About Me

Name: BCORIG
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Sarah Palin Resigns - Turn up the Hate Machine

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, July 05, 2009 6:00:00 PM
When Sarah Palin was nominated by John McCain I was enthusiastic and hopeful. Of course he and his staff completely fumbled the ball (i.e., suspend the Campaign) and we are now in a classical Reign of (Economic and Social) Terror unleashed by his failure to beat an inexperienced haircut in a suit. What amazed, and continues to amaze, me is the ferocity Left's response then and continuing until now.

I believe Hatred is Fear turned outwards. It is the only explanation for the reaction(s). The Left is afraid of something. If they are then we should be cultivating and exploiting that fear because it could potentially lead them to do something that tips their hand and results in an Electoral pushback.

I got to this Reclusive Leftist post Feminists and the mystery of Sarah Palin  via Instapundit There are a few interesting observations from this obviously Atheist Feminist whom (I think) is a disgruntled Hillarist. She actually chooses to learn about Sarah Palin and clearly does not fear her.

A few comments stood out:
 
"But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate."
 
and
 
"Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva."
 
To me it is interesting reading and differs greatly from what one would be exposed to by the usual Kozmanauts.

Look, I'm not certain she should run in 2012. Perhaps she should go for the Senate Seat in Alaska. I don't know.

I just know this unprecedented torrent of Hatred leads somewhere.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Want a Government Plan - Correct?

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:20:52 PM
Read Stephanopoulos on his blog  tell you that Americans want a Government Health plan based upon the bogus conclusions of the slanted CBS News New York Times Poll.


The fallacious conclusions of that Poll were deconstructed by a blogger on Hot Air.


The former Clintonista (is there ever a former Clintonista?) just accepts the conclusions of the Poll as he hammers Senate Republicans with .

 

Perhaps there should be Health Care reform but the plans put forth by this Administration are way too expensive


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives racing ahead in EU parliament voting

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:51:58 PM

From the AP no less:

 This is rich: "Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament, told party faithful in Brussels via video link from Berlin. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."

 Even though Socialism has failed - what a tool!

 What are our President and deficit-hawk Democrats in Congress doing? I thought he/they wanted to be more "European?"

 The United States is undergoing the most bald-faced power and money grab any country has witnessed since the Russian Revolution. 

Bush left a $423 Billion deficit and now its 1.3 trillion. I guess its all Bush's fault. Right? 

The Europeans are beginning to see the light. 

 Conservatives racing ahead in EU parliament voting

By CONSTANT BRAND and ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writers2 hrs 15 mins ago

 BRUSSELS – Conservatives raced toward victory in some of Europe's largest economies Sunday as initial results and exit polls showed voters punishing left-leaning parties in European parliament elections in France, Germany and elsewhere.

Some right-leaning parties said the results vindicated their reluctance to spend more on company bailouts and fiscal stimulus amid the global economic crisis.

First projections by the European Union showed center-right parties would have the most seats — between 263 and 273 — in the 736-member parliament. Center-left parties were expected to get between 155 to 165 seats.

Right-leaning governments were ahead of the opposition in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium, whileconservative opposition parties were leading in Britain and Spain.

Greece was a notable exception, where the governing conservatives were headed for defeat in the wake of corruption scandals and economic woes.

Germany's Social Democrats headed to their worst showing in a nationwide election since World War II. Four months before Germany holds its own national election, the outcome boosted conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel's hopes of ending the tense left-right "grand coalition" that has led the European Union's most populous nation since 2005.

"We are the force that is acting level-headedly and correctly in this financial and economic crisis," said Volker Kauder, the leader of Merkel's party in the German parliament.

France's Interior Ministry said partial results showed the governing conservatives in the lead, with the Socialists in a distant second and the Europe Ecologie environmentalist party a close third.

French Socialists said their defeat signaled a need to rethink left-wing policies if they are to have any hope of unseating President Nicolas Sarkozy.

An EU estimate showed that only 43 percent of 375 million eligible voters cast ballots in European parliament elections, a record low amid widespread disenchantment with the continentwide legislature.

The EU parliament has evolved over five decades from a consultative legislature to one with the power to vote on or amend two-thirds of all EU laws. Lawmakers get five-year terms and residents vote for lawmakers from their own countries.

Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands and five other EU nations cast ballots over the last three days, while the rest of the 27-nation bloc voted Sunday.

"Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament, told party faithful in Brussels via video link from Berlin. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."

Many Socialists ran campaigns that slammed center-right leaders for failing to rein in financial markets and spend enough to stimulate faltering economies.

Graham Watson, leader of the EU's center-right Liberal Democrat grouping, said early results suggested a rejection of the Socialist approach.

"People don't want a return to socialism and that's why the majority here will be a center-right majority," he said.

In Spain, the conservative Popular Party won two more seats than the ruling Socialists — 23 to 21 seats — with over 88 percent of the vote counted.

Exit polls also showed gains for far-right groups and other fringe parties due to record low turnout.

Britain elected its first extreme-right politician to the European Parliament, with the British National Party winning a seat in northern England's Yorkshire and the Humber district.

The far-right party, which does not accept nonwhites as members, was expected to possibly win further seats as more results in Britain were announced.

Lawmakers with Britain's major political parties said the far right's advance was a reflection of anger over immigration issues and the recession that is causing unemployment to soar.

Near-final results showed Austria's main rightist party gaining strongly while the ruling Social Democrats lost substantial ground. The big winner in Austria was the rightist Freedom Party, which more than doubled its strength over the 2004 elections to 13.1 percent of the vote. It campaigned on an anti-Islam platform.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' anti-Islamic party took 17 percent of the country's votes, taking four of 25 seats.

The Hungarian far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats, with the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, capturing 14 seats and the governing Socialists only four.

Jobbik describes itself as Euro-skeptic and anti-immigration and wants police to crack down on petty crimes committed by Gypsies. Critics say the party is racist and anti-Semitic.

Fringe groups could use the EU parliament as a platform for their extreme views but were not expected to affect the assembly's increasingly influential lawmaking on issues ranging from climate change to cell-phone roaming charges.

The parliament can also amend the EU budget — euro120 billion ($170 billion) this year — and approves candidates for the European Commission, the EU administration and the board of the European Central Bank.

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's Freedom People's Party held a two-digit lead over his main center-left rival in the most recent polling despite a deep recession and a scandal over allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a young model. Italian results were being released Monday.

In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was facing a showdown with rebel lawmakers on Monday after the party's expected dismal results in the European parliament and local elections were announced.

Brown has been struggling with the economic crisis and a scandal over lawmakers' expenses. The opposition Conservatives are expected to win the next national election, which must be called by June 2010.

An exit poll in Sweden showed the Pirate Party, which advocates shortening the duration of copyright protection and allowing noncommercial file-sharing, capturing one seat with 7.4 percent of the vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One wonders (are you listening, One?) when someone, either in the MSM or in the current administration will shine a light on the fraudulent, nefarious and downright illegal actions this Govenment has perpetrated on well - off and poor alike.

Posted Sunday, June 07, 2009 18:50:51

 



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Warning That Will Go Unheeded

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:12:17 PM
The graphs depicted below are particularly frightening and makes my quest for .45 ACP (unobtainable) even more pressing. I remember where I was on Sunday September 14, 2008 when Drudge  linked me to the Bloomberg article that foretold of the Lehman Bankruptcy
 
I have a feeling that, in 6 months, these will be considered the Good Times in America.

No body listened to McCain in 2005 why would anyone listen to Bernanke in 2009?


30% unemployment by December 2011?

Courtesy of Powerline

BERNANKE'S WARNING

June 7, 2009 Posted by John at 11:57 AM

Fed chief Ben Bernanke testified before the House Committee on the Budget last week. Bernanke's testimony was insightful and in some ways reassuring. But one theme that came through clearly was the grave danger posed by the nation's burgeoning debt. This comes from Bernanke's prepared statement:

The administration recently submitted a proposed budget that projects the federal deficit to reach about $1.8 trillion this fiscal year before declining to 1.3 trillion in 2010 anhis d roughly $900 billion in 2011.

As a consequence of this elevated level of borrowing, the ratio of federal debt held by the public, the nominal GDP, is likely to move up from about 40 percent before the onset of the financial crisis to about 70 percent in 2011. These developments will leave the debt-to-GDP ratio at its highest level since the early 1950s, the years following the massive debt buildup during World War II.

[E]ven as we take steps to address the recession and threats to financial stability, maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance. Prompt attention to questions of fiscal sustainability is particularly critical because of the coming budgetary and economic challenges associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation and continued increases in medical costs. ... With the ratio of debt to GDP already elevated, we will not be able to continue borrowing indefinitely to meet these demands.

In particular, over the longer term, achieving fiscal sustainability -- defined, for example, as a situation in which the ratios of government debt and interest payments to GDP are stable or declining, and tax rates are not so high as to impede economic growth -- requires that spending and budget deficits be well controlled.

 

But no one expects that to happen under the current Congressional leadership.

Congressman Hensarling put up a chart that illustrated the exploding debt-to-GDP ration that Bernanke alluded to. I believe this is it; in any event, it shows the CBO data:

A1a0604_1090603.png

This chart is based on OMB projections; it provides useful historical context. Click to enlarge:

usdebt.jpg.jpeg

This exchange is from Congressman Hensarling's questioning of Bernanke, based on the CBO chart:

HENSARLING: I've seen one analysis, that clearly to keep the debt at -- at today's level, 41 percent of GDP, that either, number one, you're going to have to monetize the debt and essentially inflate the money supply 100 percent, or that tax increases across the board in the neighborhood of 60 percent would be necessary to balance the budget in 10 years.

Has the Federal Reserve done its own calculations? Does this seem to be an accurate analysis?

BERNANKE: We haven't done that particular analysis. I don't think it's realistic to get back to 41 percent that quickly.

HENSARLING: Which means perhaps some level of tax increase, spending decrease, or inflating the money supply is going to be necessary.

BERNANKE: Relative to that CBO baseline, I mean, it's evident that either cuts in spending, increases in taxes, will be necessary to stabilize the fiscal condition.

 

And, finally, this:

QUESTION: Recently, as I believe you know, S&P downgraded U.K.'s debt on May 21st from stable to negative. So what's going to happen if the U.S. loses its AAA rating? Or what happens if we have a 60 percent tax increase over the next 10 years to deal with this massive infusion of debt?

BERNANKE: At -- at some point, you have to have a path of spending and taxes that will give you a stabilization of the debt-to- GDP ratio. If you don't, then fear that the debt will continue to rise will make it very difficult to finance it.

And at some point, you'll hit a point where you'll have to have both very draconian cuts and very large tax increases, which is not something we want. So in order to avoid that outcome down the road, we need to begin now to plan how we're going to get the fiscal situation into a better balance in the medium term. ...

QUESTION: If I look at the bills we've had here on the floor the last couple of weeks we were in session and this week, virtually everything we're doing either authorizes or appropriates more money -- spending -- even, in many cases, than what is anticipated in the charts that we have talked about today. What are the economic consequences of continuing that sort of trend?

BERNANKE: Congressman, as I've -- as I've indicated, we as a country are going to have to make some hard choices. We can't expect to continue to borrow certainly not 12 percent of GDP, but not even 4 or 5 percent of GDP, indefinitely.

And so we need to make a plan, some decisions, about how we're going to bring the budget closer to balance over the medium term. And that means that as you discuss various programs that include spending, you need to think about the revenue sources that would be related to that.

If you don't do that, then, again, you'll see interest rates rise and you'll see reluctance of lenders to provide credit to the U.S. government. That would be a very bad outcome.

 

There is obviously no desire in the Democratic Congress to control spending, so extraordinary tax increases are no doubt in the offing. Still, there is no way the Democrats will raise taxes broadly or steeply enough to address the medium-term fiscal crisis. So it seems safe to predict that Bernanke's warning will go unheeded.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Adult versus Child

Posted by BCORIG on Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:10:15 PM
I read Cheney's transcript and the blatherings of The Child.

No contest.
 
Obama and his minions can't hold a candle to someone with Dick Cheney's intelligence and clear statement of the facts.
 
In the meantime Obama wallows in the same campaign-style rhetoric and even contradicts his own policy.
 
At Political Punch Jake Tapper makes an idiot of Gibbs  (again) but that's not too difficult.
For a humorous but spot on comparison: go to Just One Minute.
Just One Minute  http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/05/obamas-im-tough-on-terror-too-speech.html as well.
 
Obama is the President?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saving Some Money?

Posted by BCORIG on Monday, February 16, 2009 1:10:30 PM
Rassmussen says Congressional Performance 54% Say Congress Doing Poor Job (as of February third).

Voters don’t like what they’ve seen so far as Congress works to lift the troubled U.S. economy.

  • Just 12% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, and 54% rate their performance as poor in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This is drop of two points in the positive column and a jump of seven in the poor category compared to two weeks ago, which marked Congress’ highest marks in a year.
  • Congressional approval has fallen a long way since the inauguration of President Bush eight years ago. At that time, 35% said Congress was doing a good or an excellent job. Just 18% said poor.
  • Only 23% of voters say it is very likely that Congress will address the serious issues facing the nation in the near future, a drop of seven points from two weeks ago. Eleven percent (11%) say Congress is not at all likely to address serious issues.
  • Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now believe Members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than in helping people (17%).
  • Thirty-one percent (31%) say most members of Congress are corrupt while 41% disagree.
  • Sixty-two percent (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation in the past year that will significantly improve life in America; 12% say it has. These numbers have been largely unchanged for months.

Just for fun:

 When  a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their  staff and workers.  The remaining workers  need to find ways to continue to do a good job or  risk that their job would be eliminated as  well.  Wall street, and the media normally  congratulate the CEO for making this type of  "tough decision", and his board of directors gives  him a big  bonus. 
Our  government should not be immune from similar  risks.  
Therefore:  

  • Reduce the House of Representatives from  the current 435  members to 218  members and  Senate members  from 100  to 50 (one  per State).
Also reduce remaining staff by  25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two  elections) and of course this would require some  redistricting (and, I realize, some major modifications to The Constitution - but this is just for fun, isn't it?).

Some Yearly  Monetary Gains  Include:

  • $44,108,400 for  elimination of base pay for congress. (267  members X $165,200 pay / member /  yr.)< /span
  • $97,175,000 for  elimination of the above people's  staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per  each member of the House,
  • $3 Million in staff  per each member of the Senate every  year)
  • $240,294 for  the reduction in remaining staff by  25%. 
  • $7,500,000,000 reduction  in pork barrel ear-marks  each year. (those members whose jobs are  gone. Current estimates for total government pork  earmarks are at $15  Billion / yr)

 

The  remaining representatives would need to  work smarter  and would need to  improve efficiencies. It  might even be in their  best interests to work together for the good of  our country? 


We  may also expect that smaller committees might lead  to a more efficient resolution of issues as  well. It  might even be easier to keep track of what your  representative is  doing. 


Congress  has more tools available to do their jobs than it  had back in 1911 when the current number  of representatives was  established.  (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a  few)
NB 
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it  was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix  to the economic problems.  Also, we have 3  senators that have  not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months  (on the campaign  trail) and still they all have been accepting full  pay.  These facts alone support a reduction  in senators & congress. 

Summary  of opportunity:

  • $  44,108,400 reduction of congress  members.
    •
    • $282,100,  000 for elimination of the reduced house member  staff. 
    • $150,000,000  for elimination of reduced senate member  staff. 
    • $59,675,000  for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house  members. 
    • $37,500,000  for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate  members. 
    • $7,500,000,000  reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction  of congress  members. 

 

$8,073,383,400 per  year,  estimated total  savings. (that's  $8-BILLION just to  start!)

 


Big  business does  these types  of cuts all the  time.
If  Congressmen and women  were required to serve 20, 25 or  30 years (like everyone else) in order to  collect retirement benefits there is no telling  how much we would  save. Now  they get full retirement after serving  only ONE term. 


.



 

 


 

 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Person In Whittier

Posted by BCORIG on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:24:43 PM
The person in Whittier:
She was implanted by an unknown fertility clinic, apparently, because she didn't want embryos from a In Vitro efforts to "go to waste".

Under existing statutes (there are none, actually) there is nothing anyone in HealthCare can do to change someone's mind when it comes to issues of life.

Ethics is variously defined as a set of moral principles, a theory or system of moral values or the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.
 
In Bioethics there are various principles that often conflict. The ones that apply here are
Sanctity of Life
Autonomy (self determined choice)
Informed Consent - the patient has the right to know the benefits and burdens of a treatment
Decision Making Capacity
 
Sanctity of Life and Autonomy clash here: Is ending the life of some or most of the embryos ethical? The MDs at Kaiser Bellflower (I know them personally, they are competent caring people) likely tried to convince the mother to terminate some of the pregnancies but you cannot do anything without the permission of the patient (Autonomy). There was no ethics board because In Vitro Fertilization  procedures are a cash and carry procedure. Kaiser doesn't do them but we (nor anyone) cannot turn away anyone who shows up for care once it is done - no matter how many pregnancies. As stated above, there are no statutes to forbid or limit the number of pregnancies.
 
Informed Consent - the MDs certainly told her what she (and her children) was potentially in for.
Decision Making Capacity - was she crazy for doing this? The only way to keep her from getting implanted with 8 was to
1. Have whoever implanted her before she got to Kaiser (the IVF provider) refuse (and not get paid - fat chance) 
or  
2. Declare her insane and incapable of making an informed decision.
 
Is bringing them to term where they will certainly have ongoing (expensive) health issues that will continue to absorb resources (thereby denying or delaying such resources) ethical? This seems to be the major issue most ethicists (in the press) are concentrating on.
 
Now that you've pinned me down, what do I think?
8 embryos should not have been implanted - this is excessive and puts everyone's life in danger. Such an act threatens Sanctity of Life and hence is unethical. However, once the pregnancies were established the same Principle applies and the others kick in. You have to deliver and care for them the best you can.  
 
There is still a conflict here because what do you do with the embryos? If you dispose of them, that violates Sanctity of Life, assuming one believes that is when life begins.

My head hurts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another contemporary infant-toting, infant-neglecting female politician in the Sarah Palin mold?

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:35:41 PM

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. chosen to replace Hillary Clinton (!)

 

Auster asks: Another contemporary infant-toting, infant-neglecting female politician in the Sarah Palin mold?
 
NOT!!
 
There are a few similarities including support for Second Amendment Rights and non-support for the initial Bailout.  (At least that's what her website says).
 
However she is Dartmouth Educated, She also won her election much in the same way Obama beat Jack Ryan for his Senate Seat smearing her opponent.  
 
Also I wonder if Sally Quinn will attack Gillibrand for neglecting her kids and then eat crow a week later?
 
Bio:

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Office: Elected to Congress in 2006  

 

  • Birthdate: Dec. 9, 1966, in Albany, N.Y.  
  • Residence: Hudson, N.Y. 
  • Education: Graduated from Dartmouth College in 1988, and U.C.L.A. in 1991. 
  • Religion: Catholic 
  • Marital Status: Married (Jonathan). 
  • Children: 2 sons - 5 years and 6 months old
  • Professional Career: Practicing attorney, 1991-2006; special counsel, HUD, 2000.
  • Committees: Agriculture (18th of 25 D): Livestock, Dairy & Poultry; Horticulture & Organic Agriculture; Conservation, Credit, Energy & Research. Armed Services (28th of 34 D): Seapower & Expeditionary Forces; Terrorism, Unconventional Threats & Capabilities. 
  • Gillibrand is the daughter of Douglas Rutnik, an Albany lobbyist who is part of former Gov. George Pataki's inner circle. Her grandmother was a prominent Democratic activist in Albany who brought Gillibrand along with her on the campaign trail.
  • Gillibrand served as a law clerk at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Gillibrand traveled widely, working one summer for Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato
  • After law school Gillibrand served briefly as special counsel under Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, before going to work for a major New York City law firm.
  • Gillibrand scored one of the big upsets of the 2006 elections when she defeated incumbent GOP Rep. John Sweeney for New York's 20th District seat. The critical moment in the campaign came shortly before Election Day, when a leaked police report showed Sweeney's wife had called 911 in what appeared to be a domestic violence incident.

Perhaps it could be worse - we almost got another Kennedy.

At least she's a Blue Dog.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush3?

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:51:59 PM
On the Daily Show? Have the Oceans parted yet?
Compare and contrast:
Delusional blind idolatry. Price of admission: $160M (US) plus $850B (US) as a chaser.  
The difference is, and Bush's failing, is that the Little Child just elected by others (not me, so I won't say "we") is an excellent speaker and Bush is not.
Bush never had the will, nor, it seems, did he feel it was important, to speak passionately about his ideas. He just got up everyday and went to work.  
The Little Child will be just like his Uncle (W.J. Clinton) and speak well. In the meantime he will do tremendous damage to this country, much more than Uncle Bill.  
Hopefully by the Midterms the "White Male Construction Workers", among others, who did vote for this guy will see what they have wrought.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The John Murtha Jihadist Correctional Facility

Posted by BCORIG on Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:26:08 PM
Dolt!
Sometimes I can't believe how slow on the uptake I am. Here, I am sitting around emitting platitudes to the new Administration's obvious continuation  of the Bush Policy on Terrorist internment and then someone who actually is on to these thugs and crooks has to set me straight. 
Of course these guys want to, and will, close Gitmo - they want the money to house these subhumans in their own districts!!
Consider it an Economic stimulation.
 
 
 

 

Michelle Malkin

The John Murtha Jihadist Correctional Facility

Get this: King of Pork John Murtha, the 19-term Democratic congressman from western Pennsylvania, now wants to welcome a flood of Guantanamo Bay jihadists into his district. I don't want to hear a single word of protestation from the constituents who put this money-grubbing, security-undermining fool back into office. As you vote, so shall you reap.

Murtha audaciously expressed his hope to house Gitmo detainees after President Barack Obama circulated his draft executive order to shut the facility down by the end of the year. "Sure, I'd take 'em," Murtha glibly retorted. "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." Murtha blustered that there was "no reason not to put 'em in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."

Before we unpack all that ignorant nonsense, let us pause to illuminate Murtha's motives. He is driven neither by a warped sense of patriotic duty nor by misguided human rights compassion for al-Qaida foot soldiers. No, what fuels him is unabashed greed and a lifelong edifice complex. The money-grubbing Murtha, you see, just can't wait to snatch up federal tax dollars to build a new maximum security prison for the Gitmo gang — no doubt with his name and face plastered all over it. Welcome to the John Murtha Jihadist Correctional Facility.

Forget about the increased risk Murtha would subject his district to by volunteering it as a highly visible terror target. Forget about the disgusting affront this pork grab poses to the families of those who died on United Flight 93 — which 9/11 terrorists crashed in Shanksville, Pa., represented by none other than Murtha at the time. There's a shining prison on a hill to be built, and Murtha will sell out his neighbors' safety to make sure it's built on his hill.

Murtha's got logs to roll and wheels to grease. National security is an impediment, not an imperative. Would you expect anything less from the shameless politician caught on tape in the 1980s Abscam congressional bribery scandal mulling payoffs from FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks? ("How much money we talking about," Murtha asked one of the bagmen. "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't.")

Murtha's contempt for the people he serves should surprise no one. This is the man who called his own voters "rednecks" and who has refused to back down from his smears of the exonerated Marines who served in Haditha, Iraq, as "cold-blooded" murderers. This is the man who denies that we are combating al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq. This is the man who lives in a fantasy world where re-deploying American soldiers to Okinawa is a viable defense plan.

Murtha can't see any reason for keeping Gitmo detainees from flooding our regular prisons and preventing them from exploiting our civilian court system, because he is willfully blind and stone stupid.

John Murtha, meet Lynne Stewart. She's the disgraced lawyer convicted last year of abetting her terrorist client — 1993 World Trade Center bombing/NY landmark bombing mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman. Stewart helped smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.

While Rahman's court-appointed translator conveyed the message during prison visits, Stewart made "covering noises," including shaking a water jar and tapping on the table. A draft fatwa was discovered in Stewart's office; she also signaled Rahman's wishes to his jihadist organization in an interview with Reuters news service. The publication of those comments ushered in a new wave of bombing attacks by Rahman's previously dormant terrorist outfit. The left-wing radical Stewart remains unrepentant and clings to her belief that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "armed struggle."

Now, imagine a traitorous bleeding-heart Stewart assigned to each and every one of the 250-odd Gitmo detainees. Imagine the risk of similar jailhouse collaborations to innocent men, women and children at home and abroad. Imagine the three-ring, O.J.-like circuses these trials will bring to your backyards. It's easy if you try.

Prosecuting suspected terrorists like petty thieves or drug dealers is fraught with peril. The Democrats have learned nothing from the failed law enforcement strategies of the feckless Clinton era. Confiscated al-Qaida training manuals have revealed that recruits are instructed in how to manipulate the Western legal system if they are captured.

Affording accused al-Qaida operatives the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial threatens to compromise classified information necessary to prosecute future terrorist trials. Other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment — the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify, the right to an attorney — can interfere with interrogations of captured suspected al-Qaida agents. And while the lives of those directly involved in, say, a mob trial might be endangered, the entire nation may be at risk if we allow suspected members of a terrorist network to engage in the discovery process and in privileged communications with attorney-abettors.

Who will be accountable when these prosecutions run amok? When convicted jihadists wreak bloody havoc from behind bars? And when Gitmo recidivists wage war anew once released?

John Murtha doesn't give a damn. Do you?

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

 
 
 
 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Repeat of the June 29, 2008 E mail

Posted by BCORIG on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
This is a repeat of the E mail I sent out on June 29,2008. I haven't changed much since.

OK OK so I haven’t posted anything in months. You might say that I have been preoccupied with other things. However, tomorrow I plan to embark upon a 9 day sojourn to familiar climes on the island of Maui. I will dare the skies inn a possibly under-maintained aircraft piloted by a possibly anxious and disgruntled pilot who might be distracted from the immediate task at hand by pondering wondering where his next paycheck might be coming from.
 
And so I have been distracted as well.
 
Since my post on April 29 we have seen the retail price of a regular gallon of gasoline go from $3.89/gal to $4.58/gal. Somehow back then it was not as disturbing as it is now. And, of course, the idiot Democrats are going to blame Bush and the inept Republicans will rail about the missed opportunities in exploration and increased refinery capacity we had over the past 10 years. Remember ten years ago we were snoring through Kyoto, the orphan child of the 1992 Earth Summit . No one wanted to be seen as increasing greenhouse gasses back then. And here we are now.
 
None of this will make much difference between now and November anyway. And that is all that matters. High gasoline process is exactly what the Democrats had in mind all along, to reduce the American standard of living and push millions of us into the arms of an ever expanding Government o protect and care for them.
 
The United States is on the verge of becoming a European Welfare state, much in the mold of France, England and Germany and this election will tell us if we’ve arrived or if we’ve staved off the inevitable for another four more years
 
After 2004 Michael Barone was certain that the country was turning to the Right – I have lost that link to his blog but he read the tea-leaves of the post election results and that was his conclusion. Republicans would be moving out of the big cities and populating the Red Areas on the map to the extent that the Coastal influence on electoral votes would be decreased over time.  I hope he was right.
 
Obama is merely a fool but John McCain is doing what any sane Republican would be doing in a year where the Republican brand is worth less than $0.62 per Euro. He is trying to win the Election. And he’d better. Especially after Boumediene and Heller v. Washington DC . We need to have someone in there who is his own man.
 
I have many dear friends, whose opinions I trust and respect, telling me that a Republican loss and a 4 years disaster under Obama is just what the country needs to get back to where Barone said it was going a la Reagan versus Carter in 1980. I have been wobbly on McCain but I have never been wobbly about the fact that if Obama, an inexperienced race-baiting fool (I know it links to NPR but listen anyway – you will be surprised) gets elected, there is no Ronald Reagan this time to meet him on the other side of his first four years. Romney? Don't make me laugh (although I could use a good one). Barr? Painted as way too far out there. Gingrich? Perhaps but it will take a lot of rehabilitation. Chuck Hagel? Uhhhhhhhhhhh. In my humble estimation none of these guys have any traction for 2012.
 
So, the vote has to go to McCain. And he has to win. I know the issues that we disagree on with him but there is no choice. Don’t sit it out Mr. Dobson – your ring isn’t worth kissing, we have to beat Obama and the Socialist Agenda he carries.  
 
So, I have a request of Laura Ingraham, Anne Coulter and Bob Barr, (yeah, I know the last is from the LA Times but hey, this is what a lot of people still read) : SHUT UP!!!
 
Unless they can convince me that they are not happily anticipating 4 years of attacking Barack Obama just so they can sell more books and expand their syndication deals (look how Rush benefited from the Clinton Administration), they become less and less credible. In particular, when Laura Ingraham runs out of meaningful things to say she attacks the personal appearance the people she disagrees with. Didn’t we see enough of that with Katherine Harris?
 
Remember
 
“Going of the cliff, flags flying, is still just going off the cliff”. Ronald Reagan
 
I’m going to Maui.  

McCain in 2008. It’s still too close to call. Ask Bob Novak.
 
Now where are those dang bumper stickers?
 
One man’s opinion – without tears
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Back On Line Back from Maui

Posted by BCORIG on Monday, July 14, 2008 4:41:52 PM

For some reason the Town Blog mechanism was down on June 29, when I attempted my last post.

I went to Maui and had a fairly good time. However there were some reminders that all is not well in this Country at this time – mostly economically, and all is not well politically in Hawaii – no sign of any McCain, or any Republican, support at all. It’s all Obama all the time. 

On three previous visits to Lahaina over the past 87 years my family and I would encounter throngs of people walking the street, usually in the early evening. The bars and restaurants full, waiting times at the Lahaina Fish Company, Cheeseburger in Paradise or Bubba Gump Shrimp Company ranged between 45 minutes to 2 hours.

Not this time

Front Street was jammed on only one day – the Fourth of July. Otherwise it almost, at times, appeared abandoned. There was no waiting at any of the restaurants (if you manage to find an airline that goes to Hawaii and has seats I would actually suggest Lahaina Coolers, which is on the landward side of the street in the Video Cinema Center Across the street from the *** tree. They have amazing salad – meals there for a very reasonable price.

Excursions – the usual snorkeling, parasailing, kayaking tours, almost always needed booking way ahead of time were wide open for scheduling, with decreased prices compared to brochures we had from 2006 (our last visit).

 The Concierge at our Condo – The Mahana at Kaanapali, told us that Hotel Bookings were down from the usual 100% occupancy rates, seen in recent years, to 65%. She and many others were fairly glum about recent and immediate economic prospects for the Islands.

Gasoline was about $0.20 higher than in the 909. Traffic was about the same as before. I (my wife) got a great car rental deal from Alamo.

But on the TV news and in the newspapers, on bumperstickers and tee shirts it was all Obama all the time. Because he went to school there they are always talking about him as if he was a native son. (I thought he was a typical Midwesterner clinging to God and his guns from Kansas).

 Sonny Boy’s policies on taxes and energy could very well worsen, not improve, the economic lot of a State that relies totally on Tourism

 His proposed tax increases on the “wealthy” have a potential to decimate even further the visitors to the Island by decreasing the amount of money people have to spend.

Obama’s energy policies as stated on his website do not include increased exploration or refining capacity. With two airlines ceasing operations in April, there was a 15% reduction in airline seat capacity.

 

What most islanders told me their main worry was that United, American, Northwest and Continental all will continue to decrease flights due to rising fuel costs and thereby continue to decrease tourism access to the Islands. When I mentioned that Southwest is planning service to the Islands, people were extremely enthusiastic.

 The “change” that Obama purports to be in favor of will sink the Islands in particular, and severely decimate the Mainland.  

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CAPITAL GAINS

Posted by BCORIG on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:10:57 AM
I have a notion that the best candidate should be elected president - the voters should look at experience and the each candidate's stance on the issues important to them as the arbiters of their decision.
Obama has demonstrated a stupefying inability to understand basic economics in his attempts at explaining his (mis) understanding of the economic dynamics of the capitol gains tax .
His race is not an issue here. A fool is a fool. 

 
-Publius sent me this excellent piece by Thomas Sowell.

This man can write . . .

a great quote:

"Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and

too ignorant of history to have heard about it"

DG (Publius)

 
An Old Newness
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The threat of Fascism in America

Posted by BCORIG on Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:50:57 PM
Thank you, Dafydd
 
Read the whole thing but the point is
 
If A Democrat wins in 2008 the new Government will immediately declerare a "Crisis" suspend civil liberties and use this power:
  • To institute socialized medical "alliances" between government and private health-care experts eerily similar to Benito Mussolini's business alliances;
  • To seize control of industry in the name of the environment;
  • To draft "hate-speech" laws and create an American Human Rights Commission that will finally outlaw all that pesky dissent;
  • To reinstate Woodrow Wilson's sedition laws, criminalizing non-cooperation with the Progressivist agenda;
  • To seize more and more national resources through confiscatory taxation and onerous regulation;
  • To use that vast, new revenue stream to reeducate and reform Americans' health and morals -- from what we are allowed to eat, drink, and smoke to what we are allowed to watch, read, and think -- along the lines of It Takes a Village (and Nineteen Eighty-Four);
  • And always, always, to do an end-run around normal democracy, Capitalism, and individual choice... because, during this emergency, there's no time to waste on debate or disputation. "The time for selfish indulgence is past; we need action, action, action!"
Fascism in action!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I can't define Hate but I know it when I see it

Posted by BCORIG on Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:53:52 PM

Barack Obama's "spiritual advisor", Rev Jeremiah Wright of has some very interesting viewpoints when it comes to the Brotherhood of Man and the Audacity of Hope.  The guy is a flat - out bigot of the first degree. Obama's continued association and affirmation of this person, as well as the attitude of Obama's downtrodden spouse  is a strong indication that all this blather about "uniting" the country is nothing but that – blather.

A true “uniter” (sic) would distance himself from people who are on record for saying things like this. I think Roger Simon summed it up best  when he said “[W]e don't choose our family, but Obama chose this racist demagogue as his pastor for decades. It's not funny. Barack is running for President of the United States." Ron Kessler summarizes all this very nicely.

 And wait a minute. When has Obama ever referred to Wright as his Pastor? Wright is referred to as Obama’s “Spiritual Advisor”. Someone tell me the heck is a “Spiritual Advisor”? My LCMS pastor is my Pastor, although one of his functions is to serve as my “spiritual advisor”. Why doesn’t Obama ever refer to this guy as his Pastor? I think it’s just another way of having it both ways.

 In 2004 our Pastor (a different one, BTW) was very careful not to preach politics from the Pulpit like Wright has (view the Powerline link that has a video of Wright basically campaigning against Hillary Clinton from the Pulpit). At that time the Pastor (my Spiritual Advisor) explained it to me this way: It’s against the rules, and we obey the rules.

The rule:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax."

 I guess some people get to make up their own rules.     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »