Saturday, July 16, 2005

 

Paul Begala Is an Idiot

One of Clinton's closest advisiors, a television "pundit" and most recently an invited speaker at a young liberals meeting is out of his mind. The fact that he was invited to speak by this group makes them insane by association. Just why do I say he is an idiot and likely lacks serious reality testing capability? Mostly because of the following rant, which apparenlty summs up his view of the Bush whitehouse policy on everything from the war on terror to taxes to social issues:

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."

So now you know where the crazy left stands. And they wonder why they have a hard time connecting with the average American?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

 

Karl Rove, Whistleblower He told the truth about Joe Wilson

OpinionJournal adequately sums up the backassward view that the mainstream press has been serving up regarding Joe Wilson, his wife and his attack on the Bush campaign disguised as a CIA report.

Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

 

No More Complaining - Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media Takes Action Against Judicial Misaction

After tearing down personal property rights with the Kelo/Eminent domain case, many of us wondered just how to get back at the Supreme Court for their supreme elitism. Logan Darrow has done it with actions. He has filed a request to condemn the land that Justice Souter's house sets on with the intention of building a hotel and museum dedicated to the continuing loss of liberty in this country. Let's hope he succeeds.

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com


Excellent!

Sunday, June 26, 2005

 

Oliver North: Words have meaning

Those on the far left are employing the same kind of rhetoric and tactics that worked during the Vietnam War -- where overheated rhetoric and the most vile slander are acceptable if they tarnish the president and hurt our war effort. They have no shame. They play politics like the Islamo-fascists conduct warfare -- dirty, ruthless and reckless, with no discernible rules, no regard for fact and no compunction about stabbing people in the back.

So true. And only now are those who played the same game during Vietnam (ie Jane Fonda) realizing just how dangerous their rhetoric was.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

 

Larry Elder: If Bush is dumb...?

It just keeps getting better. Not only did Kerry make up his 'war stories', his intellectual prowess was also a big lie.

After promising during the campaign and then refusing to do so, Kerry finally signed Form 180, which authorized the military to release all of his records. (One of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, says the records are incomplete and mysteries still remain.) The recently released records appear to back up Kerry's account of his activities and injuries in Vietnam.

Kerry's military records also include his college grades. (The New Yorker printed Bush's grades in 1999, but Kerry consistently refused to release his.) It turns out that "dummy" and fellow Yalie George W. Bush made better grades than did brainy, intellectual John Kerry. Under Yale's grading system at the time Bush and Kerry attended, grades from 90 to 100 meant an A, 80 to 89 a B, 70 to 79 a C, and 60 to 69 a D. Kerry received five Ds, including four in his freshman year, with a D in political science! Bush, during his time at Yale, got one D, in astronomy. Overall, Kerry finished Yale with a cumulative score of 76. Bush finished with a score of 77. So who's the dummy?

In fact, Bush himself jokes about his mediocre grades. At the 2001 Yale commencement ceremony, the president said, "To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students -- I say, you, too, can be president of the United States." Can we expect similar self-deprecating humor from Kerry?

For what it's worth, Thomas Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Mind," says that most millionaires come from the ranks of B and C students. Their success comes from the "people skills" to manage, lead and inspire. That sounds like poor George W. He got elected and re-elected governor of Texas. And then elected and re-elected president of the United States.

Not bad . . . for a "dummy."

This is the perfect example of the elite left - they think they are smarter and better than the average person.

 

Congress should give workers back their extra Social Security taxes - WSJ.com

A very interesting idea to reform social security which has a twist on the personal accounts.

Instead of spending this retirement money, the reformers would allow individual workers to divert every surplus Social Security dollar--from now until the extra cash runs out in 2016--into personal retirement accounts.

For the past 20 or so years, the federal government has collected $1.67 trillion more in payroll taxes (and accumulated interest) than it has paid out in retirement benefits to senior citizens. But not a penny of this money has been saved for any worker's retirement

DeMint-Ryan would allow workers to create individual personal retirement accounts and place marketable government bonds worth their portion of the Social Security surplus into these accounts. Think of this as creating 140 million "lock box" accounts, one for every American worker. After three years, workers could trade these Treasury bonds and invest instead in higher-return mutual funds containing a combination of corporate stocks and bonds.

As for the politics, this calls the bluff of Democrats who claim to be the sole protectors of the Social Security trust fund but have done nothing to stop depleting it. Do they want to protect it or not? And by investing only surplus payroll taxes into private accounts, the proposal blunts the (specious but politically potent) attacks from AARP and the left that personal accounts will endanger the program's solvency. The DeMint-Ryan plan enhances solvency by preventing raids on the trust fund, which is a practice that has long infuriated senior citizens.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

 

Softball: On the fast track UA's Hollowell, Lowe selected for U.S. National Team

Candrea knows how to pick em!

University of Arizona softball players Caitlin Lowe and Alicia Hollowell will play this summer at the sport's highest level.

Lowe, who will be a junior outfielder, and Hollowell, a senior pitcher, were two of 18 players selected for the U.S. National Team, which will be led by UA coach Mike Candrea.

Two former Wildcats, both holdovers from the 2004 gold-medal winning Olympic team, are also on the team - pitcher Jennie Finch and infielder Lovie Jung.

Forty-five players competed at the camp, with 16 players selected for the elite team, which also will compete internationally this summer.

Two other former Arizona players also were chosen for that squad - outfielder Nicole Giordano (who was an alternate on last summer's Olympic team) and catcher Mackenzie Vandergeest.

 

Cheer Up, Conservatives!

An interesting piece putting into perspective some recent conservative based criticism that things aren't going our way.

The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)

If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).

So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.

 

Michelle Malkin: Debunking another Gitmo myth

Malkin, addressing the complete misrepresentation by the media and both sides of the isle with respect to gitmo.

Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters -- with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial -- is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system -- long established in wartime -- in the first place.

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

 

Walter E. Williams: Do we want this?

In response to those who think that the Canadian socialized health care system is a good idea...

"I wonder just how many Americans would like to import Canada's healthcare system, which prohibits the purchase of private insurance and private healthcare services. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. In my book, it's medical Naziism for government to prohibit a person who wishes to purchase medical services from doing so. But let's not look down our noses at our northern neighbors, for we too are well along the road toward medical Naziism.

Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness." Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004. For example, depending on which Canadian province, an MRI requires a wait between 7 and 33 weeks. "

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

 

Radio DJ wins $10.6 million in stink over perfume

This pisses me off in so many ways, I can barely type. $7 million for punitive damages and $2 million in mental damages - you would think this women was beaten and then forced to watch the slow torture of her entire family. I wonder who is going to pay for this malingerer's lottery win - Infinity Broadcasting, or the consumer?

Monday, May 23, 2005

 

Democratic Senator Kennedy Condemns Filibuster

Radioblogger, Hugh Hewitt's red headed stepchild, has posted transcripts of Teddy Kennedy, on the senate floor, denouncing the use of filibusters against judicial nominees and calling for the senate to stick to the traditional (and constitutional) 'advise and consent.' As can be expected, this was a PB (pre-Bush) speech about the republicans holding up nominees in committee. As usual, 'the process' is only sacred when it is working in their favor. This week the dems should search long and hard before refusing an up or down vote on these judges and their subsequent threat to shut down the senate. If this happens and one obstructionist policy is followed by another - god help them in the next election cycle.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

 

Charles Krauthammer Sets The Record Straight on Bush, The Democrats And Social Security Reform

As usual, the democrats have done nothing but obstruct and object without offering any alternatives. Bush has now offered at least four plans for keeping Social Security solvent - the democrats have offered none. Not only is their claims that there is nothing to worry about now with Social Security laughable, it goes right in the face of claims made by Clinton on other high ranking Democrats just five years ago. In order to seem less obstructionist, the democrats claim they are willing to negotiate - but only if personal accounts are off the table. I'm not sure what the dems think 'negotiation' means but demanding that one of the cornerstones of the Bush plan be thrown out before talks begin is no type of honest or genuine negotiation.

Krauthammer points out that all the proposing so far has been by the president and received by an obstinate left:
To be sure, the president started all this on his own, first proposing personal accounts. Democrats objected that this did nothing about the really important issue, namely solvency. So Bush offered five solvency alternatives in his State of the Union address (four first proposed by Democrats) and welcomed any other ideas. The Democrats answered: "You go first." On April 28 the president did go first, proposing a remarkably progressive reduction in the rate of growth of benefits.

The Democratic leadership, supported by misleading headlines around the country, denounced these "cuts" as the work of a party that never did believe in Social Security and now wants to kill it.


The dems are in such a knee-jerk reflex mode against everything Bush proposes, they do not even realize he has proposed a system where the rich pay more and get less back:
Yes, these are cuts, but only in the growth of promised benefits in the future -- based on formulas written in the pre-baby boomer retirement era that so inflate benefits that they are entirely unsustainable. They cannot possibly be paid by the taxes of the fewer workers in the future who will be supporting the many retirees.

To simplify somewhat, the amount of your first check upon retirement is based on your average wages during your lifetime. Then a formula adjusts that number to wage inflation -- which generally amounts to price inflation plus about 1 percent annually. The Bush proposal is to preserve this ever-increasing, ever-compounding benefit formula for poorer Americans, while gradually phasing out the extra 1 percent as you move to wealthy wage earners.

No one gets cut -- either in nominal or real dollars. Everyone gets at least as much or more than any retiree today, with the poor getting progressively more every year.

So everyone continues to get an increase in their benefits. The wealthy do not get as much of an increase but continue paying the same social security taxes. The poor and middle class get the same increase as always.

Don't be fooled by the word 'cut'. Remember that in Washington D.C., if a plan calls to double funding of a project every year and then a decision is made to only increase the budget by 80% - this will be decried as a cut, despite the fact this means a one million dollar budget would still increase by $800,000.00. To be sure, this is not a cut to the average citizen.

Finally, as to the solvency question: while the democrats want you to put your head in the sand and not worry about the impending doom, the problem is closer than we may think:
And Democrats have a wonderful smoke screen. These "cuts" are not only destructive but unnecessary, they claim, because the insolvency does not kick in until sometime in mid-century -- the Democrats' latest comically precise number is 2052 -- when the "trust fund" runs out. (So much for their month-ago concern about solvency.)

But things are worse than that. The fiscal problem starts to kick in not in 2017 but in 2009. The Social Security surplus, which Congress happily spends every year, peaks in 2008. Which means that starting in four years (and for every year thereafter) a budgetary squeeze begins, requiring new taxation or new borrowing.

If in 2010 tax revenue and spending remain exactly the same as in 2009, the Treasury will not end up with the same size deficit. It will end up with a larger deficit, because the amount of money it was receiving free and "borrowed" from the Social Security surplus will have shrunk.

That surplus shrinks from its peak in 2008 to zero in 2017 and goes negative after that. That is a very serious fiscal problem that starts not in 50 years, not even in 12 years, but in four.

This is a huge problem. Yet not one plan, proposal or suggestion by the lefty democrats. Instead they are filibustering in the congress and using scare tactics with the elderly and poor citizenry to block this necessary reform. We can only hope that the obvious politics of obstruction are noticed by Jane and Joe voter.

Monday, May 02, 2005

 

Candrea Named USOC Coach of the Year

More accolades for the man who has built the biggest UA dynasty. Don't get me wrong, a small part of me will die the day Lute Olson retires, but there is just no denying that the strongest sports dynasty at the UA for at least the last 10 years has been the softball team. Mike Candrea took over 20 years ago and has 1000 vicotries and an 0.85 winning percentage to show for his hard work and first class coaching.

Candrea by the Numbers

Year at Arizona: 20
Overall record: 982-191
Pac-10 games: 298-73
NCAA games: 95-26
NCAA Regional : 50-6
WCWS games: 45-20
WS Champs: 6
Olympic Gold: 1
All-Americans: 69

Just don't tell anyone about this:
The Candrea File
Years as a Coach: 29
Birth date: Aug. 29, 1966, New Orleans, La.
College: Arizona State, 1978
Advanced Degree: Master’s, ASU, 1980
Children: Son, Mikel (25), daughter, Michelle (23)

Sunday, April 17, 2005

 

Boston Globe's Seal Hunt Story - Another MSM Blunder

Michelle Malkin reports on the seal hunt story many of us read last week. It seems as if the greusom story of the seas running red with baby seal blood was reported and published in the Boston Globe - a few days before the hunt opened - by an author with a source who was not there. Apparently, the seal hunt opening day was postponed due to weather but the fact-checkers at the Globe missed that and published the story anyway which included descriptions of apparent eye-witness descriptions of the event. Not surprisingly, the article is no longer available at BostonGlobe.com but here is the copy from the google cache:
Canadian seal hunt resumes

Animal rights organizations protest strongly

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia -- Over the vigorous protests of international animal-welfare organizations, the largest seal hunt in a half-century resumed yesterday off Newfoundland and Labrador. Hunters on about 300 boats converged on ice floes, shooting harp seal cubs by the hundreds, as the ice and water turned red. Most of the seals were less than 6 weeks old.


Below the Globe post, Malkin also has linked many other instances of the MSM either making up stories or publishing articles before the events actually happened. We should not be surprised given the sorry state of the MSM these days. A particularly bad problem lately is that many so-called news pieces are actually written by special interest or advocacy groups and then run on MSM newpapers and television as a real story. Rarely does the MSM bother to check these stories, which are really biased press releases, for accuracy. If you still feel you are getting unbiased or even accurate information from the average MSM news source, you may need to re-think your position.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?