Sunday, January 31, 2010

Karl Rove On The House Republican Retreat

From the RUBY SLIPPERS blog:
Much has been made of the President's appearance at the House Republican retreat on Friday. MSNBC changed their lineup Friday night to host a one hour special touting the genius of Obama's success in handing those nasty Republicans their hats and sending back where they belong, in the political wilderness. It was obnoxious. It was also a gross overstatement but we've come to expect nothing less from that network. It was an amazing moment according to Democrats:
The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation." This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat. Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)
I watched most of this event on Friday and saw a defensive thin-skinned Obama pretend he was suddenly all about bipartisanship. As usual, Obama laid a heaping helping of blame on Republicans but was forced to admit the Republicans had ideas, that he'd seen them and considered them. Perhaps it's just me but didn't he just spend an entire year claiming the exact opposite? READ FULL STORY >
January 29, 2010 - Rove: Obama Met With GOP to Depict Them as Obstructionists as He Faked Bipartisan Outreach for TV
Video provided by PoliJAM
Bookmark and Share

Governor Palin's January 28, 2010 interview with Greta Van Susteren

Found via PalinTV.com
January 30, 2010 - Governor Palin on Greta Part 1/2 (Jan 28 2010) Part 1 of Governor Palin's January 28 2010 interview with Greta Van Susteren. In this segment the Governor discusses President Obamas State of the Union Address. Topics include Jobs creation, Unemployment, Health Care
Video provided by AdoringPalin
January 30, 2010 - Governor Palin on Greta Part 2/2 (Jan 28 2010) Part 2 of Governor Palin's interview with Greta Van Susteren. In this segment the Governor talks about the controversy over CBS accepting the The ridiculous situation NOW is getting themselves into with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they'll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances.
Video provided by AdoringPalin
Bookmark and Share

Ants, grasshoppers and God ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Since the Bible is ever a handy resource for life's concerns, I'll direct the doubtful to parts of Proverbs 6:
"Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! …it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest – and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man."
Patrice Lewis By Patrice Lewis Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I've been thinking a great deal about poverty lately, specifically its causes as well as what our obligations are (both personal and societal) to alleviate it. This is a dicey subject to address for two reasons. First, because of our current economy, there are many people who are a heck of a lot poorer than they were two years ago. And second, any time someone addresses the issue of poverty, except from a leftist position, they are automatically labeled as cruel, unfeeling, lacking in compassion, and the usual plethora of criticism – without consideration as to whether the arguments have any merit or not. The reason this issue came up was because of a recent comment on my blog entry "The Ant and the Grasshopper." I had posted one of those humorous modern-twist rewrites of Aesop's classic fable circulating around the Internet. Most of the readers got a chuckle out of it. But someone took exception to our amusement and accused us of not being Christian because we preferred the original moral of the story ("Be Responsible for Yourself"). This poses an interesting question. To what extent are we socially, morally and ethically responsible for others? At what point do the Ants share their hard-earned resources with the Grasshoppers? And is it ethical to force the Ants to distribute their resources to the Grasshoppers at the point of a gun? What responsibility do the Grasshoppers have in their own fate? Let's make one thing clear: In Aesop's fable, what distinguishes the Ant from the Grasshopper is a work ethic. Nothing more, nothing less. The Grasshopper is not down on his luck while the Ant is busy storing food. He is not ill, or handicapped, or in debt , or out of work, or any other hardship an insect might face which would keep him from working toward a secure future for himself. The resources are freely available to both insects. Nothing – nothing whatsoever – is preventing the Grasshopper from getting his rear in gear and storing food for the winter – except an attitude problem. Yet according to the critic, we should not presume to call ourselves Christian because the Bible admonishes us to love our neighbor as ourselves. The selfish Ant should share his food with the poor helpless Grasshopper regardless of what caused the Grasshopper to get into his predicament in the first place. So, since I am clearly a flawed Christian unable to appreciate the finer points of loving my neighbor, I need to know to what extent the Grasshopper is called upon to provide for himself before the Ant steps in to keep him from starving in the cold of winter. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

What's so provocative about the Tebow ad? ~ By Star Parker

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
"So what's bothering these women? "Two things. "First, the enabler of human brutality is de-humanization. Pro-abortionists know that our existing legalized-abortion regime can only continue as long as we keep the human face off abortion."
Star Parker By Star Parker Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Why are pro-abortion groups so up in arms about the Tim Tebow ad that CBS will run during the Superbowl? According to the press release of Focus on the Family, the Christian organization sponsoring the ad, University of Florida football star and Heisman Trophy winner Tebow and his mother, Pam, "will share a personal story centered on the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." The Tebows are devout Christians, and Pam gave birth to Tim despite advice from her doctor to abort because of illness during her pregnancy. Since the script is not publicly available, all we know is the family story and knowledge that the ad passed muster with CBS. We spoke with Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger and asked if the ad in any way speaks to the politics of abortion. The answer was an emphatic "no." According to Schneeberger, it's "not selling, it is celebrating" and is about the "love between a mother and a son." So what's provoking the letter writing campaign of feminist groups to CBS to pull the ad? Why would the National Organization for Women call this "offensive to women" or would the Women's Media Center call it "divisive?" Sure, there's no question that Focus on the Family is pro-life and opposes legal and readily accessible abortion. But CBS wouldn't be running this ad if its focus was political advocacy. READ FULL STORY >
RELATED VIDEO: January 29, 2010 - I'd be pro-choice if the choice was always pro-life
Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Religion of Consensus Science ~ By John Kubicek

From Breakdown of America (BOA)
By John Kubicek January 25, 2010
How Consensus Science Works: Al Gore and the ObamaCorps NazisAbove: An illustration of how Consensus Science Works: Al Gore and the ObamaCorps Nazis
What if I were to tell you that there are people who are willing to tell you anything, even if it isn’t the truth, for just one simple reason: To control you. Does that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory brewing? Oh, I so much wish it was. I wish it was just the residue from some long-past episode of the X-Files. But it isn’t. The other night, I was alerted via twitter that there was a great column, which was actually the transcript to a speech, by Michael Crichton. I’m sure it was the title that drew my attention: “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” It took some time in reading, but I finally got down to the point of the speech:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
And if you think that was some intense common sense, that was just the tip of the iceberg. I read that if you have a belief that is based on faith, where there is a realm that is completely unproven by science, it would be a “religion”. That’s where there’s a slight problem: If you tell a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it… The “sheeple” can be told that there is a consensus among scientists, and there is no longer a reason for debate. And if you do dare to bring up anything contrary to the “consensus,” say bye-bye to your career. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Dred Scott and corporate personhood ~ By Ellis Washington

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington By Ellis Washington Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily
The negro has no rights which the white man was bound to respect. – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
I can summarize in five words the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 landmark decision, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission":
Corporations are persons; money = speech
The First Amendment plainly states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." However, since the 1907 Tillman Act, American businesses and corporations, the lifeblood of our market-capitalist economy for more than 230 years, have had their political voices injustly restricted through limits on how much money they can contribute to political campaigns. Alex Barker, writing for the Financial Times gave the shameful historical background of the Tillman Act:
The 1907 Tillman Act – named after "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a vile racist senator who made his name rampaging through the South attacking blacks and Republicans with his "Red Shirt" band of paramilitary terrorists – was the first attempt by Congress to clean up politics. Tillman's motive – stopping funding to civil rights politicians – was pretty disgraceful. But the means he sought was supported by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, who were more interested in tackling dirty politics.
The decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" removed unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns. Regarding this case, the demagogue Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said, "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been U.S. citizens. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Ultimate jobs program: Immigration timeout ~ By Tom Tancredo

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Tom Tancredo By Tom Tancredo Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 In his State of the Union speech a few days ago, President Obama said, "Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010." I agree with that statement. But unfortunately, Obama's solution will just make things worse and he overlooked a real jobs program that would not cost taxpayers a penny. Many Democratic strategists and talking heads are saying the party erred by putting health care before the economy. But the real problem is not Obama's priorities, but that his solution to every problem is more government spending. Obama first took on jobs by wasting over a trillion dollars in his stimulus package, and then he tried to deal with health care by proposing another trillion-dollar boondoggle. The new jobs bill he outlined in the State of the Union speech was more of the same: spending money we don't have on public sector jobs in infrastructure, education and energy. Instead of putting future generations further into debt, we could immediately free up millions of jobs by tackling immigration reform – true immigration reform, not the impostor called amnesty. Barack Obama mentioned immigration only briefly at the end of his speech when he said, "We should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation." Like with the economy and health care, Obama has identified a problem but then proposes a solution that makes the problem worse. While the statements in the speech seemed innocuous and vague, the White House's website issued talking points that explained what the line meant:
The president is pleased Congress is taking steps forward on immigration reform that includes effective border security measures with a path for legalization for those who are willing to pay taxes and abide by the law.
Obama is referring to a bill by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) that will gut enforcement, reduce border security, grant a blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, and massively increase legal immigration. This will cost Americans literally millions of jobs! In last week's column, I discussed a number of real reforms we should make to fix our immigration system. The final step I advocated was a three-year "timeout," a moratorium on legal immigration. In light of the growing debate on job creation, I'd like to elaborate on what exactly a moratorium is and why we need to enact one immediately. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Grass-roots rebellion: Voters targeting RINOs, incumbents ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Henry Lamb By Henry Lamb Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 President Barack Obama told reporters that he rode the same wave of public anger into office that brought Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Not quite. The wave of public anger that elected Scott Brown is focused on Obama and the congressional Democrats who are pushing his policies. The public anger is more than justified. Both the president and Congress have turned a deaf ear to the expressed will of the people throughout the first year of the new administration. Even after the candidates Obama endorsed and campaigned for in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts all lost convincingly, Democrat strategists are advising the leadership to "show character" by fighting even harder to impose government-controlled health care. They would, were it not for the inconvenient fact that every representative and 33 senators must face the "angry public" at the polls this year. All across the country, local, state, and national organizations are preparing to choose a new future for America. The future America wants is controlled by neither Democrats nor Republicans, but by elected officials who honor their pledge to "…preserve, protect, and defend" the U.S. Constitution. Instead of its 11th-annual national conference this year, one national grassroots organization is scheduling regional, state and local conferences around the country, focusing on ways to elect only those representatives who will publicly sign a pledge that includes ideas such as these:
  • I will vote for only that legislation which contains a citation to the specific authority granted in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
  • I will vote against any legislation that infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms.
  • I will vote for legislation that allows the use of domestic resources to achieve energy and food independence.
  • I will vote against any legislation that results in a federal takeover of any private corporation, institution or entity.
  • I will vote against any legislation that authorizes the United Nations to impose a tax, levy, fee, or royalty on the United States or any of its citizens.
These are basic constitutional principles that the federal government has forgotten over the years. The current leadership routinely ignores the limitation of power imposed upon Congress by the Constitution. This is the source of much of the public anger that has become so visible. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Shopping malls seen as potential terror targets

From WorldNetDaily
They are 'constantly packed with people, with uncontrolled entry' By Michael Carl Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 8:05 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Al-Qaida is putting America's shopping malls and other soft targets in its bull's-eye, according to counter-terror experts. Bruce Hoffman, who authored a study at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service, says in a report published in the Washington Post that al-Qaida continues to be a threat because of its networking ability. "For a terrorist movement supposedly on its last legs, al-Qaida late last month launched two separate attacks less than a week apart – one failed and one successful – triggering the most extensive review of U.S. national security policies since 2001. Al-Qaida's newfound vitality is the product of a fresh strategy that plays to its networking strength and compensates for its numerical weakness," the report said. Hoffman added that attrition is part of al-Qaida's strategy, which is where diversifying the targets comes into play. "Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan-born U.S. resident [was] arrested in New York last September and charged with plotting a 'Mumbai on the Hudson' suicide terrorist operation. But while al-Qaida is finding new ways to exploit our weaknesses, we are stuck in a pattern of belated responses, rather than anticipating its moves and developing preemptive strategies," the report said. Hoffman's work, and a study released by Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs regarding chemical and biological weapons and their use, are the reasons American Thinker editor J. R. Dunn believes malls may be the new targets of choice for terrorists. "We need only consider the darkest days of the Iraqi terror campaign of 2006-2007 to grasp how the jihadis view marketplaces. Scarcely a week went by without another Iraqi marketplace bombing, with casualties largely consisting of women and children, mounting from the dozens to the hundreds," Dunn wrote. "We need only add the fact that the mall in many ways symbolizes the United States to people across the world, acting as kind of American Horn of Plenty, to see the inevitability of the threat. Such attacks will come, and they will be ugly," Dunn said. Doug Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network said reports that al-Qaida is seeking to diversify target selection and may even attack American malls are accurate. Information from the Joint Terrorism Task Force verifies terror networks operating in the U.S. believe malls are a legitimate terrorist target, he said. "Note that an attack on a mall would be an attack on our economy and could likely cause a downturn in shopping, etc.," Hagmann said. He said the most likely method would be through a biological weapon. "Anthrax or other aerosolized weapon in a HVAC, for example makes perfect sense," Hagmann said, adding, "The United States will likely see an increase in attacks in 2010." American Enterprise Institute terrorism analyst Michael Rubin uses Israel as a model to assert that a mall attack is the next logical step. "If you consider Israel the canary in the coal mine, it can show the progression of targets as security gets beefed up. Terrorists attacking Israel once targeted airplanes and airports but, not being successful, moved onto softer targets: shopping malls, restaurants, and buses," Rubin said. Rubin also said that in the terrorist mindset, malls are perfect targets. "What terrorists want is headlines. Dead women and children make headlines. Unfortunately, the report is probably right," Rubin said. However, CounterrrorismBlog.org's Aaron Mannes believes the threat is minimal. "Let us assume al-Qaida can smuggle a number of experienced operatives here (no small task – sure one got through on Christmas, but he wasn't a top operative and the more people in play the greater the possibility of detection.) do they want to use these guys attacking a shopping mall? A higher-profile target would seem in order," Mannes said. But that doesn't make a mall attack impossible. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Obama and FDR: Birds of a feather ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
"Obama, who not only shares FDR's addiction to cigarettes, but his hunger for power and his determination to radically transform America, is, I believe, the greatest threat that has ever faced our nation."
Burt prelutsky By Burt Prelutsky Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The way the axis of evil – otherwise known as Obama, Pelosi and Reid – are trashing the Constitution, you’d think it was parchment toilet paper. That’s why I would give anything to see the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin, come back to life and treat the liberal rabble the way that American patriots once dealt with English tea. If the Founding Fathers were to make a return appearance and see what has become of their noble experiment, they would have reason to regret all the time, blood, sweat and tears they expended wrangling over the wording of that sacred document. This isn't the first time that a president with a dictatorial bent has tried to ignore the Constitution. Most notably, in the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, aided and abetted by his own versions of David Axelrod, Van Jones, Andy Stern and Cass Sunstein, tried to transform America's economy from free-market capitalism to Soviet-style socialism. Because, like Barack Hussein Obama, FDR had a lap dog Congress, willing and eager to rubber-stamp his loony left-wing agenda, the only thing holding him back was the Supreme Court. But, instead of accepting limitations on his authority, FDR responded by attempting to pack the Court. His plan was to raise the number of justices from nine to 14. He figured that if he could personally select five additional justices, it would ensure his controlling all three branches of the federal government. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Friday, January 29, 2010

"The Star-Spangled Banner" with the Boston Pops... and Ayla Brown

I was alerted to this video in an email from my wonderful (biological) sister, and Sister in Christ, Mary Jen. She said in the email, "To my patriotic brother…this is probably the BEST version of Star Spangled Banner. Hope you enjoy it." Yes, Mary Jen, I enjoyed this very much! If it hadn't been for the miraculous Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, I wouldn't have had a clue who Ayla Brown was. But, now maybe, we'll all know. And I bet you could say the same thing. Well, at least if you saw Scott Brown's victory speech last week.
April 24, 2008 - Ayla Brown - "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the Boston Pops Ayla sings "The Star-Spangled Banner" at Boston's Fourth of July celebration accompanied by the Boston Pops (originally aired 07/04/06).
Video provided by yutoobe
Bookmark and Share

Eligibility propaganda continues ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah By Joseph Farah Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 When a scientific poll of Californians asked whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, fully one-third of respondents said either no or that they didn't know. How did the press play that story? The Sacramento Bee, Obama boosters to the core, reported that Californians are pretty sure he was born in the U.S. If the poll is accurate, it suggests some 11.5 million residents of the most populous and liberal state in the union still don't know whether Obama is even eligible to be president. Yet, for the Sacramento Bee, the capital voice of the state, the fact that two-thirds of the population thinks he was born in the United States represents something of a mandate. The fact that there are such widespread doubts about Obama's eligibility one year into his administration is something of a scandal, evidence of a total breakdown in our electoral system and proof that many, even in the friendly environs of California, suspect the man occupying the White House is hiding something by not releasing his long-form birth certificate. The headline on the Bee story reads: "Tea-party allies include Obama birth site skeptics." A more accurate headline might be, "Democrats include Obama birth site skeptics," as fully 15 percent of those registered to the president's own party report he they total disbelief that Obama was born in the United States or are not sure. Of course, the Bee goes on to explain, "More than a dozen unsuccessful lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama's assertion -- backed by a birth certificate and other evidence -- that he was born in Hawaii. Birth certificate? What birth certificate? Other evidence? What other evidence? No explanation is offered by the Bee – just these assertions. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility

From WorldNetDaily
Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia By Bob Unruh Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Orly TaitzA prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama'seligibility to be president has brought a "Quo Warranto" case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama's eligibility. She previously attempted Quo Warranto cases on behalf of government officials, without response. This time she filed the action directly with the court on her own behalf. "The case revolves around the federal question of eligibility of the president under Quo Warranto," she wrote. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents." John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, previously told WND the demand was a legitimate course of action. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Does Scott Brown's win have legs for November?

From WorldNetDaily
By Chelsea Schilling Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily WND founder Joseph FarahIn the wake of Scott Brown's stunning victory for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, an energized national tea-party movement is in the final stages of mobilizing its first-ever convention targeting lawmakers deemed "tone-deaf" and unresponsive to Americans. Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah PalinWND founder Joseph Farah will join former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as speaker at the first national tea party convention from Feb. 4 to Feb. 6 at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tenn. Former Colorado representative Tom TancredoFormer Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo also plans to attend. The event will feature prominent speakers such as WND columnist Judge Roy Moore and Phil Valentine, popular radio talk-show host and author of "The Conservative Handbook." The convention, hosted by Tea Party Nation, has been sold out, with a waiting list of approximately 500 people. However, some tickets to Palin's Feb. 6 speech at an evening banquet are still available at the National Tea Party Convention website. While the convention features a lineup of prominent speakers, the mainstream media have been buzzing with reports of canceled convention appearances by Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Bachmann and Blackburn said appearing at the convention might conflict with House ethics rules. "Marsha was kind enough to call me this morning and reiterate her support for the convention," Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said. "She said they had to run it back through the ethics committee, and the ethics committee would not sign off on it. Because of that, she could not come." According to reports, the lawmakers sought the advice of the House Ethics Committee and received "conflicting advice" based on the for-profit status of Tea Party Nation. Critics contend that the Tea Party Nation should have filed for nonprofit status. But Phillips said the nonprofit model would have meant the organization would rely almost entirely on regular donations to serve its mission. "My personal opinion is that nonprofits are among the most abused structures out there," he said. "We do not have a big office. We don't send people out on trips. We don't do anything like that. There are some nonprofits that have big offices, send people on trips, pay exorbitant salaries. Most of our folks are volunteers. We've compensated a few sales people with commissions, and that's pretty much it." READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Crisis of the Government Party ~ By Patrick Buchanan

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
"Obama's dilemma, evident in his State of the Union, is that the progressives, who were indispensable to his victories over Hillary, now feel betrayed, especially with apparent abandonment of health-insurance reform, while conservative Democrats and independents, who were indispensable in giving Obama his November [2008] victory, are angry and alienated and disposed to vote Republican to stop what they see as America's plunge into socialism."
Patrick Buchanan By Patrick Buchanan Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 12:12 am Eastern © 2010 President Obama is in a dilemma from which there appears to be no easy or early escape. Democrats are the Party of Government. They feed it, and it feeds them. The larger government grows, the more agencies that are created, the more bureaucrats who are hired, the more people who become beneficiaries, the more deeply entrenched in power the Party of Government becomes. At the local, state and federal level, there are 19 million to 20 million government employees. And if one takes only Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and earned income tax credits, we are talking about scores of millions who depend on government checks for the necessities of their daily life. These vast armies of voters – these tens of millions of government employees and scores of millions of government beneficiaries – are the big battalions of the Party of Government. They provide implacable resistance to any party that pledges to cut or curtail government. For they are fighting for their livelihood. And here is where Obama's dilemma arises. The progressives thought that with the takeover of both houses of Congress by veto-proof Democratic majorities, and the election of the most progressive of the candidates in the Democratic primaries save Dennis Kucinich, a new Progressive Era was at hand. Another New Deal, another Great Society. And early passage of a stimulus package of $787 billion, nearly 6 percent of the entire economy packed into a single bill, seemed to confirm that happy days were here again. But, at the same time, the federal takeover of AIG, General Motors and Chrysler and the bailouts of Fannie, Freddie and the Wall Street banks were igniting a Perot-style prairie fire that manifested itself in Tea Party rallies in the spring and town-hall protests in August. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi denounced these folks as "evil-mongers" engaged in the "un-American" activity of shouting down Democrats – though, when college radicals do it to conservatives, it is called "heckling" and the conservatives are instructed that they "just do not understand the First Amendment." Came November, Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey showed that the grass-roots rebellion was real and broad-based. This was confirmed by Scott Brown's astonishing upset in Massachusetts, where a state Obama won by 26 points went Republican by 6 points, with Brown capturing a Senate seat held by the Kennedy brothers since 1952. Talk about a fire bell in the night. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Obama's speech vs. reality ~ By David Limbaugh

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
David Limbaugh By David Limbaugh Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader. Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda – even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality. On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things. Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives. Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers. A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Can't we at least get a toaster? ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Ann Coulter By Ann Coulter Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 6:09 pm Eastern © 2010 In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week ("The other Boston Massacre"), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to "fight" Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize. Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he'll put in charge of this task. If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats. For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years. Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms' bets go bad on – to name just three examples – Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997) and Russian bonds (1998). As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin": "Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books." With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs "risk-free Clintonian state capitalism." Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early '90s. Any half-wit could see that "investing" in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords. But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme – at least until Mexico defaulted. With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton's White House decided the banks shouldn't be on the hook for their own bad bets. Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect "everyone," by which I take it he meant "everyone in my building." Larry Summers, currently Obama's National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers' current position in the Obama administration is "Great Depression czar.") Republicans in Congress said "no" to Clinton's Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan. It's not as if this hadn't happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt – Mexico claimed the money was "in my other pair of pants" – leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets. As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ex-federal prosecutor launches probe of Holder

From WorldNetDaily
'It is time, before lasting damage is done to our national security' By Bob Unruh Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 10:18 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Larry Klayman, former Federal prosecutorA former federal prosecutor and relentless litigator whose enemies in Washington include politicians on both sides of the aisle has announced he is launching an investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder. Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch USA, still is known in Washington as the biggest enemy of the city's elite, and his battles against corruption in the Clinton administration became so well known the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool was based on his work. "Eric Holder is typical of the corrupt establishment crowd that voters rebelled against last Tuesday when they voted to elect as senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts," Klayman told WND. "In fact, the decision by the Obama administration to go soft on non-citizen terrorists was a key factor in this vote. Now, it is time to investigate and create the climate to get rid of Eric Holder, before lasting damage is done to our national security. "Independents, liberals and conservatives rose up in Massachusetts and now it's time for Freedom Watch to finish the job," he said. Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor and founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, said his new organization has launched an investigation of Holder. "The attorney general's refusal to prosecute admitted terrorists, like the Christmas Day bomber and the infamous Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), as so-called 'enemy combatants' has resulted in the hindrance of national security and law enforcement agencies," he said in a prepared statement. "This refusal by Holder not only resulted in Miranda rights being read to the Christmas Day bomber – preventing the FBI and other agencies from obtaining meaningful intelligence from him when his lawyer stopped the interrogation – but with regard to KSM, has also jeopardized the safety of New York City residents, due to the insistence of investigating an act of terror as if it were a common crime." READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Obama: The era of big government is ... eternal ~ By Larry Elder

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Larry Elder By Larry Elder Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The Massachusetts "Miracle on Ice" hit Democrats like an avalanche crashing in on a downhill skier. Gone is their 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate supermajority. Likely dead is the Senate version of health-care "reform," if not Obamacare altogether. Stunned and confused, Democrats now scramble around trying to decipher "what it means." President Barack Obama's hard-left base calls the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat a wake-up call – for bigger spending. They see the defeat as a referendum for broader and bolder "health-care reform" that includes a so-called public option, higher taxes and an expansion of the number of insured through Medicare. Their argument goes like this: People are unhappy, not about reckless spending, but because Obama has governed like a "centrist." He's "caved in to special interests," hasn't gone far enough and hasn't increased government fast enough. He abandoned his "progressive agenda," and voters punished him. Voters, wanting more government, elected a guy who promised less. A Hofstra University professor represents this view in his analysis of "what it means": "The obvious solution, of course, would be a sharp turn to the left. Go where the real solutions are. Fight the good fight. Call liars 'liars' and thieves 'thieves.' Do the people's business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry. Create jobs. Build infrastructure. Do real national health care. End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending. Produce actual educational reform. Launch a massive green energy/jobs program. Get serious about global warming. Kick a-- on campaign finance reform. Fight for gay rights. Restore the New Deal-era regulatory framework and expand it. Restore a fair taxation structure. Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs. Rebuild unions. Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives. Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda. Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies." Good grief! So much for voters telling Obama to slow down and move toward the center. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Why send naked pix to space aliens? ~ By Phil Elmore

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Phil Elmore
By Phil Elmore

Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010


"Is the digital age cutting us off from aliens?" This was the question asked Monday by Chris Matyszczyk. Matyszczyk cites a conference in London, organized by the United Kingdom's national academy of science, whose purpose is to discuss extraterrestrial life. A Dr. Frank Drake, described as "the world's leading ET hunter," apparently worries that digital technology is effectively screening us from other forms of life somewhere out there. According to Drake, who founded SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), digital signals beamed into space would "look like noise," unlike analog signals.

Half a century ago, Drake devised an equation that, according to Govert Schilling, "expresses the number (N) of 'observable civilizations' that exist in our Milky Way galaxy as a simple multiplication of several, more approachable unknowns." Fifty years later, SETI has found no evidence of those civilizations.

The fact that we, as human beings, wonder if there is intelligent alien life somewhere out there is not a surprise. It is only natural to wonder if one is alone; it is part of the human condition, part of what drives us to create, to innovate and to educate ourselves. We see a fence – and we wonder what is on the other side. We see a door – and we wonder what lies within. We look up into the incredible, endless depths of space – and we wonder what could be out there, stretched across a vista that is incomprehensibly eternal. Contemplating such mind-bending mystery, we often turn to God and wonder if the answers might lie there.

The debate in religious circles over alien life has waxed and waned. Some conservative Christians believe that the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is contradictory to their belief system. Others have speculated that the reference to "sheep ... not of this fold" in John 10:16 is a reference to the existence of alien beings. There are even those who believe that certain accounts in the Bible (such as in Ezekiel) actually describe encounters with aliens or alien spacecraft, as described in the famous "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken.

READ FULL STORY >

Obama's bag of tricks empty ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Erik Rush By Erik Rush Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The pressing question Americans and some members of the press have been asking over the last week or so, even prior to President Barack Obama 's State of the Union address last night, is one that has given rise to some frustration and a sense of futility on my part. That question would be: Will the Democratic leadership in Washington now heed the message of Scott Brown's election and "get with the program" as far as what Americans really want? Some regular readers of this column (and, I would surmise, some who are not) will have already recognized that this question assumes a flawed premise – this being, that the Democratic leadership in Washington is concerned with what Americans want to any degree at all. At the risk of appearing condescending: In order to appreciate the dynamic at hand, those who are currently inclined to make the above query will have to execute the intellectual leap to the realization that the Obama administration and congressional leaders are wholly unconcerned with our wants, needs and general well-being. Their agenda is to effectively supplant our system of government with a radically dissimilar one; as such, it is diametrically opposed to the existing paradigm, which includes deference to the will of the people. It's pretty simple when you think about it. This is the reason they have prioritized such things as health care and climate change, issues only around 40 percent and 18 percent of Americans (respectively) count as high-priority concerns (Gallup, Jan. 20). Our leaders' road map toward ostensibly ameliorating deficiencies in these areas would, however, convey upon them unprecedented political power and economic control. Within hours of Republican Scott Brown's dramatic victory (in capturing the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy), President Obama was on the air with Democrat hack (as well as former Clinton White House communications director and current ABC News correspondent) George Stephanopoulos, executing some truly Orwellian damage control. Claiming that "the same thing [voter anger] that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president immediately lapsed once again into "Blame Bush" mode: "People are angry and they are frustrated," said he. "Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." His practice of transferring culpability is reportedly wearing thin even among Democrats. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Don't progressives like free speech? ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
John Stossel By John Stossel Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington. The New York Times said what happened "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions to spend money on political speech before elections is unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" had bitten the dust. It was long overdue. The case grew out of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, planned to show on cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. The law said that was illegal. The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." He also said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people – political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it." And, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." Of course, the "progressive media" condemned the majority for its judicial activism because the ruling overturned two precedents. I thought progressives favored judicial activism and dumping bad precedents. I also thought they favored free speech. Wrong. (To its credit, the ACLU was on Citizen United's side.) It depends on whose ox is gored. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

L.A. Times gunning for me ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah By Joseph Farah Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 12:39 am Eastern © 2010 I must be doing something right. When the L.A. Times puts you in its crosshairs, it's not because you are embarrassing their beloved "conservative movement." And it's not because you are embarrassing yourself. It's usually because you are effective – and you're getting under somebody's skin. A few hours before I dashed off this column, the L.A. Times published this story: "Joseph Farah has found his calling in Obama-bashing." I'll let you judge the paper's mission and motive. But, first, there's a story behind the story. I sat down for a series of interviews with one of the reporters bylined in this piece – Peter Wallsten – about six months ago. He wrapped up the story months ago and turned it in to his editors. It sat around for such a long time that Wallsten ended up leaving the Times and going to work for the Wall Street Journal. He's been there for a couple months. I assumed the story would never see the light of day because it was fair. The story Wallsten wrote never did see the light. At some point, the editors at the L.A. Times looked over the story and determined it made me look responsible, eclectic, maybe even, God forbid, likable. So they turned the story over to another reporter, Faye Fiore. Did she interview me? No. But she rewrote the story nonetheless – with an eye toward making me look like some kind of irresponsible, opportunistic monster. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share

Monday, January 25, 2010

Way to go, Scott! ~ By Barbara Simpson

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
"Predictably, Obama blames George Bush for the Democrat loss, and the pundits regard Brown and his supporters as low-class, redneck, truck-driving boobs. "Whatever you call them, they outnumber the Harvard-educated, self-appointed elites who are hell-bent on destroying this country. "There's a reckoning coming."
Barbara Simpson By Barbara Simpson Posted: January 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I didn't say it first, but I agree wholeheartedly. "This one's for you, Mary Jo." Last week's election of Scott Brown to replace Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate really was justice delayed for Mary Jo Kopechne, who died at the incompetent hands of the last Kennedy brother on July 18, 1969. Because of money, family and political connections, Teddy Kennedy left the scene of Mary Jo's drowning in the car he'd been driving and proceeded into a historic run as a fixture in Washington. This man, who never held a real job in his whole life, found his calling as a U.S. senator, ironically by completing the term of his brother John, who'd been elected president. When Teddy wanted re-election, he got it – again and again and again – ultimately serving eight full terms. His position in the Senate became "Kennedy's seat," as though it belonged to him. It did, but only because voters re-elected him, as though not to do it would insult the Kennedy name and family. He spent 46 years in office, his votes and legislation changing the United States from a free country to one that's now careening toward Marxist socialism. When Kennedy died Aug. 25, for the first time in decades it was an open race for his Senate seat. But Democrats didn't worry. It was Massachusetts, after all. They figured their candidate was a shoo-in. But something happened last Tuesday in that bluest of blue states, a state securely in the liberal pocket. What happened was that a young, mostly unknown Massachusetts politician, Scott Brown, beat the odds and won election to the U.S. Senate to complete Kennedy's unexpired term. It's poetic justice that Kennedy died before his term was up! Imagine! Democrat pundits figured wrong. Their candidate, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, lost. What made the results historic wasn't just that it was to fill Kennedy's term, but that it wasn't just any candidate who won. It was a Republican! Those pundits were really wrong. READ FULL STORY >
Bookmark and Share