn't get into fetal position and feel sorry for himself because of poor approval ratings. Ultimately, the way you demonstrate that you're better than the other side is to have better ideas. Plus, if we see progress in Iraq, it will help. And do the Democrats have anything to offer? They do nothing but oppose. Bush is trying to do his job, while they're being negative. Rebuild enthusiasm amongst the base, reaching out to people on the health care issue, having better ideas are all part of bringing Bush's ratings back.
Q: Rebuilding enthusiasm with the base? Speaking of that, you skipped over immigration and No Child Left Behind. How will Bush do this? Oh, and what about Social Security?
A: Republican leadership made the decision not to bring up Social Security. We won't have that problem any more.
With immigration, we're being aggressive on the borders. We're catching heat for being too tough on businesses that hire illegals. We're building fences. We're putting state of the art technology on the border. We got rid of catch and release. We get the message. But, what's the best way to deal with the people who are here? We have laid out the most difficult path to citizenship in history. They have to pay taxes and social security, they can't break the law, they have to keep working. They have to master the English language, pay back taxes and fines. We want to work with the base on this and we think we don't get enough credit for what we do right on illegal immigration.
With No Child Left Behind, it's all about accountability and it will have a voucher component added in tonight. Conservatives should like that.
Q: At the top of the call, you mentioned Iran and Syria. How specific will Bush get tonight?
A: Not too specific. We made it clear that Iran needs to quit supporting terrorists and building nuclear weapons. With Syria, we want them to quit supporting terrorists.
And that's all Tony had time for....
Hawkins' Final Note: Snow is about as good as anyone you are going to find at putting lipstick on a pig, but long story short: the health care proposal is the only really new thing that seems to be coming out of the speech. The deficit reduction stuff is good, but probably too late to fix Bush's big government Republican image. Illegal Immigration? It's the same old, same old. It looks like there won't be anything too exciting coming down the pike tonight.
Opening statement
I want to talk about House Resolution 78 which would, "allow delegates and non-members of the House—of which four of five are Democrats—to vote in the House of Representatives."
It's a violation of process, policy, and the Constitution. It allows voting membership for 5 individuals who are not members of the House of Representatives -- the delegates from Guam, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.
No amendments, no testimony, no discussion is being allowed -- just an up and down vote.
#1) This is unconstitutional. It violates Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. Also, Article 1, Section 5 clearly refers to members of Congress. The Democrats can't just constitutionally seat anyone. If they can seat these delegates, then why not Howard Dean? He is every bit as legitimate as these delegates.
#2) This is a violation of one man, one vote. Some of these delegates have tiny districts, much smaller than the districts congressmen have.
#3) It would allow delegates that don't pay taxes to vote on raising taxes on American citizens.
This went through before in 1993, but if it goes through, I think it should be appealed to the Supreme Court this time.
Q&A Session
Q From John Hawkins: If the votes from these delegates actually affect a vote, if say American Samoa is the deciding vote, do their votes count?
A: If their votes turn out to affect who wins and loses on a bill, their votes are invalidated. So, what difference does it make? What it does is allow the majority party to give their people a pass on those votes. If an issue wins by 5 or 6 votes, it allows particular Democrats to say, "Gee, I wasn't the deciding vote." Besides, if they can vote, why not let anyone vote and say, "Well gee, it doesn't count if it affects the real vote?"
Q: How can we be most effective in stopping this?
A: Target the new Democratic members. I guarantee you that none of them ran on a platform of allowing delegates to vote. The first we heard about this was on Friday and it's being voted on tomorrow.
Closing statement: In 1970 Tom Foley was quoted as saying that it was very clear that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to do this. It's backhanded, duplicitous, and dishonest of the Democrats to bring this forward and it's an attempt to try to get these delegates voting rights down the road.
-- I'm becoming more and more optimistic about the surge. Al-Qaeda is fleeing Baghdad, we're rolling up the fighters and leaders of the Mahdi Army, and the Iraqi government seems to understand that it's time to get serious -- and that's before the "surge" has even started. I think we have a better than 50/50 chance that the violence in Iraq will drop significantly in Iraq this year and that the Iraqis will be able to takeover day to day security by the end of November.
-- If I were betting today on who will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, I wouldn't put my money on Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, I'd put it on John Edwards. I'm not sure about that, Hillary or Barack could still pull it out, but Edwards seems to be the guy who inspires the most enthusiasm amongst the Democratic activists and his poll numbers among the rank and file aren't bad either.
-- I'm a fan of the blog Daily Pundit, but that blog has always had the odd habit of putting the comments on the front page. That worked out OK when there were just a handful, but now that there are a lot of comments, it makes it extremely difficult to tell where the comments leave off and the posts begin.
-- Get ready, because if all goes as planned, a new Right Wing News design will go live this upcoming week-end.
-- Great point from a soldier just back from Iraq who called into the Rush Limbaugh show: We're talking about doing a resolution in Congress against the surge, but where's the resolution calling for victory? Where's the resolution calling for us to defeat our enemies?
-- Scooter Libby's lawyer: "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."
I have a feeling this trial isn't going to be fading quietly into the background.
-- How in the world can these incredibly rude people possibly be presented as the victims?
"Flight attendants often deal with obnoxious passengers who won't listen to instructions by kicking them off the plane. But a Massachusetts couple think AirTran Airways went overboard by treating their crying 3-year-old daughter in much the same way....The Kuleszas planned to fly home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers after a four-day visit with the girl's paternal grandparents. She was removed because "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat" during boarding, AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver said.
AirTran officials say they were only following Federal Aviation Administration rules that children age 2 and above must have their own seat and be wearing a seatbelt upon takeoff.
"The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family," Graham-Weaver said.
...The Orlando-based carrier reimbursed the family $595.80, the cost of the three tickets, and offered them three roundtrip tickets anywhere the airline flies, Graham-Weaver said.
But that's too little, too late for the Kuleszas. The father said they would never fly AirTran again."
Oh no, you mean the Kuleszas and their squalling little brat aren't going to fly AirTran again? How tragic! I'm sure AirTran is heartbroken! Maybe it's just me, by why should 112 people have their flight delayed because some parents can't control their 3 year old? They shouldn't! It's ridiculous.
Update #1: From the comments section:
I'm a fan of the blog Daily Pundit, but that blog has always had the odd habit of putting the comments on the front page. That worked out OK when there were just a handful, but now that there are a lot of comments, it makes it extremely difficult to tell where the comments leave off and the posts begin."John, have you tried clicking the [hide inline comments] button on the page?" -- Jo
I'd never noticed that button before Jo pointed it out. However, that clears it right up. Thanks, Jo!
So, Presidential candidate Ron Paul, is doing the Alex Jones show...and let me stop there for just a moment. Alex Jones is a full on, warped, tinfoil on his head, conspiracy nut. Just look at the side bar on his page (over to the left on the post). Why would any reputable politician get together with a nut like Alex Jones in the first place? Obvious answer, they wouldn't.
Which brings us back to Ron Paul who wants to see us get into the cover-up of 9/11:
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.
Ehr...does that sound like a tacit endorsement of a 9/11 conspiracy theory by Paul? Indeed, it did. He's also talking about things will be, "better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight."
Ugh, Ron Paul is an embarrassment not just to his constituents and the Republican Party, but to Congress.
PS: How many times do we have to reinvestigate 9/11 until these nutjobs will be satisfied or is this like the Democrats with the Florida vote count in 2000 -- they just want to keep looking at it over and over and over again until they get the result they want?
PS #2: Naturally, Ron Paul is a believer in the North American Union Conspiracy, too. Maybe he thinks Bush planned 9/11 as part of a plan to merge the US into Mexico and Canada, who knows?
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
La Shawn Barber: From a commenter: "As to abortion. I can speak as to what is wrong with it because I had one. If some asks now if I have children, I say none living. If they dare ask what happened, I tell them I murdered my children."Little Green Footballs: The Associated Press never uses the word “terror” without enclosing it in quotes -- until this story, which involved a Jew.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Ranking the presidential candidates on the 2nd Amendment.
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
Stephen I. Cohen, a white man representing a majority black district wanted to join the Congressional Black Caucus. So, what was the reaction of the black caucus to that? Basically, "no white people allowed." What a bunch of racists.
Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome."I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African- American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined."
Come on, Stephen Cohen, don't let the Black Caucus tell you that you've got to sit at the back of the bus because you have the wrong skin color. Don't let them tell you that, "We don't allow your type in our Country Club." Stand up for yourself and if you won't stand up for yourself, stand up for your constituents.
If they don't want "whitey" in their little racist club, let them change their bylaws to say, "no white people allowed." Make them endorse their segregationist policy in writing and let's see what people have to say about it. Show a little courage up there, Cohen.
Oh, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. What a tangled fishing net we weave when first we practice to deceive -- on the minimum wage.
"The Democrat-controlled Senate took up a bill yesterday that would raise the minimum wage across the United States and its territories but exempt American Samoa, where tuna canneries pay workers $3.26 an hour.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters less than two weeks ago that she would close the loophole after coming under criticism from Republicans for what they termed a "fishy favor" to StarKist Tuna. StarKist has lobbied for years against raising the minimum wage in American Samoa, and its parent, Del Monte Corp., is based in Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district.
"I have asked the education and labor committee as they go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage," Mrs. Pelosi said earlier this month.
The House, however, passed the minimum-wage bill with the American Samoa exemption.
...Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a nonvoting Democrat representing American Samoa, opposes extending the minimum wage to that territory.
A "decrease in production or departure of one or both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties," he said, echoing the arguments of conservatives against applying the wage to poorer regions of the U.S."
Boy, Grandma Pelosi isn't setting much of an example for all those grandkids by lying through her teeth like that, is she? Right now, one those adorable kids is probably sitting around playing with a toy truck and saying, "I'm going to be a big liar one day, so I can be successful like Grandma Nancy!"
Come on, Nancy, start telling the truth about why you lied about including American Samoa in the bill. Do it for....THE CHILDREN!
"Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war." -- Liz Cheney
This puppy is very lucky that the cat is declawed.
PS: Yes, this has nothing to do with conservatism, but I always love watching man's best friend stick it to a furry, space wasting, cat.
Update #1: From the comment section:
"That cat looks like Ted Kennedy defending a bucket of sloppy-joes." -- Glibertarian
Mimicking The Hijackers Who Executed The Sept. 11 Attacks, Insurgents Reportedly Tied To Al Qaeda In Iraq Considered Using Student Visas To Slip Terrorists Into The United States To Orchestrate A New Attack On American Soil
Crackdown 'Nets 600 Sadr Forces'
Strategist: Iran Believes It Could Destroy Israel With A Single Nuke
Gaza Strip - A Huge Blast Damaged The Offices Of The Arabic Satellite Channel Al-Arabiya
Group Says Al-Qaida No. 2 Mocks Bush
Bush Approval In CBS Poll 28%
Black Caucus: Whites Representing Black Districts Not Allowed
Bush's State Of The Union Speech Tonight
Sen. John W. Warner Of Virginia And Other Republicans Publicly Offered A Resolution Yesterday Condemning President Bush's Proposal To Send More Troops To Iraq. (Retire Already Warner)
Climate Scientists Feeling The Heat. As Public Debate Deals In Absolutes, Some Experts Fear Predictions 'Have Created A Monster'
Jack Kelly: Is the Surge Already Producing Results?
Thomas Sowell: The 'Greed' Fallacy
Rich Lowry: Hillary The Calculator
Liz Cheney: Retreat Isn't An Option (Free WAPO Reg Req)
Dimitri Vassilaros: Bush's 'Callous Disregard' For Our Border Patrol Agents
New Film At Sundance Features Rape Scene With 12 Year Old (Depraved)
Snarky Reply From Business To Soldier Serving In Iraq Starts Controversy
Moonbat Kicked Off Aussie Flight For Bush-Bashing T-Shirt
Web Of Cyber Lies Leads To Murder, Police Say
Australian Diver Lives Through Being Partly Swallowed By Shark
Website Of The Day: Atlas Shrugs
Update #1:
"John, I know you have been contemplating stopping the Daily news posts. I would ask that you not. It is one of my primary news sources for conservative news issues. If you chose to shut it down I understand, but I would count it as a loss." -- Rorschach
After reading the comments on stopping the daily news, which were, unsurprisingly, all over the place, I now have a system in place to count how many people are clicking on the daily links. So, after a few weeks (anywhere from 2-6), I'm going to go back and take a hard look at home many people are clicking on the links in this section each day and what links they're clicking on.
Hopefully, that'll give me enough raw data to make a decision about whether to keep to keep the daily news as is, modify it, or dump it all together.
Sure, it's a little early, but someone has to be the first to put together a list like this.
15) Scooter Libby Put On Trial (2005): Scooter Libby is put on trial for supposedly perjuring himself to cover up a non-existent crime.
14) Corporate Accounting Scandals Including Enron, Arthur Andersen (2002): Crooked accounting scandals rock the business world.
13) Terri Schiavo Was Dehydrated To Death Over The Protests Of Her Parents (2005): America found out that a woman with brain damage has far less legal protection of her life than a convicted murderer on death row.
12) Loss Of Space Shuttle Columbia (2003): An unfortunate reminder of how brave our astronauts are to go up into space.
11) Washington Snipers (2002): Two freelance Muslim jihadis killed 10 people in the Washington D.C. area in random sniper attacks.
10) Abu Ghraib (2004): A page A-8 story about some soldiers mistreating prisoners becomes one of the biggest stories of the century because they were dumb enough to take pictures.
9) The Danish Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (2006): Mostly innocuous pictures of Muhammad are published in a Danish paper and Muslims across the world flip out.
8) Israel Invades Lebanon (2006): Israel fought an indecisive battle with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and the ripples of that conflict are still very much in evidence in both Lebanese and Israeli politics.
7) Tsunami Devastates South and Southeast Asia (2004): More than 200,000 people died in a tsunami after a massive earthquake off the coast of Indonesia.
6) Democrats take over Congress. (2006): The GOP implodes and the Democrats swoop in.
5) Bush beats Kerry (2004): 2004 was a referendum on the war on terror. The people who wanted to fight it won.
4) Hurricane Katrina wrecks New Orleans (2005): Large portions of a major city were destroyed in a hurricane and the Bush Administration was largely blamed for the incredible incompetence of the local government in handling the crisis.
3) Invasion of Afghanistan (2001): We did in a few weeks what the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.
2) Invasion of Iraq (2003): We took out Saddam, put a democratic President in place, and helped the Iraqis write a Constitution. Now, will we finish the job?
1) 9/11 (2001): The New Pearl Harbor.
Update #1: Originally, some events from 2000 were included. Those were dropped.
On Friday of last week, I talked Amanda Carpenter, my pal, compatriot at Human Events, and the author of the "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton," into doing her first V-Log and letting me run it on RWN.
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
CrackMuffin: Video: A sniper in Iraq zeroes in on the troops (Some bad language and obscene links in the sidebar).Right Thinking Girl: 5 new sex rules.
The RealClearPolitics Blog: '08 national poll breakdown.
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
The White House press corps last week found itself embroiled in controversy -- a controversy over its efforts to avoid controversy at an event whose guests include President Bush.Stung by criticism that comedian Stephen Colbert went too far last year in his remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, the group announced last week that it had lined up a different kind of entertainer for its next dinner on April 21: impersonator Rich Little.
...But "edgy" Little isn't. Even in his heyday, he didn't do biting topical satire or searing political humor. As a performer, he's more "Ed Sullivan" than "Daily Show."
Which is why, according to Little, he was hired in the first place. "One of the reasons they picked me is because I'm not controversial," he said yesterday from his home in Las Vegas. "They did get some flak about the guy they had last year. I don't think they wanted someone political or controversial again."
Yet after Colbert made waves -- he compared the Bush administration to the Hindenburg disaster, among other things -- some wondered whether choosing Little indicated that the rough, tough White House press corps was going soft, ensuring that its honored guests from the White House would suffer not even the slightest slight.
That's more or less how MSNBC host Keith Olbermann read it; he nominated the entire correspondents' association as his "Worst Person in the World" on his program last week.
...Nevertheless, Little's published comments put the WHCA on the defensive. The group's president, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, issued a statement saying: "The White House Correspondents' Association never dictates or censors the content of a press dinner entertainer's act . . . My advice to [Little's agency] when we booked [him] in December was to follow the time-honored Washington motto [of] the Gridiron Dinner: 'Singe, but never burn.' "
On the other hand, Scully said in an interview, the group does want to avoid "an Imus moment," a reference to radio talk-show host Don Imus's monologue at the 1996 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner, in which Imus rankled some of the assembled with off-color cracks about President Clinton's extramarital behavior.
"I loved Colbert and thought he was outstanding," Scully said, "but some people don't get his brand of humor. Do you want to invite someone to a party and make them into a political pinata? That's not the purpose of the dinner. It's for [journalists] and their sources and contacts to have an enjoyable evening. That's what we're trying to do."
You have the President of the United States showing up at an event where he'll be mocked for the amusement of the jackals in the press. These are the people who are undercutting the war on terrorism, rooting for Republicans to fail, and doing everything they can to push the Democrats in 2008 and bury the GOP. So, why bother with the White House Correspondents' dinner and these other gag dinners that the White House attends?
These events are relics from an age where liberals had a little more class and politicians and journalists didn't have such an adversarial relationship. Today? There is no upside to doing one of these events for a Republican administration. The press is still going to try to claw Bush's eyes out, whether he goes or not. So, let someone else play human dartboard for the night in order to regale the mainstream media.
HILLARY CLINTON is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.“Their policies are totally different but they are both perceived as very tough,” said Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman.
You bet their policies are different. Hillary Clinton favors paternalistic big government. As laid out by OnTheIssues.org, her education policy might as well have been drafted by the teachers unions: Testing only for new teachers. No vouchers. Limited parental choice. Opposes tort reform. Federalize health care. Rated 82% positive by the NEA and 85% by the AFL-CIO. Rated a "big spender" by NTU. Anyway, let's go to the record. When you compare key quotations side-by-side, it becomes clear that Lady Thatcher was all about liberty and prosperity, while Hillary is all about unions, big government, and high taxes and spending.
| Thatcher Quotes | Clinton Quotes |
|---|---|
| There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families. | We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. |
| People think that at the top there isn’t much room. They tend to think of it as an Everest. My message is that there is tons of room at the top | Throughout the 1980’s, we did hear too much about individual gain and the ethos of selfishness and greed. |
| I owe nothing to Women’s Lib. | I'm not some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette |
| No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions—he had money as well. | We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. |
| If you want to cut your own throat, don’t come to me for a bandage. | Children’s lives are not shaped solely by their families or immediate surroundings at large. That is why we must avoid the false dichotomy that says only government or only family is responsible. . . . Personal values and national policies must both play a role. |
Given a choice, I'd go with Lady Thatcher all the way down the line. When Thatcher said of Ronald Reagan that "Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity," the others of whom she spoke surely included Clinton. While Thatcher said of Reagan that he "loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people," it will be said of Clinton that she loved government and believed in a zero-sum world in which paternaliztic handouts are more important than providing opportunity for individual success.
This content was used with the permission of StephenBainbridge.com.
In February, Sarah Silverman's new comedy show cranks up. Who's Sarah Silverman? This is Sarah Silverman:
Ouch! Now, that is a good looking woman.
She can also be pretty funny. Here's a Sarah Silverman short on global warming from Jimmy Kimmel's show (Kimmel is actually her boyfriend):
This starts out a little slow, but it rocks hard once it takes off.
Hat tip to Hot Air for the story.
Iraq PM Stops Protecting Shiite Militia
Bombs Kill At Least 78 People In Baghdad
Iraq Shi'ites Reach Political Deal
Chavez To U.S.: 'Go To Hell, Gringos!'
Burma 'Orders Christians To Be Wiped Out'
Sudan Gov't Bombing N. Darfur
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Approval Rating: 14%
Hillary Clinton Declares She's Running For President
Muslim Congressman Called For Non-Islamic Terrorist's Release In 2000. Ellison Spoke At Fund-Raiser For Woman From Group That Tried To Kill Feinstein
N.M. Governor Joins Presidential Race (Free WAPO Reg)
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann: Hillary In Trouble
Mark Steyn: Media Are Going To Barack Around The Clock
Jeff Jacoby: Despite What The New York Times Says, Women Aren't Giving Up On Marriage
Benny Morris: This Holocaust Will Be Different (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)
Paul Farhi: Five Myths About U.S. Kids Outclassed By The Rest Of The World (Free Wapo Reg Req)
Michelle Malkin: Lurid AP Report On Iraq Outrage Doesn't Check Out
Scotland Yard Says Personal Beliefs Must Not Be Put Above Police Duties, After A Muslim Constable Refused To Shake Hands With Sir Ian Blair
The 20 Richest Women In Entertainment
Video: SNL On Islamophobia, Redux
Website Of The Day: The Absurd Report
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
