VIDEO: Sarah Palin Discusses Media Bias
Posted by Craig DeLuz | 01/08/2009 10:42 AM
CATEGORY: FEATURE
This is an interesting video interview from Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.
This is an interesting video interview from Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.
Is House Minority Leader John Boehner being outmaneuvered by the Obama team? Chip Hanlon makes the case in a recent post on Greenfaucet.com. Boehner's new hard-line position on earmarks does seem to be a classic case of too, little too late. As Hanlon points out, this is an issue that should have been addressed months ago and represents a squandered opportunity for the GOP.
Boehner's defenders may have trouble with this one but the reality is, when you are in a leadership position, leadership is required. Boehner clearly missed the boat.
This photo (a Greenfaucet original) adds a fitting exclamation point to Hanlon's post.
![]()
We don't often think about the Secretary of State office of a given state to be that important or powerful. Yet the Secretary of State usually oversees elections in the state, a duty which carries great responsibility.
If laws are obeyed clearly and uniformly, still, the Secretary of State's job means little power and political influence. But with examples of election monkey-business and manipulation going all the way back to the hanging and dimpled-chads of 2000 and beyond, it quickly becomes apparent that a strong hand is needed from the SOS office to ensure those election laws are obeyed.
And so it is somewhat disturbing to learn from CNS News that there is a liberal 527 group called the Secretary of State Project which is targeting state Secretary of State offices for Democrat takeover.
On Monday, January 5, President-elect Obama selected former Cong. Leon Panetta to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.Panetta's chief qualification is his utter lack of intelligence experience - meaning that he has not been involved with any of the intelligence activities in the past 7 years that have kept America safe. This makes him an acceptable candidate to the anti-war left.
Obama's first choice to head the 20,000 person, $10 billion spy agency was John Brennan, a former top CIA officer with 25 years of experience, including time as a station chief in Saudi Arabia. Brennan was a leader of Obama's intelligence transition team. Obama pulled the plug on Brennan after an uproar from leftwing bloggers that he took his serious job too seriously.
The current Director of the CIA, retired USAF General Michael Hayden, was head of the code-breaking National Security Agency (NSA) for six years before being named the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence for a year.
With complete understanding of her Constitutional role to provide "Advice and Consent" in approving a president's cabinet picks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed strong reservations about Cong. Panetta. Sen. Feinstein said, "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director... My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
Indeed.
With America still engaged in fighting a dangerous foe, one who killed 3,000 people that dark September day in 2001, we need an experienced and steady hand at the CIA.
In contradistinction to Sen. Feinstein's sobriety regarding a vital national security position, California's junior U.S. Senator, Barbara Boxer, enthused over the choice of Panetta, saying Obama has, "...picked the right person."
Time will tell.
If Sen. Barbara Boxer votes to confirm Cong. Panetta to be the new CIA Director, and he wins confirmation, a large portion of America's safety will be the responsibility of a man possessing no intelligence and foreign policy experience.
Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit "romantic" relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.
The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.
William Keller, the paper's executive editor, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the suit.
The entire story can be read at:McCain Affair Story
Senate Republicans should vote to seat Ronald Burris
Much as been made the last few weeks about the selection of former Attorney general Roland Burris to take Barack Obama's seat in the Illinois Senate. Governor Rod Blagojevich sent the political world reeling by making the selection, while under investigation for "selling" the seat.
Democrats who usually don't get embarrassed over corruption have threatened not to seat him.
There has been a lot of discussion. Is Burris easier to beat in 2010? Is there gain in keeping the scandal alive? The longer with another liberal Senator the better. On the Democratic side there are some of the same questions plus race that come into the equation.
None of this matters.
The Constitution doesn't provide a mechanism to deny him his seat. It should allow the Senate to decide he is unfit for service. He was appointed properly under the Illinois Constitution. Blagojevich is still the Governor and he should be seated. To do otherwise would turn the law and the constitution on it's head. And that is dangerous.
There are six candidates vying to run the Republican National Committee, and the showdown comes this week.
The candidates are former Maryland Lt Governor Michael Steele, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, Michigan Republican party Chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson, Chip Saltsman, who was Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign manager, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.
Several of these candidates have a lot going for them, but I've long had a liking for the conservatism of Ken Blackwell.
Blackwell is strongly pro-life, pro-gun, and fought for passage of Ohio's marriage protection amendment (he even had to oppose some RINO Republicans on this issue). In addition to being a strong social conservative, he's also a fiscal conservative.
In the coming year, it would be great if there were greater clarity regarding the genuine culprits responsible for crimes against humanity. In the current conflict with Hamas, Israel retaliated after being bombarded with hundreds of Hamas initiated mortars and rockets. Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects (EU, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UN, etc.) urge proportionality and restraint from the Israeli side.
However, if leaders of these organizations and states had to experience what Israelis must endure daily, they'd be singing a different tune. They's want to use all means necessary to protect themselves by putting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah out of business permanently.
It would be fantastic for a change if all nations could identify the real threats to civilization (terrorists and their sponsors) and then be resolved to dismantle their infrastructures. Any nation has the right to exist and defend itself against pre-emptive attacks from rogue groups and states.
Indeed, Hamas offers no warning as to when and where it will strike innocent civilians. By contrast, the Israelis notify Gaza residents regarding the location and time of its retaliatory strikes against terrorists. Moreover, the IDF's policy is to minimize civilian casualties during military responses to unprovoked attacks.
Any blame for civilian casualties on both sides rests squarely on Hamas and its supporters. Life on both sides of the conflict is very cheap to Hamas. They want to intimidate and terrorize Israel to pump up their followers, and invite Palestinian casualties in order to garner media sympathy. Yet in no cases has Hamas ever been a victim, because they are always the aggressor against Israel.
Hamas militants use their own people as human shields as they launch indiscriminate attacks on Israel. Moreover, these so called "brave" fighters and leaders often hide behind hoods. This is the same Hamas that brutalizes Fatah and the Gazans, are incapable of governing, and constantly defy the land-for-peace deal of 2005. Palestinians got the land, but they failed to hold up their end of the bargain regarding peaceful co-existence with Israel.
United States Senate candidate California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore supports Israel's Gaza operationDeVore: "America must support Israel's right to defend itself against terrorists"
Chuck DeVore, a California legislator and declared candidate for the United States Senate in 2010 against Barbara Boxer, announced his support of the state of Israel's current military operations in Gaza.
"For the last several years I have been amazed at the forbearance and restraint shown by Israel as Hamas terrorists rained down rocket after rocket purposefully targeted at Israeli civilians," Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said. "Imagine if terrorists in Tijuana regularly shot rockets into San Diego - America wouldn't stand for it. I support Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. The terrorist organization Hamas has brought this defensive military operation on itself."
DeVore was in the Israeli city of Sderot two years ago and met Mayor Eli Moyal who expressed his frustration at the constant terror rocket attacks. Sderot is sometimes darkly referred to as "Qassam City" after the name of the most common Hamas terror rocket. In 2006, the year DeVore last visited Israel, an average of three Qassams per day were fired into Israel, mostly into Sderot, a town of 20,000. DeVore has been to Israel four times since 1984 as well as to Lebanon, Egypt, and the West Bank.
Chuck DeVore has served in the California State Assembly since 2004. He retired from the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer with the rank of lieutenant colonel. DeVore served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon from 1986 to 1988 as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs and in that capacity he helped to start America's support of the development of Israel's Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile.
A Who's Who of the Conservative movement that includes the likes of RNC Committeman Morton Blackwell (No relation!), Jim Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Aldrich, Ed Meese, Richard Viguerie, Pat Toomey, David Keene, Becky Norton Dunlop and Steve Forbes have signed on the the Ken Blackwell for RNC Chair campaign.
In a joint press release issued through the Council for National Policy Inc. They picked Blackwell after getting responses to question from all the current candidates.
Here is complete list of the endorsements. Titles are for identification purposes. This a shot in the arm for the Blackwell campaign.
Hansen suggests that the tax be levied "at the well-head or port of entry" from where it "will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels."
This tax will have "near-term, mid-term, and long-term" effects on "lifestyle choices," Hansen acknowledges. But he seems unconcerned about how such coercion will rearrange the lives and manage the behavior of a people who should be free of state coercion.
Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to reveal the environmentalist left's deeper ambition: a collectivist redistribution of wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to the public in "equal shares on a per capita basis."
You can read the entire IBD editorial at IBDEditorials.com
Fast away the old year passes. But instead of making resolutions for 2009 that likely wouldn't be kept, I find myself reflecting on the warm glow of the most recent Christmas past and hoping that each of us, for many Christmases yet to come, will be more Scrooge-like in our observance of the holiday. Yes, that Scrooge - old Ebeneezer himself.
Scrooge commonly is remembered as "a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!" to whom Christmas was an annoying "humbug," as Charles Dickens described him. A cold, solitary miser who was "hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire...."
But that was Scrooge before his Christmas Eve transformation, brought about by visits from the ghost of Jacob Marley and the three spirits of Christmas. Thereafter, "he became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man" as his or any city knew. "It was always said of him," Dickens observed, "that he knew how to keep Christmas well...."
Most (if not all) of us who are conservative reject the progressive belief in human perfection. Rather, we acknowledge that we are imperfect creatures in need of redemption beyond ourselves. And redemption is what the Christmas story is all about. Dickens shared with us a tale of redemption that entertains and resonates still (with its enduring images of a Victorian holiday) - and challenges each of us not only to keep Christmas well but also to live well, in love and charity with our neighbors, all the year through.
Now, as we prepare to embark on what could be a perilous journey through the vast unknown in the New Year that lies ahead, "God bless us, every one!"
Ralph Nichols writes on public policy and legal issues from the Seattle area. He can be reached at ranichols2@yahoo.com.
Quite often, Muslim advocacy groups repeat the mantra that Islam is a religion of justice, peace, and tolerance. If that is the case, how would Muslims respond to some of these ideas that could bring about more equilibrium in the world?
First, when a company from the Middle East wishes to set up shop and do business in the West, a Western firm ought to be allowed to do the same in a Muslim dominant state. If an Islamic bank is established in a democratic nation, then a Christian or Jewish bank ought to be welcomed in the Middle East.
Next, Saudi funded media enterprises, mosques, and schools have sprung up in some free societies. Each time that the Saudis finance a Wahhab organization, any Western democracy should be allowed to build a media outlet, church, synagogue, temple, and school in the Gulf States. That would more closely resemble justice and tolerance.
Third, whenever non-Muslims are persecuted in Muslim states, the world should hear about it pronto. Likewise, each time that distortions regarding the Judeo-Christian heritage are spread via Middle East media, mosques, and textbooks, free nations should refute the propaganda with facts.
Fourth, when Muslim advocacy groups support frivolous litigation against an American entity or individual, that entity or individual ought to file a countersuit regarding the abuse of our legal system and waste of tax dollars. Moreover, free societies ought to export some humor to developing states and autocratic Muslim societies.
Now, I realize that this is a small thing, but I believe it speaks to a greater context. There is nothing inherently wrong with having pets. People on probation may well have a desire for pets which in no way endangers someone coming for a visit from the probation office.Whether it's Fluffy or Fido, probationers must tell probation officers about any pet they own, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The decision kills a 2005 challenge from San Bernardino County Superior Court saying that the pets requirement was too general. In the opinion, the court cited the need to protect probation officers from dangerous animals when they check on probationers.
Erie County editor, Rus Thompson was listed as one of the top ten most fascinating people in Western New York by WBEN radio. Doubtful that this comes as a surprise to Red County readers who follow his work. Rus is an outspoken political advocate and not one to pull punches when dissecting the issues or disemboweling those who seek to trample our rights and founding principles.
Rus provides a voice of reason to Erie County politics and is a genuine asset to the Red County team. WBEN obviously did their homework. Congratulations, Rus!
Mary Anastasia O'Grady penned a terrific column about the inexplicable-yet-ongoing worship of Che Guevara by the Left -- in this case, the uber-wealthy precincts in Hollywood via director Stephen Soderberg's upcoming film "Che": Bad things happen in society when "you make profit the point of everything," the movie director told Politico.com. Che's "dream of a classless society, a society that isn't built on the profit motive, is still relevant. The arguments still going on are about his methodology."You can read the rest of the column here.
Putting aside for a moment the hilarity of Mr. Soderbergh's personal revulsion with profits, the "methodology" that he suggests is debatable is otherwise known as murder. Che had a "homicidal idea of justice," Alvaro Vargas Llosa explained in The New Republic in 2005, after researching his life. In his April 1967 "Message to the Tricontinental," Che spoke these words: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."
You know, Caroline Kennedy would, you know, make a great Democrat representative for, you know, New York in the U.S. Senate.
She's so, you know, articulate. You know?
(30 times!)
When bamboozler-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks, folks with any common sense know that he is up to his old tricks as he attempts to hoodwink the civilized world. Of course, it's not so hard to pull the wool over the eyes of liberal media outlets such as Britain's Channel Four TV. It allowed the Iranian dictator to present a counterpoint to the Queen's Christmas message, thus illustrating its addiction to sensationalism.
It's funny how Ahmadinejad clumsily attempts to disguise his hatred for democracy and liberty with soaring politically correct speech so similar to the "diversity" that liberals espouse. His phony baloney wishes of goodwill to people of all cultures and faiths contradicts the thirty-year track record of his brutal theocratic regime.
In his message, Ahmadinejad said, "If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists, and bullies the world over."
If that is the case, then Ahmadinejad must be talking about his own nation, because Iran is an expansionist power that opposes universal God-given liberty. Iran finances and supports proxy warfare against Israel and Lebanon, and it's a primary sponsor of global terror.
Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.
Starting early could help Sen. Reid avoid the fate of his predecessor, Tom Daschle, who was Democratic leader for a decade before losing his re-election bid in South Dakota in 2004. The current Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, narrowly won re-election in Kentucky this year.
[...]Sen. Reid traveled to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico late last month to meet with campaign contributors. A spokesman for Sen. Reid said he expects to have $3 million in his campaign account at the end of the year, up from about $2.75 million on Oct. 1. Sen. Reid spent $7 million in his 2004 race.
Two Democratic Senate colleagues, South Dakota's Tim Johnson and Oregon's Jeff Merkley, have sent emails to their supporters seeking contributions to Sen. Reid's campaign.
A few thoughts are in order here. First, I'd like to draw your
attention to the places that Senator Reid is going to for fundraising:
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Oregon and South Dakota. Isn't the
esteemed senator from Nevada? I know, I know, campaigns are
increasingly seeking funding outside the states (or in the case of the
recent presidential election, outside the country) where the actual
election occurs. Nonetheless, I find it remarkable that Tim Johnson is
asking South Dakotans to pony up for Reid's re-election at this point.
After all, we've yet to see if he can deliver while working with the
Obama administration.
Second, I find the parallel with Daschle's
losing campaign to be quite interesting. After all, in that campaign,
Tom Daschle had started running for re-election months before his
competition even got his staff together. Part of the perceived benefit
to the eventual winner of that election (John Thune) was that Daschle
wore out the airwaves with advertising to the point where folks simply
got tired of hearing them.
Finally, I see hope for conservatives
in Mr. Reid's careful planning. Standing at the top of the heap does
often mean that one is more easily picked off. More than that, however,
is the tacit understanding that being a powerful member of the winning
party guarantees nothing when it comes to the only people (in this case,
Nevada voters) who have the power to retire a senator.
Senator
Reid has every cause to be concerned. It will be instructive to see how
much his desire for self-preservation gets in the way of his desire to
lead the Senate in a decidedly leftward direction.
Historically, the political Left has hated and despised the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie of
Marxist thought. Yet in our times, the Left has realized (or rather
re-realized) the political suicide of openly denigrating the "mushy
middle."
The Left has always hated the middle class because it has always
represented and been the chief obstacle to its utopia, its
unconstrained vision, its establishment of heaven on earth. Going back
to at least Aristotle,
observant political scholars have recognized the stability that a
middle class brings to society. But the Left is not interested in
stability, far from it. The Left is interested in revolution, in
transformation, in the creation of the New Man; in a word: Change, the
very opposite of stability. Moreover, the middle class tends to be
less vulnerable to demagogic appeals to irrational class envy or
self-hatred. In general, the middle class has also been the guardian of
traditional religion and morality from generation to generation. From
every angle, the Left has had every reason to attack the middle class.
However, it has been said that the first rule of politics in
democratic or semi-democratic nations is to add and multiply, not
subtract and divide. Of course, from a practical, electoral
perspective, political leaders, if they are to stand for anything at
all, can't help but divide the public with their rhetoric and policy
positions. No, it is not a question of whether a politician will divide the country but how and to what extent he will divide it.
And if the middle class (admittedly a nebulous term) represents a
majority, if not a super-majority (as it almost always has in America),
then any political movement cannot afford to alienate this class--if it
cares anything for practical, electoral success, i.e. power.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party have (re-)learned
this lesson well. They campaigned as champions of the middle class,
with the unending mantra of promising tax breaks for the lower and
middle classes rather than the wealthy (Tax breaks for those who pay relatively little to no taxes?).
This stance may work well politically under the current unfavorable
economic conditions, just as FDR was successful in pushing his
socialist-fascist policy agenda during the Great Depression. But as a
matter of economic policy, it is unsustainable and not in the public
interest. Conservatives and Republicans must powerfully communicate and
demonstrate this truth the the American people.
When the American middle class re-awakens to this harsh reality, it
will turn on the leftists, just as it did on Jimmy Carter. After that,
it will only be a matter of time before the Left's natural hatred of
the middle class re-emerges. The Left's only hope is to weaken,
corrupt, or destroy the middle class before it re-awakens, or to
patiently wear it down over time and enjoy the fruits at a later time.
We conservatives must work to win over the middle class (or more of it)
again. We must illustrate the economic harm that the Left is inflicting
upon everyone. We must be in the fight for the long haul as well.
It must be remembered that, for the most part, illegal households using programs like free school lunch or Medicaid are receiving these benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, who under current law are awarded citizenship at birth. Of course, the costs of providing services to these children are very real for taxpayers and result from illegals having been allowed to enter and stay in the country. And having the federal government feed or provide medical care to their children is an enormous benefit to illegal aliens. Thus, in considering the consequences for public coffers, counting the costs of these programs is necessary, otherwise one would gain a very false sense of illegal immigration's present costs. Nonetheless, the fact that it is the U.S.-born children receiving the benefits is still important, because it means that barring illegals from using programs would not significantly reduce costs. Their citizen children would continue to receive them. On the other hand, if the illegal families were made to return home, the costs would be eliminated.
If the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year.
Over one fifth of all U.S. children have at least one immigrant parent, and child welfare systems are encountering large and increasing numbers of these children.
The Japanese one, that is, both here and in Japan. As Japanese auto purchases plummet, Japanese car companies are ratcheting down domestic production.
Production of passenger cars in Japan decreased 20.3 percent in November from the previous year to 737,797 vehicles, while production of trucks here declined 20.9 percent for the month to 106,170.
...Auto executives have expressed dismay at the fall in Japanese sales, which have worsened in the last two months.
Japanese plants are being idled to reduce production, and thousands of assembly line workers have lost their jobs in recent weeks.
In the meantime, Japanese companies are also cutting production at their array of plants here in the US, but so far have only cut contract and part-time workers. Despite cuts in Ohio, Indiana and Alabama production, Honda is avoiding layoff. Toyota has avoided them so far, but may be forced into cutting North American workers.
What does this mean? Mostly that American auto workers aren't competing with Japanese workers any more, but with each other. The Japanese labor market is driven by Japanese demand, and the American labor market is being driven by American auto demand. These plants were originally put here to meet domestic US demand, and that's what they're doing.
Secondly, Japanese multinationals are no more loyal to Tokyo than US-based multinationals are loyal to the US. Otherwise, these Japanese companies would be cutting US employment in order to keep their Japanese workers employed, exporting cars to the US.
Finally, beware a currency collapse. Should the dollar decline precipitously against the Yen, and 14% is not precipitous, even operations that are making money here in the US could be endangered. All those dollars that Honda is making only help the parent company if they can be profitably shifted to other markets or other facilities. Otherwise, they're only good here in the US. If those dollars won't buy enough Yen, or Bhat, or whatever, to finance improvements elsewhere, their value to Honda HQ is greatly diminished.