The Fat Lady Won’t Sing

It may not have packed the emotional punch of the last chopper off the roof of the embassy in Saigon, but the word has come down from on high: The last combat troops have left the building.

Actually, I’m going to amend that last remark. A Stryker Brigade crossed the Southern Frontier between Iraq and Kuwait, marking the departure from our Mesopotamian quagmire of the last troops we’re actually CALLING “combat troops.”

We still have plenty of guys with guns in Iraq—more than 50,000—but they’re not “combat troops,” they’re “advisors.” Not to accuse the President of militaristic duplicity, but so were about a quarter million of our boys and girls who visited fabulous downtown Saigon in the 1960s.

But we’re not supposed to be treating the anointed savior with the same scrutiny with which George W. Bush and Richard M. Nixon (but not Bill Clinton) dealt. Since Barack Obama ascended the people’s throne, the corporate media doesn’t use words like “quagmire” anymore, nor do they refer to the “Vietnam of the Middle East.” Obama promised a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and he has thusly delivered—more or less. All right, less.

Nonetheless, calling everyone in digital desert camo an “advisor” means Obama gets to claim victory. And while The Associated Press noted that Obama didn’t actually claim victory in his speech last week; given that he hasn’t come out ahead in so much as a game of checkers with Bo the First Dog since he took office, hanging the metaphorical “Mission Accomplished” banner off the White House balustrade is as close as he’s going to get anytime soon. Considering the corporate media’s continued adherence to the Obama-as-savior mantra, the irony of the situation is that this undeclared “victory” was planned and executed during the demonized Bush Administration.

Perhaps that’s why Obama noted in his recent televised remarks that he called Bush prior to the telecast, and why he offered him praise during the speech. And perhaps that’s why wingnut hacks like Rachel Maddow and Bill Press (yep, he’s still alive) launched anti-Bush invective from their MSNBC pulpits in the wake of Obama’s address. If you only saw Keith Olbermann’s failed television science experiment, you might not know that the decisive troop surge which Bush put into action had ever occurred.

As House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pointed out in the wake of Obama’s performance:

“Over the past several months, we’ve often heard about ending the war in Iraq but not much about winning the war in Iraq,”

Boehner went on to point out that the same Democrats who fought Bush tooth and nail on every facet of the Iraq War (once they stopped supporting it) were now trying to portray themselves as latter-day Churchills, as opposed to modern-era Chamberlains.

Or perhaps Obama has finally realized what Bush knew all along. To put a fine point on it: This ain’t over. Iraq remains enough of a junkyard to make North Jersey look like the south of France. Their most recent elections are fading into memory and their government appears to be stretched to the limit catching stray dogs—and stray bullets.

Meanwhile, Obama is steeling himself to raise the proverbial roof in Afghanistan. He said during his speech that American troops could now “apply the resources necessary to go on offense” in Afghanistan, as if our troops currently engaged with al-Qaida and the vestiges of the Taliban were playing Wii and drag-racing their Bradleys before now.

No doubt our current Commander-in-Chief would love to spend the remaining time between now and Nov. 2 discussing America’s supposed Baghdad bon voyage. But as Bush knew, there’s no rest for the West Wing.

Obama must now convince a skeptical nation—and military—that not only is Iraq either in the bag or out of our shopping cart, but that the War Obama Wanted in Afghanistan is winnable under Democrat direction. Add to that the sorry state of our economy under his laughable lack of leadership and the sorry state of his party headed into what may well be an electoral Waterloo come November, and Obama may spend his fall wishing he’d saved up some sick days.

While You Were Drowning…

For those of you lucky enough to enjoy vocations which don’t require endless news and issues research, count yourselves doubly lucky that you weren’t subjected to President Barack Obama’s speech marking the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s disastrous visit to New Orleans. Granted, Katrina was hard on the Big Easy, but five years later Obama didn’t repair any damage. He was busy doing damage control.

Speaking to an audience of college students at Xavier University, Obama rolled through his standard teleprompter-zombie applause lines:

(“it’s great to be back here in [insert city name]. What a job you all have done recovering and rebuilding from [insert disaster reference here]. I promise you I’ll do everything in my power to ensure [repeat disaster reference here] never happens again. Remember, vote for me, because I give a damn.”)

Then the President, looking remarkably refreshed after his latest vacation — this time in Martha’s Vineyard, an ultra-exclusive enclave favored by liberal millionaires, began spouting talking points which strained credulity, to say the least.

Standing in the heart of a city which was nearly wiped off the map by a combination of decades-long Democrat incompetence and corruption, a dystopic liberal culture of dependence and one mighty impressive natural disaster, the fabulously wealthy President Obama… blamed everything on President Bush.


But blame is as American a pastime as baseball. Actually, given the multisyllabic surnames dominating most Major League rosters these days, blame is right up there with Mom and apple pie. But Obama is blaming the wrong guy.

With Hurricane Earl now becoming a force to be reckoned with, and the five-year anniversary of the Democrat-engineered Katrina disaster, I thought I’d take a moment to — as the kiddies say — drop a little knowledge on you.

According to Obama, Katrina was:

"a man-made catastrophe — a shameful breakdown in government that left countless men, women and children abandoned and alone.”

Last time I checked, hurricanes are almost never man-made, despite Al Gore’s assertions. As for governmental breakdowns, the actions of Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin, and Governor Kathleen “Crocodile Tears” Blanco in the face of Mother Nature’s oncoming wrath didn’t exactly reverberate with redoubtable statesmanship. Of course, the goodly people of New Orleans re-elected their Candyman, so some of the blame for their plight can be placed on them.

Actually, quite a bit of the blame for the plight of New Orleans can be set down right on Bourbon Street. Despite the insistence of multimillionaires like Spike Lee and Kanye West, the teeming mass of destitute humanity gathered at the Superdome wasn’t consigned to their plight because “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Nor did the levees near the 9th Ward give way because they were secretly destroyed by Federally-placed explosives (sorry, Mr. Farrakhan).

A massive hurricane formed in the Bahamas, made its way into the Gulf of Mexico and then headed for Mardi Gras-ville. Bush actually declared a Federal state of emergency two days before Katrina’s landfall. In fact, Bush ended up having to push Louisiana’s Democrat Governor Blanco to order mandatory evacuations less than 24 hours before Katrina’s arrival, with Nagin finally ordering mandatory citywide evacuation later that day.

Beyond that, the pictures tell a far more accurate story than the Democrat-controlled corporate media would ever allow. And I’m not just talking about flooded fleets of school buses. Nor am I referring to those scenic shots of fine Orleans-ians swimming through the flooded streets with filched flat screens (although had they purloined the plasmas earlier, they might have caught the GET OUT, THERE’S A GIGANTIC FREAKIN’ HURRICANE HEADED RIGHT FOR YOU warnings blaring from the boob tube for at least 72 hours before Katrina set up shop near Lake Pontchartrain).

I’m thinking of the thousands of NOLA residents swarming together at the Superdome and adjacent convention center. After decades of voting Democrats into office, they were helpless; willingly robbed of their ability to fend for themselves beyond basic self-preservation instincts. Nagin, Blanco and the massive, overarching bureaucracy created by virtually unfettered liberal authority — granted by the electorate — had abandoned them at the crucial moment and they were prostrated before God and CNN.

Five years later, and still, according to Obama: Bush did it.

Now I’m going to throw out a heavy concept for you port-siders: Let’s assume that Bush DID do it. Let’s say he engineered a hurricane, directed it to New Orleans, dynamited the levees, ensured Blanco and Nagin would both fumble the ball on the goal line, pulled the batteries out of the NOLA buses and flooded the city.

Perhaps this is not a man with whom you want to pick a fight.

Back Inside the Asylum…

If anyone wants to shove their heads in the desert sand regarding Iran, have at it.

I’m disinclined to hand a free pass to an Islamofascist regime with a pronounced tendency to make the psych ward at Bellevue look like bingo night at the senior center. I’m similarly disinclined to believe Pollyanna-ish assurances that we have nothing to be concerned about in the wake of a line of trucks pulling into the brand-spanking new nuclear plant at Bushehr, Iran on a recent Saturday afternoon.

Sure, they were delivering uranium fuel to the terrorist regime’s new nuclear facility — but what’s a little radioactivity between friends? Plus, The Associated Press says the Russians are keeping a watchful eye on things. I’m sure we’re perfectly safe now. The town drunk has promised to watch the town sociopath while we’re out shopping for a new economy. What could possibly go wrong?

But wait — the Russians are not the only ones playing Officer Krupke when it comes to Iran’s supposedly peaceful development of the world’s most dangerous filament fertilizer.

The United Nations gave the all-clear as well. In fact, they’re claiming that the Russian-oversight plan should ease concerns about just how enriched will be the enriched uranium now clasped in the Iranian paws.

In order to function as fuel for a power plant, uranium needs to reach the 3.5 percent enrichment level. Weapons-grade uranium must be jacked up to the 90 percent level. The Iranians are already working on enriching the good stuff to a 20 percent level (for medical research, honest!)

Fret not, my friends — the Russians are going to control the fuel supply. And there’s no chance the Iranians might sneak around the corner and dump a little extra octane into the mix, right?

Even the mighty French have chimed in. The French Foreign Ministry released a statement regarding the Iranian nuclear program, saying — again — there was no real cause for alarm. Terrific — the French said the same thing about Germany and the Anschluss.

If only the Iranians were as reassuring. Leave it to one-third of the Axis of Evil to remind us that they’re… one third of the Axis of Evil. While the Russians, French and U.N. all spoke in soothing tones, the note struck by Iran was decidedly less mellifluous.

Lest we think Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamic Clown Posse were just playing nuclear dress-up, they also broke the news that they have tested their air defense systems around Bushehr, and have determined them to be effectively operational.

Any time a spokesterrorist “strikes a defiant tone” — trouble isn’t just in the neighborhood, it’s doing doughnuts on the lawn and TP’ing the house.

According to Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi:

"Despite all pressure, sanctions and hardships imposed by Western nations, we are now witnessing the startup of the largest symbol of Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities,"

The same guys who can’t finish a sentence without shrieking about the fiery death of some Zionist-capitalist-imperialist-somebody are promising to play nice with their high-yield glow sticks.

We have no intention of building nuclear weapons with this stuff we have that can be used to build nuclear weapons. We are a peaceful society, simply trying to…DEATH TO THE ZIONIST/AMERICAN INFIDELS…make it cheaper to turn on the lights.”

Let me get this straight: an Islamofascist regime is about to throw the switch on a heavily defended NUCLEAR facility, and the only assurances that they’re not going to start churning out atomic luggage for every Tom, Dick and Akbar with a saif to grind are coming from the guy who can’t get past the first step in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, the guy who still laughs at Jerry Lewis movies and the rejects from the carnival?

For you victims of teachers’ unions out there, Iran’s proclamations of peaceful nuclear intent are as transparent as a Lady Gaga Grammy Awards costume.

Iran sits on top of some of the most expansive oil reserves on the planet. Unconstrained by a Democrat Party bent on protecting foreign oil interests to the detriment of their own people, the Iranians can — to paraphrase Governor Sarah Palin: “Drill here and drill now.”

The AP, doing their best version of the liberal appeasement shuffle, excuses the Iranian desire for nuclear power despite being awash in enough black gold to make Jed Clampett magenta with envy by suggesting their refinery capabilities don’t match their raw material output.

Here’s a suggestion: instead of building nukes, have the Iranians considered building REFINERIES? It’s not like they have to worry about the Sierra Club showing up to demonstrate — the Sierra Club is busy pretending global warming is real. Besides, the Sierra Club is stupid, not crazy. Protesting against American oil companies earns you donations from Sean Penn. Protesting against Iranian anything earns you a bullet.

Three weeks ago, I penned “The Lapdogs Of War” for Personal Liberty Digest in which I suggested that the time had not yet arrived for war with Iran. Ham-fisted foreign policy, especially with regards to the evil-dwarf regime running the show in Tehran makes a concerted military effort dubious at best.

In a hypothetical conflict, the United States vs. Iran would be shorter than Ahmadinejad without the lifts in his shoes. Sadly, the fact that Obama has alternated between apologizing to murderous dictatorships for the American pursuit of freedom and cowering like a frightened 5-year-old in a thunderstorm every time one of these tin pots starts banging his cymbals together assures we would end up bogged down in the mother of all Mesopotamian quagmires.

However, while our current ruling elite may have brought back the idiotic foreign policy malaise of Jimmy Carter, who was such a sniveling knot head when it came to dealing with global hostilities that his biggest military engagement was a loss in the Battle of the Chattahoochee Bunny; there is an alternative: Israel.

Now, I know many of my fellow Bob Livingstonians consider allowing Israel off the leash to be anathema at best, but consider the alternatives. Our current ruling elite is less likely to lead a successful military effort than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is to turn down free Botox®. And given the green light on turning Bushehr into an even more inhospitable sandbox than it already is, Israel would light these guys up like a Menorah on… whatever day it is that a Menorah is fully lit.

When Saddam Hussein tried to enact his original nuclear ambitions, Israel hit the off switch at Osirak (built, perhaps tellingly, by the French) with a sledgehammer, killing the Iraqis’ chances at debuting the world’s first atomic arsenal in the hands of a complete lunatic (not counting Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Xiaoping.) Iran has already admitted plans to construct an additional dozen nuclear plants in mountain strongholds.

Iran has also repeatedly promised the complete destruction of Israel. Iran ALSO has missiles which put Tel Aviv well within range. Israel has no problem kicking hostile Islamofascist regimes in the teeth. Given their track record in that area, they’re pretty good at it.

A pre-emptive Israeli strike on Bushehr might lead to open warfare in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran will, by its own admission, almost certainly lead to open warfare in the Middle East. The former might well involve American money. The latter might well involve American lives. Combining the possibility that Iranian aggression may well be backed by Russian and/or Chinese men and materiel with Obama’s weak-kneed tendencies, a nuclear-armed Iran could well spell Big Trouble in Little Tehran.

Iran has stepped up its schedule with surprising speed. In addition to the Bushehr reactor, they also used the weekend to debut a new Qiam-1 medium range missile and even capped off their Sunday with a ceremony to introduce the world to an unmanned bomber which Ahmadinejad dubbed their “ambassador of death.”

Given the Iranian regime’s rhetoric, when they can start trying to dictate the terms of the nuclear conversation, they will. I’d rather gamble with Israeli lives than our own. And with our current Commander-in-Chief more interested in engaging Arizona law enforcement than Islamofascist terrorism, the odds on the table are nowhere near worth our chips.

Perhaps most telling of all: I considered offering this piece to President Obama for comment, but he was on vacation… again.

Refusing The Dream

Examples of Democrat duplicity are so common that it has become clichéd to even point to them.

The inability of the average liberal to identify or even care about the wayward path of their political masters has lexicologically welded “liberal” to “hypocrite” in much the same way as “Olbermann” attaches to “twit.” But nothing compares to the Democrat response to a mass gathering of concerned taxpayers.

If you want to see the Left bring out the big guns, take a look at their frantic and hate-fueled response to the Glenn Beck-fronted Restoring Honor rally. Whether Beck’s Saturday rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial drew between 300,000 and 500,000 (probably) or 1 million (probably not), a crowd larger than Ed Schultz’s nightly audience showed up in Washington to:

  • Protest President Barack Obama’s disastrous economic policy.
  • Protest Obama’s disastrous foreign policy.
  • Protest Obama’s disastrous immigration policy.
  • Call for a spiritual renewal in America.
  • Hate black people.

Actually, that last one was regurgitated by the buffoonish Al Sharpton, who spent his Saturday across town speaking to a meager handful of the usual dupes, bigots, union thugs and mouth-breathers who take him seriously.

Whether you choose to believe attendees or their liberal detractors, the crowd was large enough to send seismic waves throughout not only the ruling elite in Washington, but their corporate media outlets. Imagine Woodstock, only the hippies have grown up, gotten jobs and taken baths. Also, the rally crowd didn’t leave behind the Amazonian jungle-sized heaps of paper and refuse leftist gangs tend to scatter like breadcrumbs.

Liberal hate groups lashed out at Beck’s festival. Democrat agitprop bureau Media Matters for America shrieked about the event’s overtly political tones in… overtly political tones. MMA even managed to get in the obligatory shot at Sarah Palin, which I believe is now mandatory for any wingnut whining about how much they hate… everyone who isn’t them.

On tinfoil hat brigade bunker, one diarist (“diarist” sounds better than “DNC talking point stenographer”) claimed to have attended the event and followed that dubious assertion by recounting a string of incidents which were so transparently fictional that I actually laughed out loud. Towards the end of his blather he proudly crowed about stealing a Gadsden flag from someone else’s purse. His supposed crime was greeted with praise by most of the rest of the Dailykos inmates.

Sharpton headlined the most discussed “counterdemonstration,” although the gathering’s anemic size can be more accurately described as a “counterwhimper.” Despite telling NBC that he ignored Restoring Honor, Obama tried to legitimize Sharpton’s cocktail party by dispatching Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, which is the intellectual equivalent of sending a kindergarten teacher to legitimize Cellblock D.

It evidently occurred to neither Obama nor The New York Times (which dutifully dispatched a reporter to cover the tiny “event”) that parasites like Sharpton are long past the point of legitimacy. Sharpton’s assemblage was called “Reclaim the Dream.” Sharpton has made a pile of dough without seemingly holding a job or having any discernable skills beyond race-baiting. You’re living the dream, Al.

Social networking site Facebook provided some excellent exemplars of leftist hysteria. I turned to three pages owned by friends; none of whom I shall identify by name in order to protect them from having their liberal cards revoked. One gleefully noted the corporate media didn’t provide much coverage of the Beck event. It’s a fair bet he didn’t consider that he was acknowledging the port side media’s deliberate and politically motivated refusal to do their jobs; not to mention that in noting their dereliction, he was admitting his own fixation with the event.

Another poster called Beck a “douchebag.” I was tempted to respond, but then remembered he not only watches stand-up comedian Bill Maher, but thinks the colossally unfunny Maher is insightful — punishment enough. Both comments were followed by threads of far less impressive, but far more venomous invective spewed forth by bottom-rung types who either are not only completely consumed by hate, but clearly lack introspection of any kind.

A third friend expressed his concerns that the event would “get ugly.” I don’t think he meant Dailykos-approved petty larceny.

None of the posters, from pillar to podcast, made any mention of the more than $5 million the event raised for worthwhile charity. Likewise, few on the left noted the presence of a Presidential emissary at the uber-divisive demagogue Sharpton’s counter-demonstration. On the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, liberals were too busy building their nightmare.

The Tangled Webs We Weave

In his recent piece “What Websites Do You Read?” my fellow Bob Livingstonian, Chip Wood, opened a discussion on his favorite off-ramps, rest areas and destinations on the Information Superhighway. The attendant comments section included a plethora of possible places all of you thought worthy of at least a gas’n’go on the trip to enlightenment. Many, if not most, of the sites listed not only by Chip, but also by you denizens of Personal Liberty Digest, were noteworthy for the excellence of content, breadth of subject matter and depth of information. Some were… less so (Dailykos? REALLY?)

No matter the political bent of the site in question, whether it be or even (or whatever) — if it tickles your fancy, you can find it in cyberspace. In fact, if you can’t find it, and you have opposable thumbs, you can MAKE it. So, good news for you MSNBC devotees, you can get up and running whenever you’re ready.

Unless the FCC doesn’t like the idea.

Actually, as of today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can’t stop you from throwing up a website devoted to most anything — even things which aren’t real, like Rachel Maddow’s talent. But, what if a government agency, with fully vested enforcement authority, pulled you over in your sporty new Dell and cited you with a ticket for excessive conservatism? What if they simply closed the off-ramp to your favorite website?

Welcome to the web under Net Neutrality.

Government regulation is like a wedding or Michael Moore behind the counter at a Dunkin’ Donuts; it never gets smaller or less expensive for everyone else. Net Neutrality, as originally conceived, was supposed to ensure equal and unfettered access to the Internet for everyone. An idea designed to guarantee that Internet Service Providers and wired heavyweights couldn’t price smaller companies and content into the broadband slow lane. Net neutrality, in theory, was an okay idea. But in practice it will be a governmental cyber-boot on America’s online neck.

Tuesday afternoon the Second Amendment group Gun Owners of America (GOA) publicly logged off from the net neutrality coalition Save the Internet, citing its potential for government encroachment on information freedom in the age of Obama. According to GOA communications director Erich Pratt:

"Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues… The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that,"

Liberal bloggers rushed to suggest that GOA was actually leaving Save the Internet to avoid association with tinfoil-hat brigades like ACORN and the attack poodles at But with groups including the Christian Coalition still on the Save the Internet friends’ list, Democrat attacks on the GOA are as empty as the inside of Joe Biden’s cerebral CPU.

Truth be told, the wingnuts have done a better job of leaving their footprints on the web. The monolithic nature of liberal ideology makes the leftist flock easy to herd.

People who think Bill Maher is funny, or consider MSNBC’s primetime lineup a legitimate news source, are easy pickings for digital gurus who wave flashy Internet interaction in front of them. And Net Neutrality in the hands of the FCC plays right into the Obama handbook. Pseudo-academic Joe Palermo, writing on the redoubtably leftist Huffington Post:

“ news and information sites, along with and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change. We need to lock in this advantage.”

Which FCC-controlled net neutrality would do in bank-vault fashion. Much like the not-so-dearly departed Fairness Doctrine (which liberals support), FCC reclassification of the Internet as a type II technology (essentially categorizing it as a telephone service) will open the door to the Feds shifting from addressing web traffic to web content. Given the left’s all-out war on any and all dissent, smearing it as racist, hateful or evil (Nancy Pelosi’s recent call for official investigation into Ground Zero Mosque opposition comes to mind), it would mean that outlets like Personal Liberty Digest could face governmental direction on content, or be relegated to some low-speed, lower-tier Internet backwater.

The left and their media have continually tried to confuse the citizenry with technobabble and double-talk. But FCC Internet regulation represents the ultimate Orwellian fantasy — total information control.

There is a place where net neutrality already exists, although they don’t use such a cavalier moniker. Residents call that place whatever they’re told to. We call it the People’s Republic of China.

Another Day Of The Undead

I’m no aficionado of the vampire craze. Not that I don’t get the allure of watching oversexed attractive people chase each other around; but vampires are (were) bad. Anything which can fit into a category of “undead” is not good news, no matter how impressive its abs might be.

So imagine my horror Friday when I was greeted by the visage of one of recent history’s most vile grotesqueries. Like a teenager in one of those psycho-zombie-in-a-hockey-mask movies, I thought we’d driven a stake through the heart of this creature, doused it in gasoline and set it on fire. And yet, still it returned — the lumbering bulk, the ominous drone, the gaping maw.

Al Gore is back.

While the rest of us were browsing in the non-fiction section, Gore resurfaced like the “Creature from the Green Lagoon.” According to The Hill, Gore noted on his blog (hey, good thing he invented the Internet) that Americans need to take to the streets to protest the industrialized world’s failure to act on “the climate crisis.”

How does the most famous loser in Presidential history keep returning from beyond the political grave? Shouldn’t Gore be hanging out with Walter Mondale; watching Captain Planet reruns at the Old Vice President’s Home?

At the very least, shouldn’t he be at one of his multimillion dollar mansions, getting a *ahem* massage? I mean, didn’t we push this loon out of the Prius and speed off in a cloud of carbon neutral exhaust and ecologically low-impact recycled tire dust?

To make “The Revenge of the Gore-Zilla” more terrifying, he’s brought backup. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, remarking on Sunday about floods in Pakistan and forest fires in Russia, said “there is a linkage,” between those disasters and global warming. America’s termagant-to-the-world made some further gloom-and-doom comments, but the message was clear: Not only is global warming theoretically bad, but it’s literally coming to get us.

But there’s a theoretical hitch in their literal fear mongering. Global warming scares liberals the same way Freddy Krueger scares 7-year-olds; although liberals don’t have dad to come home and check the closet. Global warming is the phrenology of the modern age. It’s a scam, wrapped in a racket, shrouded in a swindle. It’s warmer now than it was then (“then,” in the climate change lexicon meaning “winter”); and that increase in temperature coincides with societal development (a climate-change phrase meaning “summer”), therefore — it’s our fault.

What was once junk science reserved for late-night talk show appearances by coke-addled Hollywood stars and burned out academics who escaped the ’60s with acid flashbacks and tenure has become the cause célèbre of the Luddite Left. Global warming is a theory which has been “proven” by touting the molehill of anecdotal evidence (it’s warmer in some places, there’s less ice in some areas, hurricanes are bad), while ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary (it’s colder in some places, there’s more ice in some areas, hurricanes have always been bad.)

The danger isn’t just endless griping from Woodstock-surplus types who are so ecologically sensitive they’ve stopped bathing (thereby making the rest of us more sensitive, albeit less ecologically so). It’s the shadowy specter which lurks just behind the façade of saving the planet: greed. Gore may babble about “An Inconvenient Slide Show,” but he lives like a king and has a carbon footprint the size of one of those Paleolithic rhinos which went extinct the last time the Earth got too warm. (Or was it too cold? Was anyone checking the Indricotherium’s exhaust?) And Clinton may talk about our impact on the planet, but I’m betting she and Bubba have no plans to downsize their Chappaqua palace.

Global warming = power. The real danger isn’t just floods, fires and hurricanes; it’s Kyoto Accords, Cap and Trade and Al Gore’s Silliest Home Videos. It’s the Democrat party convincing chowder head college students that only by voting for them can they save the planet.

For that matter, it’s the Democrat party convincing said chowder heads that the planet requires saving. When the bunko artists running the global warming industry got caught fabricating data, the response was: “But, we have a consensus!” Sure you do. And there used to be consensus that the Earth is flat.

As long as we allow the wingnuts to keep opening global warming’s scientific coffin, Gore will keep coming at us. Freddy Krueger will only go away if people stop going to the theatre to see what’s happening on Elm Street. And Al Gore and his climatological claptrap will only disappear when we stop feeding him the one thing he needs to survive:

Relevance. (And BRAINS!!!!)

The Caliph of Ground Zero

A thousand years ago, the Iberian Peninsula was under the thumb of the Muslim Caliphate of Cordoba, an offshoot of the Umayyad Caliphate. While responsible for cultural and economic developments, the Cordoba Caliphate was also particularly hard on what they called “infidels,” and everyone else called “Christians and Jews.”

The Caliphate’s method of dealing with Christians and Jews was to tax the living infidelity out of them. For those who couldn’t pay there were routinely fatal consequences. Religious sensitivity was decidedly NOT a part of the Cordoba Caliphate’s social programs.

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan visited Germany for the G-7 Summit. His itinerary included a stop at the German World War II cemetery at Bitburg. One problem: the Bitburg Cemetery contained the remains of several Waffen SS storm troopers.

Reagan’s purpose was to commemorate V-E Day and to honor the memories of all those who fought and lost their lives in the 20th Century’s greatest conflict. Polling indicated Americans would rather Reagan blew past Bitburg on Die Autobahn. And that polling was right, in a sense.

Though Reagan certainly didn’t support the Reich, visiting Bitburg was a bad call. With millions of opponents—and victims—of Hitler’s hardest corps still alive, the visit was… insensitive.

In 2009, a group of investors fronted by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf purchased the Burlington Coat Factory building just blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. Abdul-Rauf, a sharia-observant imam who has repeatedly made statements that the United States is to blame for the 9/11 attacks (including my fave: “…Osama bin Laden is made in America…”) named his part of the investment group “The Cordoba Initiative.”

A shadily-funded group (developers have repeatedly double-talked on the source of their nearly $100 million budget) want to put a mosque named for a brutal caliphate within rpg-range of the site where other Muslims murdered 2,700 people—for not being Muslim enough. Not exactly the textbook definition of sensitivity.

Of all the hot-button issues the Democrat Party is pushing this year, support for the Ground Zero mosque is one of the biggest head-scratchers. Abdul-Rauf is an imam who has repeatedly endeavored to blame 9/11 on America; he’s part of a religious movement which believes women should be neither seen nor heard (no Hillary Clinton jokes, please) and wants a mosque on top of the spot where the landing gear from one of the planes used on 9/11 by the terrorists landed. But Americans lack sensitivity? Compared to Feisel Abdul-Rauf, I’m Alan Alda, and the GOP is a sensitivity-training seminar.

But, in the spirit of multi-partisan accord, I’ve decided I CAN live with a mosque whose imam preaches hate, intolerance and the kind of respect for women that makes Joseph Smith look like Jane Fonda—IF—we infidels get something in return. Cordoba House construction can start tomorrow; and I will wield a shovel while standing next to some cat named Akbar bin Laden (or whatever).  But, construction on the new Basilica of the Blessed Crusaders has to start the same day in Riyadh. No? All right, but don’t say I didn’t offer.

Let’s take a clinical look at the chaos. According to CNN, 27 percent of Americans believe Obama was born somewhere other than these United States. Wingnuts routinely dismiss these 27 percent as crazier than Rosie O’Donnell in fat camp lockdown. Only 29 percent of Americans support the building of the Ground Zero mosque. Using liberal math… Obamacare had better cover psychiatric treatment.

The Constitution of the United States of America, written by what may well have been the greatest single gathering of intellect in human history, grants us religious freedom, from Muslim to Mormon. But I don’t see this as a matter of religious freedom. It IS a matter of sensitivity. I have sarcastically hypothesized the idea of a mosque-for-basilica tradeoff. But a church built in Riyadh under those circumstances might as well be named Our Lady of The Immaculate Thumb in Your Eye. It’s… insensitive.

Thousands met their end mere yards from the Cordoba House site. The perpetrators of that monstrosity (despite the statements by Imam Abdul-Rauf) were acting on behalf of their version of Islam. Supporters of the Ground Zero mosque are whining about religious sensitivity; although they’ll deny it to the folks who put up too gaudy a Nativity Scene at Christmas, or the 9-year-old who wants to bow his head in silent prayer before some National Education Association union wonk “teaches” him that 2+2=5.

Begging the question: You want sensitivity? How about showing a little?

Say, Uncle…

When it comes to the left wing of American politics, I’m seldom surprised.  Any family which includes Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton—not to mention sideshow siblings like Moulitsas, Moore and Sheehan, along with creepy Uncle Barney Frank and wacky Gramps Soros, is going to create moments which stick out like the honest guy at a personal injury lawyers’ convention.

Last Thursday, as I perused the liberal hate speech site, I ran across one of the Democrat talking-points memos they call “diaries” and stopped dead in my online tracks.  The title of the blog entry was: “GOP Uncle Tom misplays the race card.” 

I pulled the proverbial handbrake and backed down the idiot expressway which is Dailykos to check if my eyes had deceived me.  A sensitive, caring and oh-so-much-smarter-than-the-rest-of-us liberal actually called a black man (in this case, Alan Keyes) an “Uncle Tom.”  I couldn’t have been more surprised if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton announced they were quitting the shakedown racket and going to work as analysts for the Cato Institute.  The discussion which followed this blogospheric babble featured a debate over whether use of such repugnantly racist terminology was acceptable if the subject was someone liberals dislike.

I was unaware that question remained unsettled.  (The correct answer, for victims of teachers’ unions, is NO.)

Truth is, the modern Democrat Party isn’t unfamiliar with racism.  From Orville Faubus to the dearly departed former Klansman and Senator from West Virginia Bobby Byrd, the Democrat party has been playing racist politics for decades; horse-trading the overt racism of its more radicalized travelers for the subtle racism of affirmative action and avoidance of discussion when it comes to the outrages of William Jefferson, Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel.  (Yes, Virginia, demanding a free pass for them because they’re black is still racism.)  What DOES represent a new development is the arrogant racism becoming more and more prevalent amongst white liberals. 

In 1991, white liberal senators; led by Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) conducted a confirmation hearing on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.  In a spectacular example of full-throated leftist hypocrisy, the Democrat Senators on the panel engaged in an assault which Thomas himself quite accurately described as “a high-tech lynching.”  I was a college student at the time, and I recall the on-campus opinions of the Democrats’ Senatorial mob included:

  • Amazement that our poli-sci professors (leftists  all) had clearly misled us about the poor nature and quality of the corpulent gasbags in the Senate.
  • Concern amongst the more easily duped students that their armpit hair was visible below the sleeves of “We Believe You Anita” t-shirts.
  • Trying to figure out how to make a drinking game out of guessing Ted Kennedy’s weight.  (well, it WAS college.)

What we were watching, although we didn’t know it at the time, was a watershed moment for the Left.  For the first time since they had failed to stop civil rights reform, white Democrats fired racist barbs at a black man—and got away with it.

From then on the pigs were out of the pen.  During the Clinton administration we were treated to executive brilliance like Bubba’s plan to curb juvenile crime with “midnight basketball”—brought to you by an administration whiter than an Arkansas hoedown.  During George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House, left-wing media pundits launched withering attacks on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—including Jeff Danziger and Ted Rall’s almost impossibly offensive cartoons.  Both Rall and Danzinger remain employed and are considered leading liberal intellectuals.

I wish I could comfort you by telling you that the wingnuts on Dailykos, legislative trash like the senatorial Democrats, and mewling filth like Rall and Danziger represent the far left fringe of today’s Democrat Party. 

But they don’t.  These days, the lunatics are running the DNC asylum.  The Tea Party is racist, says the NAACP.  But the NAACP’s support for blacks who murder white police officers isn’t.  Proponents of SB1070 are racist, but the New Black Panther Party isn’t.  What they’re missing is that racism is a two-way street—albeit one which dead ends in both directions.

To be fair, there ARE bigots in the conservative family tree.  But they’re the type of relatives we only see on major holidays—and they have to sit at the kids’ table.  The liberals are letting theirs carve the roast.

Messages for the inmates at A Ms. Beecher Stowe called.  She sounded upset. 

Also, the cleaner called: Your hoods are ready.

The Lapdogs Of War

Iranian General Hossein Kan’ani Moghadam announced Tuesday that his nation’s military has begun digging mass graves for our troops should the United States decide to level the Persian soccer pitch.  Speaking through the Fars “news agency” (described by London’s Daily Mail as semi-official, and clearly neither more nor less credible than MSNBC) Moghadam said:

“The mass graves that used to be for burying Saddam’s soldiers have now been prepared again for U.S. soldiers, and this is the reason for digging this big number of graves.”

Analysts suggest General Moghadam is saber-rattling, which is either silly (the 101st Airborne v. the Revolutionary Guard is Mike Tyson v. Marvis Frazier stuff), stupid (he’ll die) or both (his army will get beat like the French and he’ll still die.)

Ever since 2005 Seymour Hersh has been screeching about American plans to attack Iran.  While there is undoubtedly an American battle plan for the Islamic dictatorship—as there are similar contingency plans for attacks on every credible threat on the planet—no such effort has come to pass.  And with Barack Obama’s Presidency flailing like Keith Olbermann searching for talent, no such effort is likely to materialize. 

Not that I would mind if the Navy fired a cruise missile up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tailpipe, but Iran has been funding Islamofascist terrorism for the better part of three decades—so what would be the point?  Turning Teheran into a parking lot just to whack the world’s best-armed midget isn’t what I would describe as a good deployment of military resources.  That’s swatting a fly—with an F-18.

But here’s a question for the class:  even though we CAN beat Iran like a rented mule; SHOULD we?  Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction—the actual, nuclear kind.  Iran is a terrorist state.  But Saddam Hussein gassed, murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands.  The Taliban and al-Qaida have declared war on everyone who thinks women look better in clothing smaller than king-size bed sheets.  And we can’t agree on dropping them to the canvas long enough to let our military deliver a knockout punch.

Instead, duplicitous pontifications and politicians whom I wouldn’t trust with a potato gun have turned both Iraq and Afghanistan into multi-billion dollar reality TV shows.

In 1985, Studs Terkel won a Pulitzer for his World War II history “The Good War.”  Terkel, an otherwise unremarkable blowhard, doubtless chose the title as a clever allegory for the dichotomous American view of warfare. 

Only the most depraved or combative think of war as “good.”  In the utopian ideal, civilized humans would settle their differences with methods which didn’t involve artillery.  I’m the first guy to say I’d be a lot happier if the entire ruling class of Iran suffered simultaneous coronaries from getting overheated at a flash of ankle at Sid Sharia’s Burka Bar.  But that’s unlikely, so how long do we allow a circus freak like Ahmadinejad to shake his little fist before we pop him in the snoot with an AC-130?

While there may not be such a thing as a “good war,” there IS such a thing as a “good” war.  If a creepy Austrian with a terrible barber manages to convince an industrially-capable European nation to march across the continent in support of a world vision which includes gas ovens for 6 million to 12 million people—war is the only answer.  The alternative—which includes living on a planet controlled by thin, pale and excessively neat people who think the “Horst Wessel Song” is groovy—is too horrible to contemplate.

I am not preaching total war on a planetary scale.  It costs good men and women their lives and, less importantly, it costs money.  Moghadam is a lunatic in a third rate army which ended up sending 9-year-olds to get gassed at the front during a decade-long conflict with the other-kind-of-muslim lunatic next door.

Bellicosity from the world’s almost-nuclear junior varsity gives me pause.  Nearly 70 years after we took Hitler and Hirohito out behind the woodshed, we still have plenty of crazy in the neighborhood.  Putting aside our massive economic issues, major problems with border security and Nancy Pelosi, after seven decades we still can’t figure out when the next good war will be.

Since politics kept us from tossing al-Qaida, the Taliban and Islamofascism in general on the same historical ash heap to which we consigned the bad guys of WWII, I’m going to say no way on Iran. 

Some people DO deserve killing, but these guys aren’t worth the bullet.  


What’s Spanish for “Best Western?”

I can’t remember a single detail from a single trip taken by former First Lady Laura Bush. After the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock (and Chicago and Chappaqua) served two terms as co-President, the fact that nothing comes to mind is a bit of a relief.

Hey, at least Mrs. Bush never tried to put the nation’s lawyers in charge of the nation’s doctors.

The smart money says that following her junket to Spain, Michelle Obama will figure out the virtues of the Laura Bush school of smiling and nodding at state dinners. Mrs. Obama’s Iberian itinerary went well beyond the usual foreign photo-op and turned into a budget-busting romp that has ojos rolling from here to eternidad.

At a time when more than one in 10 Americans are one step away from wearing sandwich boards declaring: “Will flamenco for food,” Mrs. Obama’s six-figure trip has engendered entirely reasonable discussions about just how out of touch the Democrat ruling elite has become.

To be fair to Madam Michelle, she does seem to be comfortable serving in a ceremonial role best suited for someone who ascended to the people’s crib by virtue of being married to the right guy at the right time. Such acceptance means a continuation of the blessedly unremarkable First Lady-dom of Mrs. Bush, and an abandonment of the damnably noteworthy First Strong Woman-dom of the erstwhile co-president and current Secretary of “Not Running in 2012—Honest!”

Lest you think I’m descending into some “everything the Obamas do = bad” monologue, let me point out that First Ladies have done their fair share of globetrotting in support of their spouses. But there’s a marked difference between kindly women smiling at foreign toddlers—and kicking back with 40 or so pals at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella (a Ritz-Carlton Resort®), where the rooms run from $500 to $2,000 a night—if for no other reason, the aforementioned urchins are rarely allowed into such lavish locales unless they’re shining shoes.

We have all seen the news reports of the taxpayer-footed tally for the First Family’s Spanish sojourn (minus the President, he was dining with Oprah Winfrey—positively pedestrian by comparison). Contrary to rumor, Mrs. Obama and her entourage ARE paying their personal expenses at their opulent accommodations. But the images of the First Lady, close to four dozen friends and relatives and the required retinue of security and support staff enjoying the high life while the President endeavors to prevail upon American taxpayers to tighten their trusses is one of the great moments in liberal glibness. (Gliberals—get it?)

So, while it might be unfair to criticize Mrs. Obama and her pals for heading out for some high living, it is absolutely fair to point out that the Democrat ruling elite, with Barack Obama at the head of the table, are dining like King Louis XVI and Marie Antionette while the rest of us are consigned to beg at the Bastille’s back door.

Sadly, every aspect of this public relations disaster was preventable.

For starters, perhaps a hollow apology for calling Spaniards bigots immediately before the Obama entourage arrived was less than smart. Next time, open with: “Buenos Dias,” instead of: “Sorry about that whole ‘Spain is racist’ thing. Here’s Michelle!”

A crowd that large is not doing anyone any favors. Consider a group about the size of a jazz combo, not the New York Philharmonic. The pictures coming back from Majorca look like rehearsal sessions for Michael Jackson’s Thriller tour.

Seriously, the “Villa del Mucho Dinero” is undoubtedly fabulous, but it’s in… um… Spain. (For victims of teachers’ unions—that’s a whole other country. Think Mexico, except the Spaniards still live in Spain, not East L.A.) Madame First Lady, while your husband and his fellow Democrat elitists are firing torpedoes at the nation’s economy, how’s about you try a Hampton Inn near Six Flags next time?

While I suppose that we unwashed non-liberal heathens can take solace in the fact that Mrs. Obama didn’t offer up one of her “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” non-sequiturs, many of us are starting to notice an Orwellian subtext to the liberal elite’s societal disconnect. We’re outside, looking through the dining room windows at the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, trying to figure out who the real pigs are.

The Face Which Launched A Thousand Lunches

The Venus De Milo. Michelangelo’s David. Rodin’s Thinker. And… Helen Thomas?

According to the Detroit Free Press, the disgraced former UPI reporter is going to be cast in clay for an outfit called the Arab-American National Museum. Whether that august collection is more “Smithsonian of Dearborn,” or “place your parents made you visit on those long car rides—(a giant ball of string!”)—is immaterial. What is important is timing, and intent.

Helen Thomas’s career as a journalist extends back to WWII. In fact, she was reporting on events in Washington before President Obama took his first steps. (I will leave the geographical location of those steps to your imagination.)

A daughter of Lebanese immigrants, Thomas rose through the ranks—eventually becoming the dean of the White House Press Corps.

But the old adage held true for the old girl: “getting to the top is a lot easier than staying there.” Thomas’s leftward bias drew the attention of Americans who expected more news and less opinion from the 4th Estate. She left UPI in 2000 after 57 years, and took a job more suited to her particular talents: liberal opinion columnist for Hearst Newspapers.

Thomas spent most of the next decade expressing her displeasure with President Bush. While that alone puts her in one of the least exclusive media clubs in the world, Thomas evidently wasn’t satisfied with skewering the GOP. As she put it during a speech in 2008:

“I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’"

Not exactly the kind of inquisitive impartiality one might expect from a venerated veteran of the front lines of reportage. After all, isn’t it the conservatives who “hate?”

Thomas engaged in pitched battles with the Bush Administration. She once told an autograph seeker that Bush was the “worst president in history,” and that if Dick Cheney ran for President in 2008 she would “kill herself.”

All the while, Thomas continued to present Islamic terrorist groups which engaged in bombings as victims of a US/Israel plot. In 2006, she rose in defense of Hezbollah, suggesting that Israel was entirely to blame for the unrest in the Mideast. Her rant was so appallingly bent to favor people who were, at that time, planting bombs next to Tel Aviv teenagers, that then Press Secretary Tony Snow was compelled to respond: “thank you for the Hezbollah view.”

Now, a statue of Helen to preserve her mug for the eons ahead. If a museum in Dearborn, Mich., (Dearborn boasts a population of which 33 percent are Arabic by heritage) is honoring a famous and successful Arab-American, then so be it. One might be tempted to suggest there are members of that demographic who are more accomplished, less offensive to victims of terrorism, or at least easier to look at. But the timing smells like day-old falafel.

Thomas stopped being the dean of the White House Press Corps this past May, after she popped her cork on camera about Israel in this exchange with a Rabbi during Jewish Heritage Day at the White House:

Nesenoff: We’re asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?
Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
Nesenoff: Oooh. Any better comments on Israel?
Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not German, it’s not Poland…
Nesenoff: So where should they go?
Thomas: They go home.
Nesenoff: Where’s the home?
Thomas: Poland. Germany.

So the Jews should leave their homeland (in which they lived by the Word and Grace of the Land Lord of all landlords) and head for Germany. That worked out so well for them last time. How did Helen become statue-worthy—if not statuesque—at the same moment she pulled the stopper out of her anti-Semitism bottle? Mere coincidence seems unlikely.

As you read this a group headed by an Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) with ties to backers of hyper-oppressive Sharia law wants to build a mosque within rpg-range of Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. Abdul-Rauf is of the opinion that 9/11 represented our collective chickens coming home to roost. (I hope he didn’t glom that line from Jeremiah Wright.) Rauf has also suggested that “…Osama bin Laden is made in the USA”—my, how insightful.

Americans are often excoriated for our lack of sensitivity toward Muslims, illegal aliens and portly ex-White House correspondents. At what point do those aforementioned folks owe us the same in return?

Heck, build a $100 million mosque which makes the Cathedral at Chartres look like a Vegas wedding chapel. But consider building it in Dearborn—or take Helen’s advice: build it in Palestine.

Her statue will look… lovely in the foyer.

The Full Court Press

Federal Judge Susan Bolton, acting last week on behalf of the Democrat party and President Barack Obama, went after Arizona’s most recent efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigrants like a starving wolverine running down Bambi. Bolton issued a preliminary injunction in United States v The State of Arizona, gutting the key components of a bill designed to remedy the Federal government’s abdication on immigration reform. Her ruling was hailed by liberals as a step forward for drug runners, gang recruitment and lazy gardeners.

Actually, the Democrats released no such statement. Nor did they make any comments regarding their continuing effort to grant amnesty to a vast reservoir of untapped voting muscle.

Bolton, who was appointed to the Federal bench by President Bill Clinton, based part of her ruling on the issues implementation of SB 1070 would create for the Federal government. Essentially, she stated that Arizona couldn’t do on its own what the Feds were refusing to do for them. Section 2(b) of SB 1070 says:

“For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official… in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable effort shall be made… to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released…”

Bolton concluded section 2(b) of SB 1070 would place an undue burden on the Federal government, given that the Feds would be required to respond in a timely manner to immigration status inquiries coming in from the Arizona law enforcement community. Given Arizona’s geographic proximity to our Third World neighbors downstairs, those inquiries figure to be fairly abundant in number.

To rephrase Bolton’s logic for those who are victims of teachers’ unions: Arizona is a Southern border state. A lot of illegals cross into Arizona. Under SB 1070, Arizona cops are going to be asking the Feds to check the immigrant status of a lot of illegals. Obama and the Democrats don’t like that idea—it might mean actual work (not mention potentially angering La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund [MALDEF], among others.)

While navigating her Byzantine maze of logical reasoning, Bolton evidently forgot something: 8 U.S.C. §1373—which legally requires the Feds to respond to precisely the sort of requests Obama and his liberal cronies don’t want to acknowledge. Thusly, Judge Bolton’s ruling not only voids key sections of SB 1070, but also overturns pre-existing Federal immigration law and directly abrogates the 1st Circuit’s decision in Estrada v Rhode Island, which set forth standards by which law enforcement officers could check suspects’ immigration status.

But the goodly judge wasn’t through taking the shears to the sheepdog. Bolton also managed, through the invention of a fictitious Chilean dog-walker (yes, you read that correctly), to dredge up the leftist bugaboo of racial profiling.

When a cop stops a black man in a Scottsdale golf community because he “looked out of place”—that’s profiling—that’s already against the law. When a cop asks Tino in Tucson to provide legitimate ID, especially when Tino is struggling with “eye” and “dee”, that’s not profiling, that’s police work. As for the racial component in play—it’s not as if greater metropolitan Tucson has been overrun with mass numbers of willowy blondes who speak English with winter Olympics accents:

“Klaus Schnitzengruber? And you’re from Flagstaff?”
“Er…Ja. Vlagshtaff. Ich bin ein Vlagshtaffer.”

Hence, the inclusion of “reasonable suspicion” in SB 1070. Should Herr Schnitzengruber get popped for a busted taillight in Tucson; it’s auf wiedersehen for Klaus.

The transparency of Bolton’s impetus in issuing her injunction isn’t just offensive—it’s illegal. Spurred by a profligate administration and a liberal machine bent on presumably adding millions of voters to its ranks, Bolton has shredded the Constitution, stomped on pre-emptive Federal court decisions (not just Estrada, but also United States v Salerno, which states that Bolton’s “Chilean dog-walker” construct is judicially irrelevant), and wiped the mat with 8 U.S.C. §1373 (the Feds have to respond to immigration status inquiries) AND 8 U.S.C. § 1304 (immigrants must carry ID at all times).

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has pledged to carry this fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Given the spurious nature of Bolton’s ruling—and, by extension, Obama’s efforts to undermine the fight to secure our nation’s borders—Brewer should be able to handle the weight.

Leaving Las Vegas

Put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters and you’re probably won’t get Hamlet. Put a couple hundred wingnuts at a couple hundred laptops and you’re lucky if they don’t fling feces.

Last weekend those wingnuts invaded Sin City for Netroots Nation, a conference for wired liberals who secured permission to escape their parents’ basements for a couple of days. They gathered to do precisely what they do at home (albeit, without parental supervision): hate conservatives.

Netroots is the annual summit of what was the far-left fringe of the Democrat party and is now the captain of the Democrat ship. The roster of sponsors is a who’s who of party stalwarts (including):, whose founder Markos Moulitsas openly celebrated the murder and dismemberment of Americans by islamofacist terrorists, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which provides the muscle when Democrats want to get literally tough with taxpayers, and the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which have done more to retard national intellectual growth than anyone.

If the sponsors list was a rogue’s gallery of liberal groups, the featured speakers were a veritable carnival side show. Among those stars was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who fired off an entirely predictable litany of leftist talking points, all with the core lesson of: the GOP = evil.

Pelosi also kissed a little baby-lib booty, telling the kiddies how gratified she was to see the assemblage of youth in the audience. She neglected to mention the same demographic includes Paris Hilton, kids who wear trucker hats and people who think vampires are cool.

Pelosi’s rant also included some new whoppers to go along with the usual bravo sierra: “We now represent the middle class.” Um… Madam Speaker… you’re a San Francisco society matron/ political heiress whose net worth is just shy of $13 million. Remember when the Dems clamored about George H.W. Bush not knowing the price of a gallon of milk? Which one of Pelosi’s domestic servants keeps track of the soy latte budget?

Maybe Pelosi is too far removed from the middle class—and middle age—to connect with the kiddies on their level. What about erstwhile comedian-turned Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.)? Franken served as the Netroots keynote speaker. Along with some unfunny icebreakers I’m hoping he didn’t pay someone else to write, Franken scared the Birkenstocks off his audience: “Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is planning to double his staff…” Issa, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, wasn’t there to point out—the majority party always gets double the staff at the Oversight Committee. Astoundingly, his speech made no mention of convicted felon voters.

Those two heroes of hypocrisy bookended the usual self-congratulatory blather. Netroots patrons managed to absolve Obama and the Democrats of every broken promise of the past 18 months. A video of Obama’s so-called accomplishments was presented by Keith Olbermann’s mini-me, Rachel Maddow. Among the unmentionables were double-digit unemployment, and the continuation of both of the wars Obama pledged to end.

One of the fundamental tenets of the left is that consensus based on anecdotal evidence is the equivalent of proof, e.g.: so-called anthropogenic global warming. The problem, on display at Netroots Nation this past weekend, is that a consensus of people who think the earth is flat… is a consensus of morons. A hotel filled with people who echo each other’s sentiments, from the silly: “Obama is a great President” to the demonstrably untrue: “all supporters of Arizona’s SB1070 are racist” isn’t likely to put together anything substantive—substance having skipped Vegas for Atlantic City.

Netroots is self-important liberals discussing their consensus that conservatives are stupid/ ignorant, without considering the possibility that they could be WRONG. Netroots is a tinfoil hat brigadier who thinks George W. Bush bombed the levees in the Lower 9th Ward, and then saying he got his proof from the guy in the matching straitjacket.

Left-wingnuts hate the Tea Party, immigration reform, talk radio and (of course) Sarah Palin. They needed to go to Vegas for that?

Leave Vegas to those of us who are going there to get tanked and spend our money before Obama pinches it and gives it to you. Vegas lost cool points when they made it “family friendly.” Remember when you thought it couldn’t get worse than being in the room next to Floyd and Janice from Wisconsin and their five screaming kids?

Imagine it now, only instead of Floyd and Janice, it’s Nancy and Dianne from California, and instead of five shrieking tykes, they brought 500 shrieking idiots.

The Glass House

In the wake of the Georgia (where I reside) primary on July 20, I was going to cobble together some salient thoughts about the American system of electoral politics and the inevitable nastiness that goes foot-in-mouth along with it.

And then web content impresario Andrew Breitbart dove headfirst into seriously hot water last week. Breitbart evidently doctored a video tape of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) official Shirley Sherrod to make her seem racist. At the time, Sherrod was speaking to the NAACP, so many conservatives assumed she was as racially mistuned as her audience.

Liberal outrage over Breitbart’s shameful (alleged) misdeeds turned the story into a national headline. But while liberals nationwide howled with rage, another story broke the same day. And this one was a real Daisy Cutter: The Daily Caller (DC) broke the news that the mainstream media (MSM) was playing dirty for Barack Obama.

The DC piece included predictably self-important journalists brazenly discussing the best methods to protect poor Obama from evil right-wing bastards. Thus did my musings on choosing between “least stomach-churningly awful” candidates at the ballot box get shuffled into my computer’s hard drive next to the “gourmet meals you can make in the microwave” recipes.

To whit:

During the 2008 Presidential campaign we were introduced to a fine Chicago clergyman named Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright presided over a fine congregation in a fine Midwestern city. Among his fine congregants was a fine U.S. Senator named Barack Obama. Fine. Except that Rev. Wright doesn’t feel fine about many of us. In fact, Rev. Wright has a rather poor opinion of:

  • Jews.
  • Republicans.
  • The LAPD (groundbreaking, I know).
  • “Uncle” Clarence Thomas (and the “closeted Klan court”).
  • Condoleeza Rice (he called her “Condoskeezer—not sure what that means, but I doubt it’s a compliment.)
  • The War on Terror.
  • Pretty much every president since Hoover.
  • The outcome of WWII (Really? Really.)

But the DC revealed the MSM literally planned a pass for poor Barack. After all, they reassured us, he couldn’t possibly have known everything Wright was saying—he was busy. The facts that Obama had been a member of Wright’s church for two decades and had even donated $20,000 to the cause were glossed over. Only a racist would continue to look under Obama’s Chicago stones (pay no attention to Bill Ayers, there).

Flash forward to 2010. Obama is firmly ensconced in the people’s digs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And to quote the erstwhile pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ: “…the chickens have come home to roost…”

And how.

DC’s investigation unearthed scores of documents revealing a concerted effort on the part of the MSM to drive a stake into the heart of Wright-gate in specific and criticism of Obama in general. Journalists at outlets major and minor are named in the DC’s trove of notes, offering shocking invective—including suggestions on how to falsely smear conservatives with the “racist” label in an effort to “change the subject,” tips on how to kill any negative stories on Obama, plans to convince a potential Obama administration to pull Fox News‘ FCC license (they can’t), and my personal favorite—NPR contributor Sara Spitz (your tax dollars at work, kiddies!) describing her laughter at the hoped-for death of Rush Limbaugh in lurid detail.

Imagine the outrage should Fred Barnes (the subject of one of the “let’s call him a racist even though he isn’t” plans) attend Sunday services at the 1st Church of the White Devil Slave Master. Even if he was simply there to observe, his career would be cooked like the slowest turkey on Thanksgiving.

If Limbaugh were to suggest the eye-popping expiration of the uber-shrill Julianne Malveaux, the left would howl with indignation—the gals at Malveaux’s Bennett College for Women might even suspend afternoon interpretive dance and pottery classes!

To satisfy my own curiosity I took a peek at a couple of MSM offerings while researching this piece. Surely, with The Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander publicly admitting his paper had fumbled the snap on the New Black Panther Party story, the revelation by DC of an actual liberal media conspiracy would result in at least marginal introspection from the MSM amidst indignant shrieks over Breitbart’s actions—or so I thought. Instead:

  • CNN: Their top story was a thought-provoking analysis of Mel Gibson. At least, I assume it was thought-provoking. They also featured some story about Lindsay Lohan, which puts them in the lofty company of The National Enquirer.
  • The New York Times: Hillary Clinton announced new sanctions against North Korea. That actually marks a departure from the policies of her husband, who gave billions to the wobbly leg of the Axis of Evil.
  • The Washington Independent: WI’s Spencer Ackermann was among the most vocal of the DC-identified conspirators. I expected at least a mild disavowal. Nope. They’re upset about nuclear power plants. I was excited for a moment, until I realized they’re against them. Foreign oil interests indeed.
  • The Huffington Post: Their lead story is about Republicans smoking cigars or some other feigned outrage. The response to DC story merely claims that DC employees were also on the “Journo-list.” So, they’re admitting they showed a copy of their plan to the bad guys. Brilliant.
  • MSNBC: Ask their “viewer.” I’m sure he/she would relish the attention.

All of the aforementioned covered the Breitbart/Sherrod tale with the kind of breathlessness that fogs the windows of teenagers’ cars.

What we’re really seeing is the confirmation of something most of us already knew: the so-called MSM will lie down in traffic (or at least hurl what’s left of their ethics into the road) for Obama. While you’re scratching your heads in bewilderment as libs lose their cookies over Breitbart’s “cooking” of the Sherrod tape—all the while managing to ignore far-left hack Keith Olbermann’s cut-n-splice assault on Limbaugh from last week, I have a question for the class: Why?

The same media flacks who participated directly or indirectly with the now in-their-own-words-established pro-Obama charade told us back in 2008 that electing Obama was akin to welcoming the Savior. There was going to be Hope and Change. They even told us that we were racist if we dared ask what Hope and Change might mean.

Obama was brighter, cooler, more astute and even better-looking than the rest of us. His victory in November was going to end war (oops), restore the economy (oops), bring transparency to government (oops), and reach out to the opposition to bring us all together under the Big Tent of Democracy (oops). He fired the CEO of GM and none of us even got a cool new Camaro like the one in Transformers: The Movie.

So why does Obama need the help? This is a guy who won a Nobel Peace Prize on spec. He was a community organizer. He’s BLACK (-ish..cablinasian, maybe?) That last fact alone was supposed to usher in at least what the MSM called a “post-racial presidency.”

Instead, the hate-spewing left merely slapped the paintbrush of accused bigotry on anyone who opposed the Obama agenda. We now know they even discussed it in advance.

But this isn’t just about the revelation of a concerted effort to protect Obama from reasonable scrutiny with defamatory finger-pointing. My July 22 column: A Light in the Darkness examined part of this controversy. But the fallout from the “Journo-list” exchanges is something new: incontrovertible evidence, in the words of the offenders themselves, that you simply cannot trust the MSM any further than you can pick them up and throw them (with the exception of George Stephanopolous, whom I’m fairly certain I could heave a good distance).

There’s a part of me that hopes these guys are all just morons. Charlie Gibson said he didn’t know about ACORN, he was on vacation. Bob Schieffer said the same thing about the NBPP scandal. Stephanopolous thinks Obama isn’t getting enough credit for dealing with terrorism.

Last week the NAACP, fresh from demonstrations on behalf of cop-killer Troy Davis, issued a statement calling the Tea Party racist. The statement went unaccompanied by equally strong condemnations of the New Black Panther Party, John Lewis (“they shouted epithets and spat! I swear!”) or people who murder police officers.

The NAACP’s lack of condemnation of the utterly condemnable was itself unaccompanied by comment by the MSM. They were too busy describing Michelle Obama’s fetching ensemble while she intimated that childhood obesity might be caused by (shocker) racism.

I have no trouble condemning Breitbart’s allegedly dastardly acts. You get caught acting the rat, you have to take the cheese. But Breitbart is one rodent. The Main Stream Media is infested, and no one seems to be calling for the exterminator.

—Ben Crystal

With Apologies to Jefferson, De Tocqueville and Shaw

Charlie Rangel is going to force the issue. The longtime United States Representative from New York’s 15th Congressional District isn’t going down without a fight over the ethics charges which have been levied against him.

Although his fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington, progress on that front suggests she’s using a soap ladle to empty the Everglades. Some point to Charlie—whose district sports a Partisan Voting Index of D+43 (making it the most redoubtably liberal place in America outside Pelosi’s living room)—as a gravel-voiced shout for term limits.

I disagree. I can easily identify a whole retinue of wire-pullers and spoilsmongers whose continued occupation of elected offices lowers our collective political intelligence the way reality television has turned a generation of teenagers into slack-jawed mouth breathers (Snookie and J-Woww! OMG!); it’s just that we already have term limits. We call them elections.

When it comes to sending grafters to the political bone yard, elections are theoretically as potent a man-stopper as a 12-gauge shotgun. But like any weapon, elections only work if we pull the trigger.

There are 535 members of the two houses of Congress, 50 governors and thousands of various state and local legislators. Many of them have been situated in office long enough to earn the envy of the hardiest fungi. And while we deserve better than most of them, each one of them deserves to stay in office as long as we’ll let them. After all, while few of them are anything but honest about what they’re doing there, at the very least, they’re honest about wanting to be there.

Rangel is far from the only politico who ever made us shake our heads in disgust. The goodly folk of South Carolina sent Strom Thurmond back to the Senate long past the time he was drooling in his pudding. Imagine being so decrepit that you can relegate a fossilized remnant like Fritz Hollings to junior status.

Lately, the Palmetto State allowed Mark Sanford to continue holding down their governor’s chair even after he “hiked the Appalachian Trail.” (At least, that’s what the kids are calling it these days.) Now Alvin Greene, the South Carolina Democrat nominee for Senate, has suggested an economic recovery plan which includes action figures—of Alvin Greene. I believe some South Carolinians might say “not all his dogs are barking.”

Come to think of it—maybe South Carolina should be the location for a term limit test program. If they elect Action Figure Alvin to the Senate then term limits can go the way of Al Gore’s Presidential aspirations.

Rangel has represented the same basic constituency since before I was born. After being forced to relinquish his post as the chairman of the enormously powerful House Ways and Means committee earlier this year, he’s now up against the ropes as the roster of ethical violations he “allegedly” committed stretches from his rent-control-law violating apartments and offices in New York all the way to the Dominican Republic vacation villa on which he failed to report rental income. (Personal Liberty Digest™ doesn’t have the bandwidth necessary for me to recount the litany of Rangellian excesses, and you don’t have the time.)

But the voters in New York’s 15th like Charlie. Their parents liked Charlie. He is facing opposition this year, and it might be time enough for Charlie to enjoy retirement at one of his multiple subtropical retreats (yes, there’s more than one.)

Even if 2010 is Charlie’s swan song, what can we expect to see in his stead? Rangel’s predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was repeatedly re-elected to the House by these same citizens despite his own menu of brazen impropriety. They only replaced Powell with Rangel when Powell stopped showing up for work. I hate to say it but I doubt their voting acumen has improved after 40 years.

But what about the rest of us? Incumbents get re-elected to the tune of better than 90 percent, a number which hardly jibes with the 11 percent approval rating Congress enjoys at the moment. Eighty-nine out of 100 of recognize what these people are. But only one in 10 of them is going to be looking for work come November.

Look, Charlie Rangel deserves our derision, and gets a fair amount of it. But his constituents don’t seem to mind. And as a result, they deserve no better. Judging by his colleagues and compatriots—neither do we.

A Light In the Darkness

A Light In the Darkness

It isn’t exactly stop-the-presses news that the so-called Main Stream Media (MSM) lists to port in its coverage of any news, stop-the-presses or otherwise. During the age of Obama, some of the more wild-eyed media outlets have abandoned any pretense of calling it down the middle. In some cases, that abandonment manifests thusly:

“Tonight on MSNBC: Ed Schultz explains how voter fraud is fine if the fraudster is acting on behalf of Martha Coakley! Later—Rachel Maddow… um… still hates Sarah Palin.”

In others, we see the high-wire act of major print publications desperately clinging to claims of legitimacy while their news departments alternatively proffer fawning profiles of the current administration’s greatness and fall mafioso-silent on the subject of Democrat failings.

So imagine my surprise when Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post—as redoubtable an outlet for the MSM as exists south of West 40th Street in New York (the home offices of The New York Times)—WaPo ombudsman Andrew Alexander openly questioned the lack of coverage of the Obama Administration’s refusal to pursue charges against the New Black Panther Party hate group. In Alexander’s piece, he acknowledges the efforts of readers to force The Post into examining the developing situation, and even criticizes the paper’s late arrival to the party.

Had someone mentioned to me before Sunday that a member of a left-wing rag would admit dereliction of journalistic duty, I would have high-tailed it to the nearest 7-11 to stock up on Powerball tickets. Granted, Alexander does a bit of a soft shoe on the situation, but given the partisan rage guiding most of his compatriots, I will accept the possibility that he has to err on the side of caution.

The man may well have a family to feed, and if the hysterical reaction of some of our liberal friends here on Personal Liberty Digest™ is any indication, selling out the wingnuts from inside the WaPo newsroom is as dangerous as testifying against Sammy Gravano in a Federal courtroom.

While there are MSM organizations which employ conservatives, they’re usually isolated with the same wariness with which people treat odd family members. Imagine the earnestly leftist reporter showing the new intern around the Newsweek offices: “oh, that’s crazy Uncle George (Will). We don’t talk about him much. He always sends us Brooks Brothers’ ties for Christmas.”

But even an acknowledgement by Alexander that The Post had dropped the ball and was now kicking it around the field represented a two-car-garage size crack in the dam. With the ineptitude of the Obama Administration leading to private admissions by Democrats that they are decidedly NOT facing a November to Remember, one would expect a good deal of wagon-circling by the MSM.

Whether it’s breathless coverage of the NAACP screeching about supposed racist elements in the Tea Party (while assiduously ignoring the racism of the former), or the ex-CNN shrieker Bill Press suggesting the voting public is a bunch of “spoiled brats” for not better appreciating the greatness of Obama & Co.—there IS a new ramping up of liberal talking points spewing out of the MSM blowholes of late.

Last Sunday, former Clinton staffer and DNC operative George Stephanopolous even managed to suggest on ABC’s This Week… that during Obama’s 18 months in office: “…if you set aside the Fort Hood bombing in Texas and the failed Christmas bomber, there has not been a major attack that’s been anything close to successful on American soil.”

Yeah, except those two. Next, he’ll be telling the Japanese that “…setting aside Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WWII really wasn’t too bad for you.”

Nonetheless, there is a flickering light shining in the wingnut-media-created intellectual darkness. Stephanopolous, who has spoken proudly of his daily confabs with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, was trying to tout the anti-terrorism credentials and accomplishments of the Commander-in-Chief. However, his guest—Washington Post (there they are again!) writer William Arkin—stomped him flatter than a 5-cent steak.

Confronted with Stephanopolous’s fatuousness, Arkin retorted: “Well, I think it’s always good to set aside the things that are most significant in terms of countering what it is that the government would like to put out as the good news.” Touche’.

It’s a long way to the proverbial Tipperary of the MSM eliminating their decidedly leftward tilt. Andrew Alexander certainly does not speak for the entire rogue’s gallery that is today’s media. But the fact that he’s speaking at all speaks volumes.

Picking Scabs and Parking Spaces

Meet Billy Raye. Billy is a 51-year-old bicycle courier. Billy was out of work. According to Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Billy has managed to find employment. Billy, who is not a member of any labor organization, has been hired by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters (MARCC)—to walk a picket line.

The MARCC is picketing outside the MacPherson building in Washington, D.C., these days. The building is home to a satellite campus of a Chicago-based school of psychology, only slightly ironic given the schizoid nature of what’s happening outside their facility.

The MARCC is miffed because the school is using Can-Am Contractors—a non-union outfit—to put up drywall. And the union boys are outraged at the idea of Can-Am using “scabs” to do work that could have been done by MARCC members at a higher rate of pay.

Keep in mind, the union isn’t so incensed that they’re doing their own picketing. Instead, they’ve hired Billy and some other less fortunate types to do their epithet-shouting and sandwich-board wearing for them. To put it bluntly, the union has hired scabs to protest against Can-Am… using scabs.

In one of the all-time great too-many-obvious-jokes moments, Vincente Garcia, the union supervisor of picketing (and irony-proofing) at the MacPherson building, said regular MARCC members can’t handle the picketing themselves because, “For a lot of our members, it’s really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else.”

Billy Raye clearly doesn’t have a problem with stowing his bike, nor, according to The Journal, does he even care why he’s there. “I’m getting paid to march around and sound off.” Such is life in the union universe.

The current national unemployment rate is hovering around 9.5 percent. Factoring in the likely 4 percent to 5 percent who are either retired, dead, not looking for work or picketing the MacPherson Building contractors, the real rate is closer to 14 percent. That’s a lot of available scab picketers.

According the article, the MARCC pays scabs to man close to 150 picket lines throughout the D.C. and Baltimore areas on a daily basis. Scab picketers get $8.25/hour to walk in circles and hurl pro-union invective at whatever non-union labor is taking place in their location.

Presuming 50 scabs per picket line (the number at the MacPherson building), working (drinking coffee and shouting in semi-unison) 20 hours a week, the MARCC is coughing up $8,250 per week, per picket line. Even if we cut the number in half, a labor union is paying non-union labor a little more than $600,000 weekly to… well… work for them.

How many of the unemployed picketers-for-hire could be turned into full-fledged MARCC members by redirecting the aforementioned sum towards job training? How many Billy Rayes could hop off their bicycles and into a job site for the kind of dough he and his fellow temporary picketers are pocketing to scream bloody murder on behalf of the union-affiliated companies which don’t hire them? Most importantly, why does someone Outside the Asylum need to point this out?

When the United Auto Workers’ massive contracts played a large part in turning General Motors into Government Motors, I couldn’t help but think that the days of unions protecting American laborers from predatory employers had faded into the swirling mists of history. When the Service Employees International Union sent its goons in to play the heavies for Democrats confronted with popular opposition to Obamacare, I realized the unions were beginning to morph into the sort of thugs against whom they were formed to defend. It’s as if the Molly Maguires bought the mine and immediately reopened the company store.

Now the unions are hiring scabs to do the work union members don’t want (or at least, can’t find convenient parking for.) Don’t get me wrong—I have no issue with what the unions call scab labor. I use “scab” not as a pejorative, but as a demonstrative. The MARCC or one of the other groups around the country who employ similar tactics could use scab-picketer money to turn scab-picketers into dues-paying workers. Dues-paying workers would boost union membership rolls, union pensions, union officials and—most importantly to union officials—union officials’ bank accounts.

Think of the major American corporations which could be turned into semi-government-controlled operations! Imagine the coordinated assaults on anti-Obamacare protestors! Visualize the Brobdingnagian brigades of union muscle, riding out like the proverbial Assyrian cohort, gleefully pounding senior citizens on behalf of their Democrat Darius.

The best part is: they already have the purple shirts.

Death, But Not Taxes

I hate the Yankees. More than any sports franchise on the planet—with the possible exception of the Dallas Cowboys—the Yankees turn me into baseball-ish English soccer hooligan (though I don’t need five pints of Guinness to throw something at the television.) Of course, my detestation of the Yankees extended to their owner: George Steinbrenner.

But as much as I despised Steinbrenner for returning my least favorite team to the top; I never begrudged him respect. He did whatever he needed to make them winners. Contracts larger than the gross national product (GNP) of most third world nations required to keep A-Rod, Jeter and the gang close to the Canyon of Heroes? Done. Steinbrenner’s detractors often pointed out that he “bought” his titles. I don’t care if he paid for them in green M&M’s.

He won. Often. Tuesday morning, Steinbrenner won one last time… by dying.

Don’t get me wrong, folks—I take no pleasure in the death of The Boss. By shuffling off this mortal coil in 2010, Steinbrenner managed to pitch one final shutout at every wingnut who ever employed class envy to pull a twisted Robin Hood act on successful Americans. Because the Prince of the Pinstripers died this year, he walled off his considerable estate from the Death Tax.

Thanks to the last gasps of the Bush-era tax laws, Steinbrenner’s considerable fortune (estimated by Forbes to be more than $1.1 billion) is protected from the pickpockets currently living the high life in Washington. By assuming room temperature in 2010, Steinbrenner has guaranteed the fruits of his years of labor will be passed on to those whom HE deems worthy—and Turbo-Tax Geithner and his big buddy Barack can go pound sand. While libs foam at the mouth over the loss of nearly $600 million (the Feds potential take had Steinbrenner shown the good sense to die next year); I have to both applaud—and wail.

I applaud the idea of Capitol Hill bagmen beating it back to D.C. with bupkus. I wail at the idea that the death tax returns for 2011 like Jason from Friday the 13th.

There’s no logical argument in favor of the death tax. Even liberals acknowledge that fact, albeit in backhanded fashion. They mutter about “unfair protection for the rich;” or “paying their fair share.”

To address the former: the way the Democrats treat financial achievement (excluding their own, of course), achievers NEED protection. Can you imagine coming home from Aunt Edna’s funeral to find a bunch of thugs in blue suits loading 55 percent of her plastic-covered furniture into the back of a U-Haul?

To the latter, I say: they’ve paid their fair share. (And yours. And mine. And’s.) Rich folks pay income taxes. In fact, the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) bill. The current Federal income tax rate is just south of 40 percent—meaning Steinbrenner paid 40 cents out of every dollar he earned to the government in return for… um… the Cross Bronx Expressway. The 2010 Death Tax moratorium meant the Feds missed out on doubling up the penalty George paid for making a big pile. (*author’s aside: Steinbrenner hit the big time in the 60s and 70s, when marginal income tax rates were United Kingdom/hide your money in Montserrat like the Beatles high—so he kicked a bunch back into the kitty.)

And the wealthy can afford to buy nice stuff. When Richie Rich buys a Range Rover, he pays much higher sales taxes than you did on that ’03 Hyundai. When he heads to Morton’s for dinner, he forks over a lot more for that porterhouse than I did for my Big Mac extra value meal. And the wealthy boost the labor pool (granted, Steinbrenner hired the same guys over and over again.). From Derek Jeter to Derek the parking lot guy; Steinbrenner’s millions of dollars made dollars for millions.

Warren Buffett, who made his money the old fashioned way, says he supports the Death Tax. I can retort thusly: it’s your $47 billion—give it to whomever the hell you want, you earned it. But don’t expect the rest of us to follow suit.

George Steinbrenner had his moments. He played dirty, both in baseball and politics. And though I’m sure he would rather have lived past 2010; by dying when he did, he drove a personal stake in the heart of liberal ideology of penalizing success.

Of course, I still hate the Yankees.

If You Can't Say Something Nice…

The Clown Prince of Washington and his merry band of sideshow freaks didn’t take over the executive and legislative branches by acclaim alone.  They had help. 

Obama’s campaign was an exercise in duplicity (It’ll be a GOOD CHANGE—HONEST!), mendacity (I hardly know vicious racist Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers) and obfuscation (why do you care what Change really means?  Don’t you worry about ACORN.)  The corporate media was a willing participant in the sham, and MSNBC led the parade.

Normally, pointing out the talent and information black hole which is MSNBC’s primetime lineup is weather-forecast-for-the-Sahara rote.  Outside the Asylum, we’re faced with a President and a “ruling” party who combine colossal ineptitude with an almost predatory regard for personal liberty.  The promises of Hope and Change have produced Hope for Change—this fall and in 2012.  But don’t you dare let the fake media inquisitors catch you questioning their messiah (Obama, not the actual Messiah).

Putting aside the usual baseless charges of racism, hate-speech and fear-mongering from the vapid wingnuts who populate the Democrat National Committee (DNC) demographic, I thought I might give us all an opportunity to examine some recent offerings from the hypocrite huddle currently stomping the sandbox.

Last week, crackpot king of MSNBC Keith Olbermann used his nightly hate-filled rant “The Worst Person in the World’ to again excoriate Rush Limbaugh.  Olbermann employed an audio montage to demonstrate Limbaugh’s racist tendencies.  No doubt, thousands (well…it IS MSNBC… dozens…OK—a couple) of liberal drones came away from Olbermann’s latest raging screed reassured that of course, Limbaugh is pure evil.

Both the hysterical host and MSNBC’s staff neglected to mention the audio clip was heavily doctored.  In fact, one of the comments Olbermann attributed to Limbaugh was itself a quote of shrieking liberal harpy Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Tucker, an infamously furious leftist, had claimed GOP Chairman Michael Steele “never would have been voted in as chairman of the Republican Party were he not black.” 

Just imagine Tucker’s response if someone suggested she’d be fact-checking obits from the Mayberry Mudslinger if she was more putty-complected.  For that matter, imagine where Olbermann would be if he had actual talent.  He might still be sitting next to Dan Patrick at ESPN—which fired Limbaugh for comments about Donovan McNabb which were far less offensive (although I disagreed with him—McNabb was awesome) than the crap spewed by Tucker, who remains un-fired by the AJC as of this morning. 

Most folk with IQs higher than houseflies are already aware that Olbermann is a hack who likely despises Limbaugh, Beck et al because they have something he’ll never sniff: ratings.  (Not to mention talent.)  Likewise, most of us with crania above shot-glass capacity are aware that Olbermann may be the current high priest of histrionic hypocrisy, but he’s not the only media mouth-breather in the mash.  War profiteer and multi-millionaire Michael Moore appeared on Radio Pacifica last weekend to express his feelings that Americans will be excluded from Heaven because their taxes fund the War on Terror.  Moore vomited up spiritual drivel for the far-left radio network:

“Did you pay your taxes?  …well, then you helped fund this, didn’t you…OK, well, you know, turn around. You’re not coming in the Gates.

The corpulent fake-umentarian neglected to mention what eternity held in store for the actual terrorists; he also left out the fact that Radio Pacifica is partially funded by the same taxes he believes have consigned the rest of us to the Lake of Fire, or at least “Sicko” on infinite loop. 

These are but recent exemplars of the endless march of mendacity which dominates the MSM.  Here’s my problem:  the right isn’t stepping up to the plate.  The left is far guiltier of the charges they level with such glee; but more often than not the right simply offers denials and explanations.  They should be setting the terms of the debate, not living by them.

I am not suggesting imitating the wingnut media’s “I know you are, but what am I?” tactics; nor do I believe matching their dishonesty lie-for-lie.  But maybe—just maybe—It’s time to point at some of these blathering buffoons and… call a spade a spade.

From The Pot To The Kettle

At first glance, they don’t look like much. A couple of raggedy little guys wearing uniforms borrowed from some high school theatre prop department, trying desperately to look forbidding.

They’re members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and, on election day 2008, they lost the Candid Camera Challenge; standing in front of a Philadelphia polling station, one of them brandishing a nightstick. They claim they were there to provide what they call “security” and the law (pre-2009, anyway) calls “voter intimidation.”

If you never saw Philly’s Funniest Voting Video—and more than 2 million have seen it on YouTube alone—then you might remember the New Black Panther Party from the infamous Duke Lacrosse scandal of 2006. These are the same clowns whose former ringmaster Khalid Muhammad was actually bounced out of the Nation of Islam for being too bizarre (placing him on what presumably is one of the world’s shortest lists.)

After the election of Barack Obama, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed suit against three of the junior varsity jackbooters of the NBPP. The DoJ actually won default judgment against them after they blew off their court appearance. Sadly, our friends at the NBPP knew the deck was stacked in their favor. A couple of months later the word came down from on high: Let it go. Quit picking on Shabazz and his funhouse Cosby kids. We’ll make them promise to play nice at polling places next time around.

Evidently, the Great Uniter got his degree in harmony from the Spike Lee School of Race Relations.

Tuesday morning, erstwhile Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams testified in front of the United States Commission on Civil Rights that Obama and his little buddy Eric Holder had shut down the investigation into the Philadelphia incident.

Adams, who says he found the actions of the Obama administration so repellent that he left the Justice Department, claimed that racial animus propelled the determination by Mr. Hope and Change to kill the investigation into potential wrongdoing by the NBPP. The only meaningful response from Obama is a refusal to allow the testimony of former DoJ voting section chief Christopher Coates.

It may turn out that Adams is every bit the big bad bigot he’s being called by good little liberals everywhere. He might be cutting holes in the guest room pillowcases to get a better look at tonight’s cross burnin’. But there’s not a single shred of evidence to support that assertion. Even if there was, it would by no means absolve the Justice Department from their sworn duty to uphold the laws protecting voters from intimidation—AND laughably inept attempts at intimidation by NBPP goons.

Adams told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that "…over and over again…" Obama and his pals showed "hostility" to cases involving black perpetrators and white victims—including the NBPP actions in Philadelphia and elsewhere. According to Adams: “…we abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens.."

There’s no reason to assume Adams is lying. In the case of the New Black Panther’s beret brigade, we have the video. It should be noted for our Left-wingnut friends that the existence of said video advances Adams’s credibility several steps past that of say—John Lewis and the Congressional Black Caucus.

To say Obama and his pals play the race card is a “Rosie O’Donnell is a little bit chunky” understatement. The left hurls a charge of racism at virtually every opponent of their agenda; see the aforementioned CBC fracas. During the Massachusetts special Senatorial election, I even heard MSNBC talking hairdo Keith Olbermann suggest pickup trucks were a new symbol for racism—which I’ll accept only if I get to say driving a Prius is emblematic of being a pansy.

Even as I write this, Obama has filed the predicted lawsuit against Arizona and SB1070.

Wasn’t the elimination of racism one of the boxcars on the Hope and Change Express? Didn’t the Democrats promise us that voting for a “uniter” like Obama would erase the alleged divisions of/caused by the Bush years?

This boy’s America is as more divided than ever; despite the promises of the President. I’m not denying the existence of racism on the Right. I am tired of hearing denials of the same from the Left.

Can’t we all just get… forget it.

One note to New Black Panthers everywhere: some guys wear berets and look like the 101st Airborne. Others look… French.

Ça vous va bien, les gars!

The Old Dog And Pony Show

"When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public."Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, University of Chicago Law Review, 1995.

What a waste of time.”—My next door neighbor’s mother, expressing her disgust at the non-event Kagan’s confirmation hearings became, Thursday afternoon.

Kagan—at least the 1995 edition—is correct. My next door neighbor’s mother is not. But I will elaborate, if only to keep Mrs. <redacted by author>’s enormous husband from strolling over with a brick.

Nearly five years ago, a Findlaw poll stated: “The percentage of Americans who can name all nine current Supreme Court justices, statistically speaking, is zero.” Imagine my shock in learning—from a mathematical standpoint, at least—I didn’t exist.

But I do exist, much to the consternation of more than a few. And I believe—nay—DEMAND a thorough vetting of anyone who’s going to spend the next couple of decades standing this close to my fundamentally inalienable rights. To be fair—neither my next door neighbor’s mom nor her giganto-spouse are in any way derelict in their civic duty; they’re simply revolted by last week’s C-SPAN circus.

Elena Kagan v.2010 is dramatically distant from Elena Kagan v.1995. During last week’s hearings she avoided definitive statements with the kind of agility most television viewers employ to avoid watching Rachel Maddow. She exasperated lame-duck Senator Arlen Specter (R to D-Pa.) to the point that he looked even more basset-houndish than usual. She sidestepped interrogatives regarding her support for partial birth abortion, a procedure right at home in a Freddy Krueger film.

Actually, her confirmation hearings had a rather pungent “air of vacuity and farce.”

Kagan demurred when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) regarding her interpretation of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3):

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said Americans have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?

Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law… But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.

When Coburn noted that ObamaCare could make such a nightmarish hypothetical a hideous reality, Kagan responded—over the course of a 500 WORD ANSWER (yes, I counted)—that the responsibility to rectify Congressional and Executive breaches of constitutional protections rested with Congress and the Executive branch.

Ms. Kagan—such corrections are positively within the purview of you and your eight future colleagues.

I am troubled by delivering a 4th grade civics lesson to a woman purported to be one of the foremost legal minds of her generation. The judiciary serves as the final line of defense against encroachment upon our civil liberties; whether said encroachment requires a McDonald v Chicago or a Brown v Board of Education.

If Elena Kagan doesn’t understand the basic function of the Federal judiciary, then she is a poor choice indeed to join their ranks. Sadly, because most Americans either don’t know or don’t care—she’s already browsing Wal-Mart’s Justice-on-the-Go collection.

The purpose of senate confirmation hearings is to discover the nature of those who aspire to inhabit the halls of unelected authority. The fact that most of our senators are jacklegs does not relieve the citizenry of OUR responsibility to look over THEIR shoulders. Sometimes, we get to observe Tom Coburn pressing Elena Kagan for a definitive answer to… anything. Sometimes—as the goodly folk of Minnesota found out last week—we get to discover our junior senator ignoring the proceedings while producing an impressive pen-and-ink sketch of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

Elena Kagan is likely to be more Ruth Bader Ginsburg than Antonin Scalia. The good news: replacing Stevens with Kagan is not likely to effect a sea change on the Supreme Court. The bad news: Kagan is hardly the last salvo Obama will fire at our personal liberties. We must overcome our revulsion at Washington’s clownish antics. The agenda which produces nominees like Elena Kagan is no laughing matter.

Remember that in November, and again in 2012.

Forearmed, For Now

The vote was 5-4. It should have been 9-0, but the nation’s most powerful jurists are going to straighten themselves out the same day Rebecca DeMornay knocks on my door with a bottle of Johnny Blue and Risky Business on Blu-ray. Two years after the Court ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights in D.C. v Heller, the majority again stood up for the Republic in McDonald v Chicago.

With the nomination of Elena Kagan looming—and likely—I’m not holding my breath for a more sensible Supreme Court. Nonetheless, five of the Big Nine managed to get it right late Monday morning, wrapping up their 2009-2010 calendar with an affirmation of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, pointed out that the 2nd Amendment serves as a guarantee of individual—as opposed to community—liberty, and its authority is bolstered by the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process. Simply put: Chicago, Oak Brook, Ill. and Washington, D.C., may not pass laws which abrogate the Bill of Rights.

Before anyone Outside the Asylum starts shopping for two-gun rigs, be advised: the other side isn’t giving up this firefight just yet. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (victims of knife, bat and/or legislative violence—you’re on your own) President Paul Helmke said in the aftermath of the decision: “lawsuits are never bad.” Translation: “This means war!” (Although one presumes it would be a “progressive,” firearm-free kind.)

But the Dems have not kept their proverbial powder dry. When Justice Stevens, in what will thankfully be one of his final acts from the top bench, dissented thus: “..the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available..” he said: “the Founding Fathers were talking about flintlocks.” As if one of the most esteemed assemblages of intellect in human history wouldn’t have considered the possibility of technological advancement.

Don’t bother to ask Stevens about other progress unforeseen by the Founding Fellas. Try to imagine his honor explaining Constitutional protections for partial-birth abortion to Thomas Jefferson. When Stevens suggested “..(gun rights as envisioned by the Framers) have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today..” he was intimating: “Too bad you weren’t born in the 1760s.”

Tell that to someone who just watched the Crips unload a U-Haul across the street. Better yet, mention it to the Idahoan who just watched FBI snipers gun down his wife and child.

The fundamental flaw in the liberal argument against firearm ownership rights stems from their basic mistrust of everyone who isn’t them. Their ideology stands on the concept of governmental dominance of the people.

People who deny that ideology represent a threat. Armed people who deny their ideology represent something much worse: the indomitable citizen. But the indomitable citizen isn’t a threat; someone who’s a threat is a threat. And we already have laws to protect us from such threats.

We don’t bar Microcephalic Marvin down the street from owning a .50 cal. because the weapon might be inherently dangerous. We keep Marvin from owning the aforementioned hand cannon because he has an 850 cc cranium and wears a tinfoil hat. Perhaps if all the high-priced, self-important lawyers and politicians at the Brady Campaign helped to book Marv some quality time at a state-owned bed and breakfast, they wouldn’t have to worry as much about Marv opening fire on the space aliens in the duplex next door.

Because gun-ban proponents are guided by fear and emotion, not logic and reason, they react like teenage girls in a slasher flick—”Mr. LaPierre, is that you?” That visceral fear inevitably leads to: “Why do you NEED (big scary gun of choice)?” The question is moot. One might as well ask a woman why she needs 25 pairs of black shoes, or ask the DNC why they need Joe Biden.

When The Framers offered “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They were offering neither suggestion nor caveat. They were admonishing us all.

Tyranny is tyranny, whether it takes the form of the madness of King George or the obtuseness of President Obama. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to the Framers of the Constitution—and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court—we are both.

Indecent Disclosure…

At least Hank Johnson, the man who undoubtedly makes Georgia’s Fourth Congressional district proud, managed to keep pronouncements on the impending nautical doom faced by the residents of Guam out of his speech on the House floor last Thursday afternoon.

Johnson, speaking in defense of the DISCLOSE Act now headed for the Senate after passing the House, did manage to remind everyone Outside the Asylum why the average American holds Congress in only slightly lower esteem than dog fighting entrepreneurs. When Hank exalted the greatness of the abominable—and superbly monikered—Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On who’s Spending in Elections, not only did he speak out against the 1st Amendment, he did so by noting BP (which bestowed greater financial largesse on Barack Obama than anyone else in the last two decades) and Goldman Sachs (which has shoveled twice the ducats to dems, and practically has a branch office in the OEOB, if not the White House.)

To be fair to our pal Hank, he is nowhere near as desperate for a Thorazine prescription as his predecessor, Cynthia McKinney. But when a Democrat Congressman rises in support of a bill which abrogates part of the Bill of Rights, and cites his OWN PARTY’S heavyweight swag-haulers as his inspiration, I’m allowed to roll my eyes a bit.

Had his staffers been on—or even near—the ball, they might have stopped him from serving up two of the DNC’s sugar daddies. They also might have noticed who’s exempt from the tenets of the bill, and what it really means.

Proponents of the DISCLOSE ACT claim that it introduces a new measure of decency to electoral politics. What it actually does, by way of lowering the reporting requirements for certain individual donors, is toe the liberal line to a “T.” It fits all the clichéd criteria. It “levels the playing field.” It brings “fairness” back to the table. It helps Democrats spout talking points: “blah blah… little guy… blah blah.”

But America is the land of opportunity, not the land of fairness. In this boy’s America, we have the right to TRY for the brass ring, not be handed the hardware free of charge. If life in the land of the free was all about fairness with a capital “F,” either you’d be driving a V-12 Aston Martin—or Warren Buffett would be tooling around Omaha in a ’98 Corolla. OR—you’d both be carpooling in a ’64 Trabant.

Big-time political donors already have to show their ID at the electoral door. What the DISCLOSE ACT commands is the disclosure by corporations, 527’s and non-profits of each individual donor within their folds who donate more than $600 to the cause. Under DISCLOSE—not only does BP or Goldman Sachs have to pony up their CEO’s name on the donor rolls, but they have to give up the fifth floor janitor.

That’s a violation of the 1st Amendment (not to mention the 5th, if we donate to Hank Johnson.) We have a right to speak our minds in this country. We should have a right to back up that speech with our dollars, if we choose; despite the best efforts of McCain/Feingold, DISCLOSE and the rest of the ever-increasing thought police arsenal. Nowhere is it written that we must open ourselves up to retribution.

DISCLOSE actually means activists—and worse—can hassle Buffett if they don’t like his candidate choices. Buffett can staff out the ugly phone calls, and the “activists” can’t breach his security perimeter. Your spinster aunt with the bad hip ALWAYS answers the phone, and her security perimeter is Tinkerbell, the 6-pound Pomeranian.

Left-wingnuts will point to the inclusion of labor unions amidst the throng of political players covered by the tenets of DISCLOSE. But the average labor union dues in the United States are $425—well under the DISCLOSE disclosure floor, meaning Big Labor catches a Big Break.

The Libs will also note the controversial exemption granted to the National Rifle Association (NRA). However, the Sierra Club and the AARP are among a host of left-leaning gangs who get to step through loopholes. Add Big Labor’s goons to the mix, and while the right gets Hector, the left gets the whole Greek army.

The truth is, if your spinster aunt wants to donate her life savings to Zippy the Pinhead, or even Hank Johnson, that’s her money to spend; her speech to make.

Yours as well—for now.