HEADLINES

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

What Are America’s Interests?

It is not clear what the President meant when he said, "Ending the war was in our interest."

First, wars just don't end. They are a win, a loss, or a draw. By implying that he simply "ended" the war by just following a plan – as if he were imposing a managerial solution over a public policy problem – Obama gave the American people a very a simplistic and wrongheaded notion of war.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. Obama ought to understand this better than anyone. After all, he bitterly opposed the surge which helped break the cycle of violence and made the withdrawal of U.S. troops – without Iraq collapsing into civil war – possible.

Indeed Obama's opposition to the surge was the centerpiece of his 2008 presidential campaign. And he was dead wrong too. Arguably, if we had followed the plan he advocated as a Senator today's speech might never had happened.

It was not his plan that turned the war. It was fighting and defeating the insurgency. To suggest anything else is hubris.

Nor is it clear that the war has "ended"—The enemy still gets a vote. There may be more fighting ahead. And there is a war in Afghanistan that still must be won.

Second, the President's rhetoric seems to suggest that fulfilling a campaign promise to "end the war" is the measure of defending U.S. vital national interests.

It is not.

If defending U.S. interests in Iraq requires additional combat, then we expect the President will fulfill his responsibility to lead the fight and protect our national interests.

The President's opposition to the war was shrewd political calculation that helped him get elected.

After hearing how he talked about "ending" the war in tonight's speech he may just be making another one.

This speech, to be frank, smacks too much of politics at the expense of presidential leadership. This is no small thing, and frankly it has tremendous policy implications (not just political ones). Obama is sending signals that "ending" the fight is more important than protecting America's interests, just as he did when he opposed the Iraq war to appease the Left wing of his party, the same Left wing now trying to drive him out of Afghanistan. This manner of framing U.S. interests does not bode well for U.S. policy in Afghanistan. If the fighting does not go well there the President could begin focusing on the bogus interest of ending the conflict rather than the real mission in Afghanistan: protecting vital U.S. national interests.








Sent from my iPhone

Missed Opportunities in the Oval Office

Unfortunately, President Obama missed a valuable opportunity tonight to demonstrate that he is fully committed to success in Afghanistan. Instead he stubbornly reiterated his July 2011 withdrawal date.

Obama rightly said Americans should not lose sight of what is at stake in Afghanistan and that the U.S. must prevent the country from again becoming a terrorist safe haven. But his subsequent declarations that U.S. forces will only be in place for a limited time and that "wars cannot go on forever" revealed his impatience with the current counterinsurgency strategy and undermined everything else he said about the war in Afghanistan.

His emphatic "make no mistake" line came before his statement about his commitment to withdrawing troops next summer. But it should have come before his pledge to "break the Taliban's momentum."

In other words, he came across as more committed to withdrawing troops next July than prevailing over the Taliban. This is not how a Commander-in-Chief should lead his troops in war.

For those who hoped President Obama had finally seen the light about the ill-conceived July 2011 deadline and would use tonight's speech to walk it back, they have been sorely disappointed.








Sent from my iPhone

Is Combat Really Over In Iraq?

The AP asserts that, in spite of the declaration of combat operations being over,  combat certainly lies ahead. Obama did say, "Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission," but he didn't outline where real dangers lie.

Peril remains for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops still in Iraq, who are likely if not certain to engage violent foes. Counterterrorism is chief among their continuing missions, pitting them against a lethal enemy. Several thousand special operations forces, including Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, will continue to hunt and attempt to kill al-Qaida and other terrorist fighters – working closely with Iraqi forces.

From other parts of Obama's speech:

  • OBAMA: "We have met our responsibility."

But just what is that responsibility?

It was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, overthrew its government, disbanded its security forces and failed in the early phases of the conflict to understand the depth of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic divisions and its political paralysis. The U.S. in some minds is responsible for putting Iraq back together again, yet today Iraq has no permanent government and its security forces arguably are not fully prepared to defend the country's skies and borders.

  • OBAMA: "Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who – under the command of General David Petraeus – are fighting to break the Taliban's momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future."

This sounds much like the Bush rationale for the troop surge in Iraq.

Obama seems to be embracing the troop surge logic now, even though it's clear that the Iraqis have yet to achieve the necessary level of reconciliation to form an enduring government.

Go to source

Subscribe to my premium podcast and get exclusive access to the listener club.









Sent from my iPhone

Ethanol Tops Gasoline First Time Since December: Energy Markets

For the first time since December, ethanol prices are higher than gasoline as corn surges and refiners profit from tax breaks.







Sent from my iPhone

Charles Krauthammer on Obama’s Iraq Speech: “It Was Both Flat and Odd”

Charles Krauthammer commented tonight on Barack Obama's Iraq speech:
"It Was Both Flat and Odd."








Sent from my iPhone

OBama Says He Called Bush – But Doresn’t Thank Him or Give Him Credit for Surge (Video)

In his address to the nation tonight Barack Obama mentioned that he called President Bush but he does not thank him or give him credit for the successful Bush Surge.
Sad.








Sent from my iPhone

Lawmakers' Use of Travel Stipends Probed - WSJ.com

Found this interesting link on the Drudge Report:

Lawmakers' Use of Travel Stipends Probed - WSJ.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704323704575461913267776270.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Link Shared from 'Drudge Report Easy'

This news link was sent from a friend.

Download News Hour for iPhone from itunes


Sent from my iPhone

Joe Miller Set to Win Alaska Senate Primary

100828_miller_more_ap_605

Sources in Alaska have informed Big Government that the trend in the count of absentee ballots makes it virtually impossible that Sen. Murkowski will overtake Joe Miller in the GOP Senate Primary. A trusted and well-placed operative told BG:

It's over.

Sources have also revealed that the Murkowski campaign is scheduling a conference call this afternoon (Alaska time) with her entire campaign team to discuss next steps. There is additional information we hope to be able to publicize soon. Stay tuned for updates.








Sent from my iPhone

If Saddam Was Still Alive Today…

A bow and an apology…

Cut-&-Runners Barack Obama and Joe Biden joined fellow democrats and voted four times to cut funding for US troops serving in Iraq.








Sent from my iPhone

Fwd: College Students May Lose Health Care Option Under Obamacare


August 31, 2010

College Students May Lose Health Care Option Under Obamacare

Health care isn't something most students worry about. Government stats show about 80 percent of college students are covered under a parents' plan. For them, Obamacare may mean they can keep the insurance they already have for a few years beyond college, but it won't affect the coverage they carry during school.

But what about kids without parental coverage? The new law's requirement that insurance cover children up to age 26 won't make any difference for them.

Currently, college students without coverage can enroll in low-cost student health plans offered through universities. These plans may include limits to keep costs down, but are often designed around to complement university health services to provide comprehensive coverage. Affordability is further achieved by rating student health plans on a campus-wide basis rather than according to the whole individual market.

Seven percent of students currently receive coverage from their school, but that could change under Obamacare, a concern that the American Council on Education expressed in a recent letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"The application of several provisions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), including certain insurance market reforms and the individual mandate, could make it impossible for colleges and universities to continue to offer student health plans," the Council warns.

As the new law currently stands, it's unclear whether student health plans would meet federal requirements to qualify as minimum essential coverage. If they don't, students would have to find coverage elsewhere or pay the individual mandate in addition to the premiums of their student health plan.

Though the law includes a rule that institutes of higher education will not be prohibited from offering student insurance plans, the Council explains that problems arise because, "Short-term limited duration insurance, including many student health plans, does not qualify as either group health insurance coverage or individual health insurance coverage under the existing Public Health Service Act (PHSA) definitions. As a result, a student with comprehensive SHP coverage would not satisfy the minimum essential coverage requirement due to a definitional technicality."

Schools may also find that some provisions of Obamacare might forbid them from offering coverage solely to their student populations, rather than the individual market at large.

Critics of student health pans, who see these low-cost options as inadequate, would prefer to apply Obamacare's rules to student coverage. But, as Julie Appleby writes for Kaiser Health News, colleges fear that "requiring them to meet even some of the new rules could drive up premiums."

Removing affordable options would likely discourage many students from carrying insurance altogether—yet another example of how Obamacare, which was supposed to improve insurance coverage, may end up making it worse.

RECENT ENTRIES

What Obamacare and the Death Star have in Common

New Video: Gov. Mitch Daniels on Obamacare's Devastating Consequences

Share Today's Side Effects
FacebookFacebookMyspaceMyspace
Digg IconDiggLinkdinLinkdin
TwitterTwitter 

facebookFacebooktwitterTwitteryoutubeYouTubeyoutubeKindleyoutubeFlickr
Support our work by becoming a member with your gift of $25 or more.
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4999
Call us at (202) 546-4400

Add newsletters@heritage.org to your address book
to ensure that you receive emails from us.


This message was intended for:
You were added to the system April 9, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe



Arizona vs. United States & United Nations?

Last week, we noted that the U.S. State Department had submitted its "Report of the United States of America" to the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights. This report was compiled as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) organized by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).  The U.S. report is revealing of the Obama Administration's dissatisfaction with the American people and the Administration's vision for America's role in the world. Steven Groves and Brett Schaefer have now outlined basic flaws in the UPR process including the poor human rights records of the HRC's members.

Arizona Governor Janice Brewer has also noticed objectionable information in the U.S. report – namely, that the U.S. State Department included Arizona's recent immigration law (S.B. 1070) in the report as an example of a human rights "issue" that is "being addressed" by the federal government through court action.

Governor Brewer has written a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which Brewer expresses her "concern and indignation" at the "offensive" and "hypocritical" treatment of Arizona in the U.S. UPR report:

The purpose of this letter is [to] express my concern and indignation to you about the "Universal Periodic Review" report ("Report") submitted on August 20, 2010, by the United States Department of State to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The State Department describes the Report as a "partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society." In particular, I am protesting the inclusion of Paragraph 95 of the Report that highlights Arizona's recently enacted immigration laws and asking that you amend the Report to remove it.

Simply put, it is downright offensive that the U.S. State Department included the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070 in a report to the United Nations Council on Human Rights, whose members include such renowned human rights "champions" as Cuba and Libya. Apparently, the federal government is trying to make an international human rights case out of S.B. 1070 on the heels of already filing a federal court case against the State of Arizona. The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to "review" by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration. In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called "human rights" issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical for the State Department to include S.B. 1070 in the Report, while taking credit for the "sophistication and breadth of [the United States'] anti-trafficking efforts" in Paragraph 99 of the Report. The federal government's failure to secure the entire border has resulted in life-and-death consequences. The flow of illegal immigrant trafficking to a large degree across the harsh Arizona desert is a result of the federal policy to secure the border in San Diego and El Paso and leave the Tucson (Arizona) Sector less secured. For example, this federal policy has resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of illegal immigrants – 170 bodies found in the desert so far this year according to the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Examiner. And this does not include the kidnappings and other acts of violence many times associated with illegal immigrant trafficking. Moreover, the Obama Administration has stated that its official policy is to not enforce major portions of our federal immigration laws, which encourages only more illegal immigration. If the federal government secured the entire border and enforced our immigration laws, these human rights problems would not be occurring for citizens, legal residents and illegal immigrants.

I understand that the next step is for the Report to be reviewed by some members of the United Nations Human Rights Council later this year. I again respectfully request that you amend the Report to remove Paragraph 95 relating to the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070. If you choose not to do so, the State of Arizona will monitor the proceedings and assert any rights it has in this process. Be assured that the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

In closing, I encourage the State Department to compare the immigration laws and records of any United Nations Human Rights Council member commenting on S.B. 1070 in this process to those of the United States and then publish that comparison. I am confident that the generous immigration tradition of the United States and Arizona will win in any such comparison.

Governor Brewer is correct to vigorously protect the integrity of her state's laws and the safety of its citizens within the United States' federal system of government. Sadly, the State Department now views such actions as worthy of international criticism. Arizona's S.B. 1070 is in fact very similar to the types of immigration enforcement practiced around the country and is hardly worthy of being singled out as discriminatory. Increasingly, however, it appears that objections against Arizona's immigration law are part of a larger campaign against immigration enforcement all together. How ironic that a state governor is arguing the merits of federal border enforcement while being criticized by a sitting Secretary of State before an international audience. What ever happened to E Pluribus Unum?








Sent from my iPhone

Obama to Take Credit For Withdrawing Troops Despite Fact That Agreement Was Signed Under Bush

Barack Obama will take credit tonight for withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. This is despite the fact that he opposed the successful Bush surge and he even commented that genocide would be better than keeping troops in Iraq.

It will also be interesting to see if President Obama mentions that the agreement to withdraw combat troops was signed under Bush.

The Sunday Times reported this news on November 17, 2008.

All US troops will leave Iraq within three years, and soldiers will withdraw from major towns and cities by next summer, under a landmark deal approved by the Iraqi Cabinet. The last British troops are expected to leave Iraq by the end of next year.

The agreement would draw a line under the campaign launched by President Bush in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein in which 4,201 US and 176 British military personnel have died.

The pact, which also restricts US operations in the country beyond the end of this year, will be submitted to parliament for a final vote shortly…

…Main points of the agreement

– All US forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011
– US forces to pull out of towns by summer 2009
– Iraq can try US troops for serious crimes off-duty and off-base
– Baghdad's green zone to be handed to the Iraqi Government
– Iraqi airspace will be handed over to Iraq
– US forces need Iraqi judge's order before they raid houses
– Iraq has the right to search shipments of US military material
– Iraqi territory cannot be used for assaults on neighbouring countries
– Either side may end the accord by serving notice of one year

The Guardian also reported on the 2008 agreement.








Sent from my iPhone

Fox and Friends SMACKDOWN: Must Watch Gretchen Carleson vs Robert Gibbs Video

In what might the start of another self-imposed Fox News exile, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to explain what the President was going to say tonight in his prime time address on the Iraq War.

When Carlson asked Gibbs if tonight the President will admit that the surge worked, the Press secretary replied that Obama always said that putting 20,000 more troops would work.  Unfortunately for Gibbs, just before the interview, Carlson showed the audience a video where Candidate Obama said that adding the troops would not work.  Caught in a "misstatement"  Gibbs went on the defensive and the fun ensued, including Carlson asking if President Obama was going credit President Bush tonight during his speech for the success in Iraq--five times. Instead of answering the question, Gibbs counted the number of times Carlson asked.  "That's the second time you asked the question...third...etc."

This is a MUST watch.


Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com







Sent from my iPhone

Monday, August 30, 2010

Unreal. Obama Administration Funding Pro-Palestinian Billboard Campaign in Israel

The aim of the ad campaign is to persuade Israelis that peace partners on the Palestinian side truly exist.

A scene from a peaceful Fatah rally in the Palestinian territories. (CBC)

Unreal. The Obama Administration is funding a pro-Palestinian ad campaign in Israel.
The UPI reported, via FOX Nation:

The campaign launched Sunday includes the faces of senior Palestinian Authority officials Saeb Erekat, Jibril Rajoub and Yasser Abed Rabo, and Riad Malki, Palestinian foreign affairs minister, Yedioth Aharonoth said.

The aim of the campaign is to persuade Israelis that peace partners on the Palestinian side truly exist, and calls for support of a two-state solution, the Tel Aviv newspaper said.

The U.S. government was approached to fund the campaign by the Geneva Initiative founders, who drew up an agreement in 2003 to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the newspaper said.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, invested close to $250,000 toward the creation of the billboards, the newspaper said.

Israel Matsav has more.








Sent from my iPhone

“It was certainly a dry run”: Two Muslims arrested in Amsterdam after flight from Chicago

What's shocking about this is that before he even got to Chicago he was stopped in Alabama for "further screening" because of "bulky clothing" and then upon further investigation of his checked baggage, they found all sorts of shady things including 7 grand in cash,  a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives.

ABC News reported:

Two men taken off a Chicago-to-Amsterdam United Airlines flight in the Netherlands have been charged by Dutch police with "preparation of a terrorist attack," U.S. law enforcement officials tell ABC News.

U.S. officials said the two appeared to be traveling with what were termed "mock bombs" in their luggage. "This was almost certainly a dry run, a test," said one senior law enforcement official.

A spokesman for the Dutch public prosecutor, Ernst Koelman, confirmed the two men were arrested this morning and said "the investigation is ongoing." He said the arrests were made "at the request of American authorities."

The two were allowed to board the flight at O'Hare airport last night despite security concerns surrounding one of them, the officials said.

The men were identified as Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi, of Detroit, MI, and Hezem al Murisi, the officials said. A neighbor of al Soofi told ABC News he is from Yemen.

Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi, left, and Hezem al Murisi, were taken off a United Airlines flight in the Netherlands and have been charged by Dutch police with "preparation of a terrorist attack," according to a U.S. law enforcement official. (ABC News)

And the details of why he was stopped by screeners in Birmingham:

Airport security screeners in Birmingham, Alabama first stopped al Soofi and referred him to additional screening because of what officials said was his "bulky clothing."

In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare.

Once in Chicago, officials say they learned al Soofi checked his luggage on a flight to Washington's Dulles airport for connections on flights to Dubai and then Yemen, even though he did not board the flight himself.

Instead, officials say, al Soofi was joined by the second man, Al Murisi, and boarded the United flight from Chicago to Amsterdam.

When Customs and Border officials learned al Soofi was not on the flight from Dulles to Dubai, the plane was ordered to return to the gate so his luggage could be removed. Officials said additional screening found no evidence of explosives.

The two men were detained by Dutch authorities when the United flight landed in Amsterdam, according to the officials.








Sent from my iPhone

Two men arrested on flight from Chicago to Amsterdam, one fingered in Birmingham

abc_terror_suspects_100830_mn Two men were arrested from a flight from Chicago to Amsterdam, and apparently, they were up to no good.

They had stuff that you and I would look at and say, "that's either a bomb, or it's stuff that's gonna be a bomb if we don't stop'em."

But TSA in Birmingham… didn't stop'em:

 


U.S. officials said the two appeared to be travelling with what were termed "mock bombs" in their luggage. "This was almost certainly a dry run, a test," said one senior law enforcement official.

A spokesman for the Dutch public prosecutor, Ernst Koelman, confirmed the two men were arrested this morning and said "the investigation is ongoing." He said the arrests were made "at the request of American authorities."

Airport security screeners in Birmingham, Alabama first stopped al Soofi and referred him to additional screening because of what officials said was his "bulky clothing." In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare.


It boggles the mind why someone carrying such suspicious luggage was cleared for anything except a trip to the Jefferson County lockup.

Officials believe this was a "dry run," designed to test TSA security to see if they could board a US airliner with highly suspicious materials.  Sadly, the Birmingham airport security personnel kicked the can up the road to Chicago.  And Chicago then kicked the can up the road to…  Amsterdam?

This is why if I can get to my destination with a one-day drive, I'm on the road.  Houston.  Atlanta.  Jacksonville.  Even Charlotte or Savannah.








Sent from my iPhone

Obama Climate Czar Carol Browner Is Causing The Bedbug Epidemic

Ther has been much news on the bedbug epidemic that is seemingly washing over the entire country.
But why now? The Daily Caller had this today as to the root cause (via Instapundit): Is the EPA to blame for the bed bug 'epidemic'?
Though they've been sucking humans' blood since at least ancient Greece, bed bugs became virtually extinct in America following the invention of pesticide DDT.

There were almost no bed bugs in the United States between World War II and the mid-1990s.

Around when bed bugs started their resurgence, Congress passed a major pesticides law in 1996 and the Clinton EPA banned several classes of chemicals that had been effective bed bug killers.

...in the pre-1996 regime, experts say, bed bugs were "collateral damage" from broader and more aggressive use of now-banned pesticides like Malathion and Propoxur.
The article also indicates that research at the University of Kentucky show the pesticides now banned by the EPA are still deadly effective at eradicating bed bugs. The EPA is in no mood to rescind the ban either. But there is one aspect of the article that the Daily Caller didn't pick up on. Fortunately, we have Henry Payne over at the Michigan View who had this flashback:
This is a direct result, as predicted ten years ago by The Detroit News' Diane Katz, of the EPA's zealous, anti-science ban on Dursban - a common household pesticide - under Clinton appointee Carol Browner -- now Obama Climate Czar - in 2000. The bed bugs have come home to roost.
Carol Browner, Obama's "Climate Czar" is a self-described socialist that has demanded the breaking of federal law. (Obama Climate Czar Carol Browner: Put NOTHING In Writing! Breaks Federal Law!)You have to wonder what research she buried to push her agenda through back then. Recall this about Obama's czars:
Want one person to blame for your beg bug nightmares? Blame Carol Browner.

Previously: 







Sent from my iPhone

FOX News: CBO: Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act

I thought you might be interested in this article: CBO: Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act.

Sent via the FOX News iPhone App. Download the app here.


Sent from my iPhone

Once Again… Obama Bashes Bush Over Flailing Economy (Video)

Last year Barack Obama took ownership of the economy but today President Obama once again bashed George Bush for the dismal economic climate he created in the United States.

Click on Deficit Chart for Video–

Of course, not a word of that was true.

Three weeks ago the Obama Administration announced that the July deficit totaled $165 billion
That's more than the Bush deficit for the entire year of 2007.

During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop.

In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.

After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.47 Trillion deficit this year.

The stock market is currently down 130 points on the day.

Related… Here's more proof that democrats are to blame for current recession.








Sent from my iPhone

World Governance--Obama Administration Reports to U.N. on Arizona 'Human Rights'

The globalists who run the government now want a U.N. review of Arizona's immigration law concerning possible 'human rights violations.'

And that is the subject of today's column at Conservative Examiner.


Needless to say Governor Jan Brewer is livid, and you should be too.







Sent from my iPhone

GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Aug. 23-29 Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest of the year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot.

To view the entire story click on the link below.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedented-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx


Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Pic of the day: More proof that Obama is the first female President

Just like Bill "The Zipper" Clinton was the first black President, Obama is the first female President of the US. I'm not the first to point this out as RINO Kathleen Parker had back in June: over at the WaPo: Obama: Our first female president. With that in mind, see this pic over at drudge today:
See anything weird there? If you look close enough, you will see that our metrosexual President is riding a GIRL's BIKE! I looked around and found a bigger pic offered over by moonbattery: The Ultimate Argument Against Affirmative Action
Says Van Helsing: "This weenie was made Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America... If liberals aren't ashamed of themselves yet, they never will be." That's right folks - we have sitting in the office a big vagina. Just in case you didn't already know.







Sent from my iPhone

Video report: U.S. Apologizes for Human Rights Violations to U.N. Human Rights Council Including, Ch

The oppressive regimes of China, Cuba and Libya are being apologized to by Obama? For OUR human rights violations? Huh? And Obama blames discrimination for th erecession too? Good freaking grief:






Sent from my iPhone

Friday, August 27, 2010

Link Shared from 'Drudge Report Easy'

This news link was sent from a friend.

Download News Hour for iPhone from itunes

» Green Police Becomes a Reality in Cleveland - Big Government

http://biggovernment.com/nloris/2010/08/27/green-police-becomes-a-reality-in-cleveland/

I Bleed Crimson Red: Mullen: “National Debt is a Security Threat”

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ibleedcrimsonred/OvJu/~3/5bl45BneU84/mullen-national-debt-is-security-threat.html

Obama Administration Halts Prosecution of Suspected USS Cole Bomber

Good grief.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is the alleged mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing and other terrorist attacks. He headed al-Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf states prior to his capture in November 2002. The Obama Administration dropped charges in February 2009 on al-Nashiri pending the administration's review of all Gitmo detentions.

The Washington Post
reported:

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."

The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri's attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration's plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.

Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded.

Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

"It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.







Sent from my iPhone

FOXNews.com - Hunters, Conservationists Square Off Over Lead in Ammunition and Tackle

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/conservationists-target-lead-ammunition-fishing-tackle/


Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Pension bombs might be the next bubble to break the market - http://ow.ly/2uhhF

Pension bombs might be the next bubble to break the market - http://ow.ly/2uhhF


Tick, Tick, Tick - IBD - Investors.com
Pension Bombs: The Securities and Exchange Commission has sued (and settled with) New Jersey for municipal bond fraud stemming from underfunded






Sent from my iPhone

That Stimulating Stimulus Paid for Homemade Porno?

-By Warner Todd Huston


Well if this isn't a fitting addition to the story of the stimulus what is? The University of Notre Dame in Indiana recently fired an electrical engineering professor over allegations that the prof used $190,000 in federal grant money and matching university funds to buy cameras and other equipment to make homemade porno.

Like a true hair-splitting academic, professor Oliver M. Collins is fighting his firing claiming that the university has no proof that he was the one that made the pornographic images that the university found stored on his university-owned computer. That's right, he is clueless on how all those porn images got on his computer. Just clueless! And all those cameras he bought with the school's money? Um… well… he's going to take up bird watching… maybe?

Collins has filed a lawsuit claiming that the university owes him more than $75,000 in damages. But Collins was later heard telling university officials, "Hey, nice economic package you have there." But I jest.

It appears that there's been a lot of screwing around with our federal tax dollars these days, folks. Perhaps prof Collins just took it one step farther along… allegedly.

(Button art courtesy of Libertymaniacs)







Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

BREAKING: CARNAHAN ADMITS STAFFER WAS BEHIND OFFICE FIREBOMBING!

CARNAHAN ADMITS STAFFER WAS BEHIND OFFICE FIREBOMBING!

The suspect who firebombed Rep. Russ Carnahan's office last week was reportedly a disgruntled progressive activist employed by democrat. An unnamed source familiar with the case released the information. Suspect Chris Powers reportedly was upset because he did not get paid so he firebombed the Carnahan finance offices at 2 in the morning.
What a complete shock.

Dem operative and firebomber Chris Powers is the sweaty one pictured here on right during a rally for nationalized health care. Powers is was a paid canvasser for Russ Carnahan.

The RFT reported:

Congressman Russ Carnahan held a press conference confirming that the person St. Louis police arrested and released for last week's firebombing of his campaign headquarters did in fact work for his re-election campaign.

Carnahan did not say the man's name but did confirm that the name Chris Powers made public this morning on a right-wing blog was accurate. According to Carnahan, the suspect volunteered for his campaign in July and was hired this month as a political canvasser — a job he kept for five days before being let go for "failing to do his job."

This afternoon Daily RFT left a message with a Chris Powers listed in the St. Louis phone book but has heard no response.

Russ forgot to mention that this radical staffer also also has a history of harassing tea party patriots.







Sent from my iPhone

ObamaCare author Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) admits HE NEVER READ THE BILL before voting on it!!!

They never even read the monstrosity before ramming it down our throats. Not even the darned author! Max Baucus held a townhall where he admitted what many of us suspected all along. From Flathead Beacon via drudge, the sum of all that was wrong with the process in a few short sentences:
"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."
I'm having John Conyers flashbacks:
And how pray tell did they know if it was constitutional having not read the bill? The answer: they don't care. The Constitution is now simply a stumbling block to what congresscritters want to do. They go through contortions that make a pretzel seem simple by comparison to argue, if in fact you can call it that, that their actions are constitutional. When asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, legislators had no answer. Many tried and fell flat on their faces. Some Democrats have given answers to such a challenge in a way that can only be labeled as 'stupid.' Some, like Sen. Merkley claim that two words - General Welfare - let them do whatever they want thus rendering the rest of the Constitution irrelevant. John Conyers claimed a nonexistent "good and welfare" clause, among other clauses he couldn't name. And then there was Phil Hare, who said"I don't worry about the Constitution on this". Of course he doesn't. Pelosi had a better answer: "are you serious?" That was it. Sen. Leahy says that nobody questions such authority (I beg to differ). Sen. Warner totally dodged the question by talking about telephones. Sen. Mary Landrieu dodged the question altogether instead referred the questioner to constitutional lawyers! Sen. Blanch Lincoln claimed that the U.S. Constitution charges Congress with "the health" of the people. Pro-life traitor Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), who traded the lives of unborn babies for 30 pieces of silver, can't even answer that question before he was re-asked by CNS News. And Sen. Bob Casey is not sure if there's 'a specific Constitutional provision'. Don't you all feel much better now about the Constitutional competence of our lawmakers now? The White House, of course, claims no 'legitimate' constitutional concern. Obama himself said that he doesn't really care how things get done as long as they do. So who's left to defend our founding document? The courts. Unfortunately, the same politicians that have abdicated their oath to uphold the constitution have been appointing activist judges to do the same.

Max Baucus, by the way, is the same one that admitted that ObamaCare has nothing to do with actual heralthcare, but rather the redistribution of wealth: Video of Sen. Max Baucus: ObamaCare bill "will have the effect of addressing (the) mal-distribution of income in America"
Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America. -Max Baucus
But don't you dare call it socialism! Funny how statements like this come out after the bill is passed. Pelosi was right when she said "We Have to Pass Our Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"
We already know what's in it because it has been tried before and shown to be an utter failure:






Sent from my iPhone

Sen. Michael Bennet (D): Trillions in Debt, "NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT"

Nothing:
1 : not any thing : no thing nothing to the imagination> 
2 : no part 
3 : one of no interest, value, or consequence nothing to me>
nothing doing
: by no means : definitely no
nothing for it
: no alternative <nothing for it but to start over>
That is the end result of Obama's miserable mismanagement, including the stimulus boondoggle - nothing. We know it. He knows it. But until recently, Democrats didn't want to admit it. For reference thou, check out the similarity between these two statements. First up, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, 1939:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
And now, Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, August 22, 2010:
"We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet, in my view we have nothing to show for it."
Creepy similarities from 2 different eras for what amounts to basically repeating the same mistake. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and that pretty much sums up the Democrat party right now. HT: drudge






Sent from my iPhone

Cash for Clunkers = Sky high prices a year later

Here's another one you could see coming a year away. 


With home prices falling, fewer people employed, and every economic indicator on the dashboard flashing red, deflation has started to become a big enough worry that the Fed has adjusted its monetary policy to account for it.  There are no such worries in the used-car industry, however.  Prices have jumped 10% overall and in some cases as much as a third for used cars, thanks not to demand as much as a restricted supply after the government destroyed billions of dollars in assets as part of its Cash for Clunkers program last year (via Instapundit):


This is something I can personally relate to.  Two years ago, I bought my then 16-year old a 2004 Saturn L300.  I paid $6,000 cash for a car that was in "extra clean" condition.  It had one owner, and just below average miles.  I got a great deal, she got a great car.

But as a typical teenager, she had a propensity to bump into things.  A telephone pole knocked off the passenger rear-view.  She backed into my Silverado.  And then, when stopping suddenly for another car pulling in front of her, her car was rear-ended and was a total loss.  The insurance company settled for $4,600, which was about right considering we had a $500 deductible. 

So, I take the $4,600 shopping for another car, and there was another 2004 L300 on the lot.  Different color, higher miles, and in very good (not extra clean) condition.  The no-haggle price?  $6,500.  This is after two years of depreciation, and for a vehicle with higher miles and not as well maintained.  I sucked it up and paid the difference—the L300 is a nice, safe care for teenagers, but as soon as I heard the price, the first thought in my mind was:

"Gee thanks, Mr. President.  You just cost me $1,900.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.







Sent from my iPhone

Morning Bell: A War We Can’t Afford to Lose

In December 2009, President Barack Obama delivered his long-awaited decision on the way forward in the War in Afghanistan and pledged 30,000 additional troops for the effort under the condition that they would begin to come home in 18 months. While praising the President's decision to send more troops, conservative lawmakers blasted the President's announcement of a deadline for withdrawal, arguing that it would undermine our allies and embolden our enemies. Yesterday, the President's policy met with another high profile critic, retiring U.S. Marine Gen. James Conway, who told reporters that the July 2011 withdrawal date has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents who now believe they can simply wait out NATO forces.

General Conway confirmed what Heritage Foundation analysts have been warning about for the last nine months, that the deadline is "giving our enemy sustenance." Conway revealed that indeed the U.S. has intercepted communication of Taliban insurgents telling each other that they only needed to hold out for so long.

Conway is right. As we noted last year, the President's decision to impose a timeline was purely a political one, meant to appease the leftist base of the Democratic Party, not to ensure the security interests of the American people. But there are signs the Obama administration now recognizes the damage the timeline has done to U.S. strategy and is seeking to walk it back. That's good news for America as it fights a war we must win.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, indicated that any troop withdrawal would depend on the "situation on the ground," and on Monday, he noted that next year's deadline is "not the date when the American forces begin an exodus."

Vice President Joe Biden, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indianapolis earlier this week, also signaled the Obama administration is changing its message on Afghanistan. During that speech, the Vice President said, "We are not leaving in 2011, we are beginning a transition." Biden also called for allowing the new strategy in Afghanistan time to succeed and gave a ringing endorsement of Gen. Petraeus. Biden said, "Don't buy into that we have failed in Afghanistan…We are now only beginning, with the right general and the right number of forces, to seek our objectives…We needed the best general we had, and we now have him."

Announcing a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops even before they had deployed was bad policy. Hopefully the Obama administration now recognizes this fact. But in order to reassure our allies and signal our enemies of U.S. commitment to the war, President Obama must unequivocally revoke the timeline.

Succeeding in Afghanistan will require more patience from the American people. A summer of high casualty rates and reports about corruption of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration are casting doubt among Americans about the effort. A recent poll shows six in ten Americans oppose the war. But the United States and its allies cannot walk away from Afghanistan before the job is done. The military's new strategy is sound, and our troops should be given the opportunity to succeed. As The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano writes:

Fighting terrorists in South Asia is not easy. But it is a worthwhile effort that offers the promise of a more enduring peace and a safer world for our civilians and allies. Now is the time to vanquish al-Qaeda and its affiliates, not give them a second lease on life. Running away would end nothing. Indeed, it would be but the prelude to more 9-11 style misery.

Maintaining that commitment won't be easy, either. While President Obama is facing criticism for imposing a withdrawal deadline from the right, he is also facing criticism from the left for backing away from his withdrawal pledge. But there is more at stake for the President than scoring political points. Hanging in the balance is the future of Afghanistan, where failure would spell the return of the Taliban, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, a new wave of terrorism in South Asia, increased potential for conflict between Pakistan and India, and the makings of the next 9-11.

For the United States, failure is not an option, it's a choice President Obama shouldn't make, and it's a result the American people should not accept.

Quick Hits:







Sent from my iPhone

Heritage Foundation

DrudgeFeed.com - Drudge Report RSS feed

RedState

Right Wing News

RenewAmerica

Hot Air » Top Picks

Conservative Outpost

Conservative Examiner

Michelle Malkin

Big Government

Big Journalism

Big Hollywood

Pajamas Media