Justified Right

Stuart Smalley Wins (Steals?) Minnesota Election!!!!

Good grief.  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of certifying the election of Al Franken to the US Senate.

What is wrong with the people of Minnesota?

Bad enough they gave us a "9/11 truther" like Jesse Ventura. Since he was Governor that was kind of their business.

Now we have to put up with Al Franken in the Senate?  That affects the rest of us.

If you look at a map of the U.S., the state of Michigan looks like a giant hand in a mitten on top of America (they like to call it America's high five).

Here's a pic: 

                                

Now if we can just get that giant hand to reach over and smack Minnesota voters for giving us Senator Stuart Smalley, I might be able to forgive them.

It could be though that it wasn't the voters' fault. This election had all sorts of shenanigans go on involving contested ballots.

Hold on to your wallets.  The Senate will now have a super-lib majority.

Alan Carlin Speaks Truth To Global Warming Power And Gets Silenced

Who is Alan Carlin?  A 38 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency.

What did he do?  Drafted this 98 page report showing some of the myths of Global Warming.

What happened to him?  His report was suppressed.

The liberal media is all over this story, reporting it as top news on every television channel.  Just kidding.  They're suppressing the story with as much fervent zeal as the EPA had in suppressing Carlin's report.

The crux of Carlin's report is that America's EPA is simply accepting the findings of outside groups on Global Warming, most notably from the notoriously anti-American (my words) United Nations.

How lazy.  America has this monster agency we are paying millions of dollars to support, and all they are doing is reading UN reports.

Carlin's report talks about these rather "inconvenient truths" regarding Global Warming:

1)  Global Temperatures have declined the last 11 years;

2)  There is no effect on Atlantic hurricane development by Global Warming;

3)  Greenland is not rapidly shedding its ice;

4)  The Global Recession has already greatly reduced emission levels on its own;

5)  Models used concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor are flawed, and the evidence suggests a negative feedback.

6)  Solar variability affects global temperatures more than any other factor.

So did the EPA decide to follow up on Carlin's report? Nope.  Under the Obama Administration, no debate is allowed, no science can get in the way.  They have declared the debate over, accepted Global Warming as religious dogma and no one better be caught in the heretical crime of showing any disagreement, no matter how good their science.

Don't believe me?  Read this email from Carlin's boss:

Wow.  Look at that.  "The time for discussion has passed..."   "Your comments do not help the legal or policy case..."

In other words, real science be damned.  The President has a position that Global Warming is real, and we have to support it.

Now let's examine the "media can't connect the dots between two stories" problem.

What is rally scary is the Obama administration is now moving forward with the cap and trade (cap and tax actually), multi-trillion dollar, business killing debacle, all based upon phony global warming science.

The House of Representatives passed the "cap and tax" bill this week, and it's off to the Senate.

You can read the bill here, if you have the time to get through 1,201 pages of reading today.

Good grief.

Ricci v DeStefano Is About Bad Laws, Not Racism

Bad law is the worst sort of tyranny. Edmond Burke

The U.S. Supreme Court today reversed an appellate ruling Sonia Sotomayor took part in back in 2008. 

Now a plethora of partially prepared pundits will offer their opinion that the case was about racism against white people, and since Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is reversed, it raises the issue that perhaps she does a little Caucasian hatin’ herself.

I’m certain those pundits who say so will not have taken the time to actually read the 87 page Slip Opinion issued by the Supreme Court.  If they read it, they would know the demon we face is not racism, it’s bad law writing by Congress, who tries to cure the social ill of racism (real or perceived) by social engineering. 

What Congress ends up writing is horrifically vague laws no one can follow, that cause more problems than they solve, leaving towns like New Haven Connecticut to do no more than choose which race of people will eventually sue them.

Let’s say you are the Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut.  You want to have a fair test to see which firefighters are the best so you can promote them to lieutenant and captain.  You hold a test, and 17 white people and 2 Latinos score high enough for immediate promotion, while no Black people who took the test qualify.

So, Mr. or Ms. Mayor of New Haven, should you go ahead and certify the test results so you can make the promotions?  You want to follow the law, so you ask the City Attorney for an opinion.

The City Attorney tells you Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  It is known as the “disparate treatment” rule, and it basically means you can’t treat people differently based upon race.  That includes white people.

The answer is therefore easy.  You can’t discriminate against the white people who passed the test, so you pull out your ceremonial pen with the feathers on it to certify the test results and make the promotions.

“Not so fast, Mayor” says the City Attorney.  “Title VII has another section to it.  It is against the law for New Haven to have this: ‘…a policy or practice that, although NOT INTENDED to discriminate, has a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities.’  It is known has the disparate impact rule.  Since the score here was white people 17, black people 0, the test seems to have had a disparate impact, even if New Haven didn’t intend it.”

So you the Mayor say to the attorney, “But the test was fair, about firefighting, and not race based.  Shouldn’t that alone be enough to allow me to certify the results?”  “Actually you’re on to something, Mayor,” says the attorney. “Title VII does say that if the test is ‘job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity’ then you can certify the results.”

“Ok then it’s settled,” you as the Mayor say.  “I’m certifying the test results and making the promotions.”   “Not so fast again,” says the attorney.  “Title VII also says that even if you show the test was neutral and a business necessity, the Black test takers can still win if they show that you refuse to adopt ‘an alternative practice that has a less disparate impact’ which still serves New Haven’s needs.  Whatever that means! (chuckling)

So you say, “Now wait just a doggone minute there, counselor. Are you telling me if I don’t certify the test I get sued by the white people under the “disparate treatment” rule, but if I do certify the test I get sued by the Black people under the “disparate impact” rule?”  “That’s right,” says the attorney.  “Well what should I do?” pleads you the Mayor.  The attorney replies, “My job is to show you the fork in the road, not choose for you which way to travel.  Other than that, I’m just on this job to pad my pension and get the dental coverage offered by the City.”

Wow.  All a City like New Haven can do is pick a winner knowing the loser is going to sue.  The Supreme Court did nothing today to fix that. Their ruling says that a town like New Haven should only throw out the test results if  “…the employer [has] a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action [of throwing out the test].”

What does that mean for New Haven and every other town in America?  Buy a magic 8-ball, shake it, and ask it if the City will win or lose when the Black firefighters sue.  If it says lose, throw out the test; if it says win, promote the white guys.

The sad and underreported fact in this case is that this test was taken back in 2003.  Frank Ricci and the other successful test takers have waited 6 years to get their promotions, and have had to wind through a judicial processes with a bad law whose legalese is so vague the 9 smartest lawyers in the country who sit on the Supreme Court are still split 5 to 4 on what it all means.   That means it’s a bad law.

There were no racists in this story – not the City of New Haven, the firefighters, the test makers and not Sonia Sotomayor.  There is a bad law here; bad because it is so complicated no one can follow it.

This is what happens when the federal government thinks it can create Utopia by solving every real and make-believe problem by taking the decision-making authority away from local officials and put it all in a statute. Unfortunately, we now have an Administration in Washington DC hell-bent on writing more such laws that allows the federal government to control our lives.

 Good grief.

Bad News Comes In Threes: Ed, Farrah & Michael Videos

Taking a break from politics to pay tribute to 3 icons we lost this week.

Hiyooooooooooooooo!   Take a look at rapping Ed McMahon: 

Farrah Fawcett will always be the "it" girl.  Bonus footage here with Mr. Kincade and Danny Bonaduce (that's right - I dig Bonaduce ever since I saw him punk a 9/11 truther on youtube):

Michael Jackson will have his great book of songs played all day today, but I was always mesmerized by his dancing.  Here's him and his brothers doing some pop-locking, with another great we lost last month - Dom Deluise!  Enjoy:

Obama’s Wussification of U.S. Foreign Policy

Wuss – n. a weakling; wimp.  Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In his inaugural address, President Obama said this to the world’s bad guys:

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Naïvely, he thought they would unclench their fist because he asked them.

Unfortunately, so certain was he that they would, Obama felt it unnecessary to have a back-up plan for when the bad guys didn’t unclench their fist.

Worst of all, Obama’s unpreparedness is exposed to the world now that the bad guys not only have kept their fist clenched but also are throwing their fist around, particularly in our direction via North Korea and Iran.

Obama’s flowery rhetoric flutters the heart of American liberals and tingles the leg of American leftist media who have heralded Obama as God, based on nothing more than his ability to read his teleprompter while plagiarizing the accent and cadence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Expectedly, the hearts of America’s enemies don’t melt so easily.

Without actual divine power to work miracles or even human resolve to put some muscle behind his rhetorical hustle, Obama’s wondering aloud why we all can’t just get along sounds less like Martin Luther King and more like Rodney King, and is proving exactly as ineffective.

The bad guys know that in the end, words from a President mean things. When he does nothing more than tout the goodliness of his own philosophy instead of promising action in the face of adversity, the bad guys see him as weak.  The President who announces he will not fight will surely find himself in one.

The American/Russian policy of Mutual Assured Destruction kept a whole generation of Americans off the battlefield, and it was based on the fact that Russia was assured America would fight, so they didn’t. Had either side been convinced the other wouldn’t fight, there would have been a war.

Barack Obama campaigned on his unwillingness to fight and has spent his first 6 months in office assuring the bad guys that America’s intention is not to fight.  Thus he has wussified our foreign policy. 

His reasoning, though irrelevant to his effect, is not that he wishes to weaken America, rather he has bought into his own media hype that his election would shepherd in “a day where we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve.” 

Consider the green light signals he has sent to Iran:

He tried to remove the ability of any President of the United States from bombing Iran at all, even in an emergency, when in 2007 he introduced bill S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” 

On January 31, 2008 Obama stated that containing Iran is not a good enough reason to keep troops in Iraq, tacitly asserting that Iran is not a threat.  On the same date he spoke of America’s “limited resources” when it comes to fighting al-Qaeda, then stating, “We don’t have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide…”

In speeches in both Ankara and Cairo this year he made clear America “Will never be at war with Islam.”  Despite his words, large swaths of Islam in al-Qaeda and The Taliban consider themselves at war with us, with intentions seemingly no different in Hamas and Hezbollah.

Further signaling a refusal to fight, Obama has said: “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

His “hands-off” approach to Islamic Fascism no matter how oppressive has been highlighted on the issue of woman being forced to wear a head-to-toe burqa and niqab.  French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently decried the practice and said it would never be allowed in France.  Obama, revealing shallow respect for universal women’s rights, has twice said:

“Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”  His rejecting liberalism for fascism on women’s rights was not clearly articulated when he was running for office.

Obama has quoted the words of Thomas Jefferson on refusals to go to war, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be." History lesson for Barack:  Jefferson supported France’s war against Britain with words only. Emboldened by years of Jeffersonian rhetoric against war, Britain invaded America in the war of 1812 and burned the White House. 

Have all these speeches against fighting and intervention softened hearts in the Middle East?

Play the tape of President Obama’s speech in Cairo. He received approving applause whenever he spoke of thousand year old Muslim accomplishment in Algebra or he blamed America for anything, but he got no applause, NONE, when he said this:

Palestinians must abandon violence… It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

His non-interventionist talk regarding the Iranian elections has certainly cost the President. 

The Administration’s argument in support of Obama’s callow statements was that if he said too much in opposition, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah would use that as an excuse to claim America was behind the protests.

So what happened?  They both said it anyway, even when Obama said he “refused to meddle.”

This put Obama on the defensive, having to explain at his June 23^rd presser:

“They’ve got some of the comments that I’ve made being mistranslated in Iran suggesting that I’m telling rioters to go out and riot some more. There are…there are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this. All of which are patently false.”

Did he really think our enemies would play fair?  What we saw at the press conference was Obama finally realizing the media hype that the entire Middle East would love us if we elected a man with the middle name “Hussein” is in reality as stupid as it sounds.

Yet during the press conference, he would not move off his non-interventionist stance.  He referred to the events in Iran as a “debate” (if by debate he means the government shooting civilians in the street, then yea – it’s a debate).

On repeated questioning, he would not spell out what “consequences,” if any, Iran would face from the International community if they kept killing civilians.  He refused to cancel his planned July 4^th barbeque with Iranian leaders.  He reiterated that Iran will choose its own “path” with no interference from us.

Not spelling out possible consequences is bad enough.  His original position on the Iranian situation that America “would not meddle” was even worse.  Even if he planned no response, why say so and remove all doubt?  By saying so he gained nothing but risked removing whatever obstacle was in the mind of the Ayatollah to ordering civilians killed.  It was a terrible foreign policy blunder to announce America as a spectator.

It’s time for President Obama to consider that he is no longer a Community Organizer protesting “the system.” He is “the system” and his words have consequences now.

Those consequences were seen in the shooting death of Iranian protester Neda Agha-Soltan.  As she lay with blood pouring from her nose and mouth, her eyes held a duality I’d not seen before  - both beauty and death. She personified her own consequence and Obama’s refusal to face his.  She will be the symbol of the courageous fight for freedom that the yellow-bellied Obama refuses to support.

Sorry Neda, Barack Doesn't Want to Meddle

This is Neda Agha-Soltan:

Isn't she lovely?  Her name in Persian means "voice." 

Do you know what happens to the "voice" of the Iranian people, when the man who in Cairo referred to himself as "Barack Hussein Obama" said he would not interfere in Iran, emboldening the Muslim Clerics who run that country to impose their will on young ladies like Neda?

This is what happens (very graphic):

Rest in peace, Neda, and may your legacy be to change the mind of the man in power who turned his back on you, so that the Iranian people can one day be free.

PETA Loves Houseflies, Hates Children

Hypocrisy:  prejudice with a halo.  Ambrose Bierce

 

It must be tough being President of the United States.  Every single move you make is scrutinized to mean something - like swatting a fly, for instance. An act like that can lead people to endless random acts of psychoanalysis. Some will take it as a subliminal manifestation of the President’s inner hatred for actor Jeff Goldblum.  Others will claim it was a coded signal to the fly-like space aliens who secretly got the President elected to begin their colonization procedures.

 

But of course, as Sigmund Freud told us, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (unless you’re Bill Clinton).  Fortunately, there are enough rational people left in the world to know that sometimes swatting a fly is nothing more than swatting a fly.

My own reaction to seeing the President swat and kill a fly was pure political jealousy: “Oh great  - now he’s faster than a speeding fly?  The media already thinks he can leap tall buildings in a single bound.  More hero legacy for Barack Obama.”

As expected, a reaction came from PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Never has there been a group that is so “down with the cause” as PETA is for the purpose of having sympathy for members of the animal kingdom.  To examine their rhetoric is to know they believe no animal is too small, too insignificant, to be ignored.

On President Obama killing a housefly, PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich had this to say:

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

That appears to be one very wide tent of inclusiveness - compassion for even the “least sympathetic” and for “all” animals. That leaves no animal out of the compassion circle.

In fact, PETA’s explanation on their website why they don’t feel the same compassion for members of the plant world shows how expansive their animal compassion is:

“There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains.”

For a more philosophical explanation about why there should be “no animal left behind,” PETA offers this appeal to its own authority:

“The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, ‘A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.’”

Well that expands the scope of compassion even beyond the nervous system – Schweitzer had no regard for the question of whether the animal had feeling.  Apparently if the animal simply is, then the animal is worth saving.

All this animal inclusiveness got me wondering about PETA’s position on unborn babies.  It’s a scientific fact that babies are genetically animals and not plants – (they even have nervous systems, not that that’s a requirement for PETA’s compassion).  Surely PETA would follow the Schweitzer example (who wrote the book “Reverence For Life”) and help an unborn baby simply because they are able to help.  After all, PETA even saves worms and houseflies.

Here is what the PETA website says about killing the little members of the animal kingdom known as human babies:

“There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion.”

Well choke me with hypocrisy.  Schweitzer would save a worm and PETA cries for a swatted housefly, but kill a human animal baby and PETA stands by watching, mute as a dumb animal.

PETA never misses an opportunity to equate animals with humans (again - unborn babies are certainly human).  Look how hypocritical some of the claims on PETA’s website really are, knowing they are indifferent to killing babies:

“One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal—human or otherwise.”

“We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.”

PETA has even adopted the argument of the Pro-Life movement when it comes to legality sometimes having nothing to do with morality.  Note again the comparison to humans:

“Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and who doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinions of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not as arbitrary. Child labor, human slavery, and the oppression of women were all legal in the U.S. at one time, but that does not mean that they were ever ethical.”

Perhaps the strongest quote equating humans and animals came from PETA President Ingrid Newkirk:

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.” – Washingtonian magazine (August 1, 1986).

As is usual with PETA, they become shockingly insensitive when it comes to comparing humans and animals.  Examine these quotes:

“We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others.”  Alex Pacheco, PETA co-founder.

“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.” - Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President, The Washington Post (November 13, 1983)

Having made their case so strongly, often in stark and shocking terms that they believe in saving animals and humans equally, PETA’s refusal to condemn the abortion of babies makes them the biggest hypocrites in today’s political noosphere.

Why would this rabidly pro-life group except from their protection human babies?  Three words:  “The Democrat Party.”  PETA, like other groups, will often abandon their own beliefs to curry favor with Democrats.  They so fear a loss of support from those identifying as liberals and Democrats that they toss their own professed morality aside and with it the legacy of Albert Schweitzer. 

Were PETA to be consistent in philosophy and take an anti-infanticide position they would pick up far more supporters than they would lose.  Until that time, I will ignore PETA, swat flies and eat steak and lobster tails.  They can change my mind about that when they legitimize their currently phony “pro-life” position and formally condemn abortion.

Happy Father's Day

Taking the day off to play with the kids.

Will be back tomorrow with a post about PETA's grief over Obama swatting a fly.

Rohde Escapes Taliban. Should There Have Been More Press Coverage?

Meet David Rohde.  He is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the New York Times.  This week he escaped from a Taliban prison where  e was held since last November.  He jumped right over the wall with another journalist who was also kidnapped with him.

What seems odd is that David Rohde isn't a household name.  How could a Pulitzer Prize winner from the Times be kidnapped and held hostage by the Taliban without it being big enough news to make it to the average office water cooler conversation?

Apparently, it was kept quiet on purpose.

According to  this New York Times article:

“From the early days of this ordeal, the prevailing view among David’s family, experts in kidnapping cases, officials of several governments and others we consulted was that going public could increase the danger to David and the other hostages. The kidnappers initially said as much,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. "We decided to respect that advice, as we have in other kidnapping cases, and a number of other news organizations that learned of David’s plight have done the same. We are enormously grateful for their support.”

Ok, so David's family, the experts, the government and others all thought keeping it quiet was  prudent, and take note that the Taliban requested it.  It's a tough situation to be in and I won't question the family's decision to comply with the kidnapper's requests.

But what of the experts and the government?  Did they make the right call and give good advice to the family that the right thing to do was keep a lid on it?

David escaped, after all. It's not like anyone secured his release by complying with the Taliban request to keep it quiet.

I can't help but think that international outrage, which starts with Press coverage, can help to get someone who is kidnapped released.  It certainly seemed to help with the recently released Roxana Saberi who was recently released from an Iranian prison, and may soon work for Euna Lee and Laura Ling who are held in North Korea.

It's a tough call.  It would be interesting to hear what others think.

There's certainly no need to keep a lid on it anymore.  I hope David becomes a household name.  His experience might make for an interesting movie.

Welcome Wall Street Journal Readers!

Welcome Wall Street Journal readers and thank you Susan Davis for the link and the traffic!!!!

Read Susan's story here.

Justified Right Is Quoted Today In The Chicago Tribune

Read the column here:  http://tinyurl.com/nlxnrc

Welcome SondraK readers!!!

And thank you SondraK for all the traffic!

Senator Barbara Boxer Calls Condi Rice "Ma'am!"

HYPOCRISY ALERT!  HYPOCRISY ALERT!

Princess Barbara Boxer was offended by the words of a mere commoner today, namely one Brigadier General Michael Walsh who was testifying before Her Highness.

Forgetting his manners in a most atrocious form, the General called her "ma'am," which is a contracted form of the word "Madam."

Her royal highness immediately dressed down the scoundrel, assuring him she deserved to be called by the title to which she has worked so very hard to achieve:

 

Put aside that in England where the word originates, Madam is used to address the queen or a royal princess. Forget that in America, Madam is an appellation of respect used toward women. It is all still far below Her Liege Barbara Boxer.

Recall though when former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice was testifying before Senator Boxer two years ago.  That was when Boxer dressed Rice down for having the nerve to be a childless woman who has the power to make decisions. 

Few may remember that Boxer called Rice 'Madam" three different times during that testimony.

So, what is good enough for the childless Condi Rice is certainly not good enough for the all high and fertile Barbara Boxer.

Bow down.  Kneel before your new Democrat masters.

Speedy Recovery, Madam Secretary Clinton, and Fear Not Saturday Night Live

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a spill at the White House and broke her elbow.  I know a good personal injury lawyer she can call.

We wish her a speedy recovery and good health.

Good thing she is a Democrat.  Were she a Republican, Saturday Night Live would pummel her and say she is so stupid she can't walk and be Secretary of State at the same time.  They and David Lettermen would thrust the idea that she falls because she is a dope over and over until they could get as many lemmings as possible to believe it, and hope their fraudulent little meme becomes part of the public consciousness.

They have a history of that going back to the beginning of the show.

Looking back at Gerry Ford's life is to know he was an honest statesmen and a terrific fellow. He already had an established law practice, but when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor he left it to enlist in the Navy.  He went on to serve honorably in Congress and as President.

What some might not know is that Ford had a very bad knee from playing college football - so bad that he did therapy on it into his old age.  The injury made him have less than perfect balance, and he took some famous falls when it gave out.

Saturday Night Live turned a physical malady into a punch line, with endless scenes of Chevy Chase playing Ford as a mindless klutz, ridiculously falling and and acting foolishly.

Was it all in good fun?  Biographers of Ford say he always took it with good humor, the gentleman that he was, but Chevy Chase saw it another way.

Watch the below video. Although Lorne Michaels protests that SNL does not go after Republicans as a partisan swipe, Chevy Chase spills the beans and says it is exactly that, from what they did to Gerry Ford right up to what they did last year to Sarah Palin:

The Republicans in SNL skits always come off as stupid. The jokes about Democrats? It's always about how hopelessly smart they are. We saw that repeatedly in the skits after Obama was elected. That Democrats are "so smart" is a position of SNL going way back.  Take a look at this transcript of Dan Akroyd playing Jimmy Carter:

Announcer: And now, live from the White House, "Ask President Carter".

Walter Cronkite: Good evening, and welcome to #10 of the CBS radio series "Ask President Carter", continuing an experiment in presidential communication with the American people. Mr. President, our first call this week comes Mrs. Edward Hobrath, or maybe it's Horbraithe?

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): [ echoing ] That's Horbath.

Walter Cronkite: Mrs. Edward Horbath - excuse me - of Maple Trace, Kansas!

President Jimmy Carter: Hello, Mrs. Horbath.

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): [ echoing ] Hello, Mr. President, how are you today?

President Jimmy Carter: Very fine. Could you turn your radio down, please?

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): [ echoing ] Oh my.. yes..

Walter Cronkite: Mrs. Horbath, do you have a question for the President?

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): Yes, sir. I'm an employee of the U.S. Postal Service in Kansas. Last year they installed an automated letter sorting system called the Marvex-3000, here in our branch..

President Jimmy Carter: Yes.

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): ..but the system doesn't work too good. Letters keep getting clogged in the first-level sorting grid. Is there anything that can be done about this?

President Jimmy Carter: Well, Mrs. Horbath, Vice-President Mondale and I were just talking about the Morvex-3000 this morning.. uh.. I do have a suggestion - you know the caliber poised on the first grid sliding armiture?

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): Yes.

President Jimmy Carter: Okay, there's a three-digit setting there, where the post and the armiture meet. Now, when the system was installed, the angle of cross-slide was put at a maximum setting of 1.. if you reset it at the three-mark like it says in the assembly instructions, I think it will solve any clogging problems in the machine.

Mrs. Edward Horbath (on phone): Oh, thanks, Mr. President! Oh, by the way, I think you're doing a great job!

Walter Cronkite: Looks like you've been doing your homework, Mr. President. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that none of these calls are screened, that the people of America are talking directly with the President.

Can you believe how they slathered Carter with compliments in the skit? "You're doing a great job Mr. President!" I think I just threw up in my mouth a little having to read that.

I found a video of the rest of that skit, where SNL continues the effort to deliver the message that Carter is bright. Notice how the skit also deteriorates into a knock against Republican Richard Nixon:

So don't worry, Hillary Clinton. The partisan show "Saturday Night Lies" won't make fun of you, so long as you stay a Democrat.

Investors Fear Inflation. Prices Increase. Obama's Media: That's Good News!

Shameless. That's the word that comes to mind regarding the media being in the tank for Obama. 

I've posted in the past about the media reporting bad economic news as good news.  And again here.  Both times were about Obama replacing the words "created jobs" with the far more elusive and impossible to prove words "saved jobs." The media is covering for Obama about his broken promise to create jobs instead of taking him to task for it.

Even when he fails, the media will report that Obama wins.  They expect their readers to follow along and believe in him.

Considering Obama's huge spending in his short time in office coupled with his record-setting deficits and job losses, investors have been worried that inflation would drive up the price of consumer goods.

New numbers are out, and the price of consumer goods is up.

Read here how the New York Times paints increased consumer pricing as good news.

Read here how the Associated Press paints increased consumer pricing as good news.

Good grief.

 

Classy Sarah Palin Accepts Letterman’s Apology

“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  From The Lord’s Prayer

             

          Comedian Finally Apologizes                   Regular Gal Sets Good Example And Accepts

The example Sarah Palin set today by accepting David Letterman’s apology for insulting her children is extraordinary.  She is showing the world how people should treat one another, particularly when they aren’t getting along.

Here’s the short lesson regarding insults:

If an apology is an obligation, so too is forgiveness. When an apology is sincere, acceptance is owed.

We too often forget not only the duty of forgiveness but also the power forgiveness has to generate good in the world.  Thank Sarah Palin today for reminding us that forgiveness is often the road to progress, and it sure is better than wallowing in anger.

The American 24-hour news cycle uses a ratings “fuel-additive” I like to call Insult vs. Outrage.

We’ve seen it play out over and over again, year after year. Don Imus and the Nappy Headed Hos.  Jimmy the Greek and Blacks. Geraldine Ferraro and Blacks. Mel Gibson and Jews.  Jesse Jackson and Jews.  Isaiah Washington and Gays.  Ann Coulter and the entire left-wing of American politics.

You’ve seen how it works. First a celebrity says something that might be insensitive.  Or it might only be perceived as insensitive. Sometimes it isn’t insensitive at all, but it is a tool for race hustlers like Al Sharpton to stay relevant, so he presses the point beyond absurdity.

First the comment gets reported in the media.  It starts slow – a tease on the news or a post on Drudge or Gawker. Then there is a building period. This can be genuine outrage by the public as to a truly insensitive comment. Or, sometimes it’s just orchestrated by leaders of certain groups, usually on the left, telling the sheeple who follow them to activate the outrage button on their pity power belts.  Had the leaders not told them it’s time to be upset, their mindless followers never would have been.

The next thing you know, every news outlet is consumed by the story and they won’t let go of it until the participants, both “insulter” and “insultee,” are forced to comment about it.

Unless of course the insult was about a rich white guy, a Christian, Republicans, all mid-westerners or anyone with the last name “Bush.”  Then the media doesn’t care.

Also, there are a few people who somehow have convinced the world it is OK for them to say anything they wish about anyone, and it’s still charming, not insulting. Who, for instance?  Don Rickles, you hockey puck!

Outrage is a political tool, so sometimes no matter how sincere an apology is, pundits on TV insist the apology isn’t sincere and they encourage others to not accept it.  After all, if the apology is accepted, the story is over and political gain from alleging your adversary is a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe comes to a halt.

Some people would rather continue the damage, real or perceived, than do the right thing and accept an apology.

Here are the rules for accepting an apology:

1. Is the person expressing true sorrow for the offense?
2. Is the person resolute in promising to not do it again?
3. Is the person offering or already serving a penance?

If the answer is yes, the burden shifts to the victim to forgive (although I know of no Letterman penance, clearly Palin has a big heart and forgave him anyway).   Make no mistake forgiveness is an obligation after a sincere apology.  To fail to forgive can be a wrong in and of itself.

One famous example of an apology that many are refusing to accept is that of Michael Vick, the NFL quarterback who went to jail for dog fighting.  Vick’s apologies have been very sincere.  He has clearly expressed his resolve never to do it again.  He has served his penance - his time in jail.  He is square with house.

However, “animal rights” extremists refuse to accept his apology or forgive him.  They are even rejecting his offer to do more penance by doing work for animal advocacy groups.  The Humane Society wants to work with Vick, but PETA, who puts animals above people, rejects the idea.

There are NFL players who were allowed to take the field after being involved in killing people, not dogs, but I’ve never heard PETA complain about them.  That proves the point that PETA, like others, feigns outrage for political purposes.

I like Sarah Palin’s view of things better.  Forgiveness is divine.  It shows intelligence is better than rage. It shows thought is better than feelings when judging (got that Sotomayor?). It shows Sarah Palin is smarter and a better person than the people who have been attacking her this past year.

You betcha, Sarah (wink)!

Bermuda - Is This Torture Too?

Good grief.

America has not only freed Gitmo detainees, but we've set them up in Bermuda of all places. Rum swizzles and surfing - I should be treated so poorly.

The chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, were suspected of conspiring with al-Qeada. 

While Obama and the Dems decry how Gitmo detainees are treated, the Uighurs say they found Gitmo to be a better place to live than China.

How does the Obama administration feel about Human Rights abuses in China?  Obama's Secretary of State Clinton recently said this: "But our pressing on those issues [human rights] can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis." 

Sure Hillary - let's not let Human Rights abuses "interfere with Obama agenda."  No wonder these people like to kill babies with abortions - they simply have no respect for human life.

So let me get this straight - America sets up guys to live in a paradise on earth and Obama paints us as torturers, but China's Human Right's abuses are overlooked because that's not as important as economics and Al Gore's global warming fantasies.

Careful Barack, your hypocrisy is showing.

Obama To Cut Health Payments To The Elderly and Poor To Give Insurance to Young Democrats Who Don't Want To Work

Read about it here.

Let's Fire David Letterman

Imagine a conservative man on television making a joke about Sasha and Malia Obama having sex and being statutorily raped in the middle of Yankee stadium in front of Michelle Obama.

The outrage would reach Don Imus proportions and it would not stop until the guy was fired.  I'd be outraged too.

Well, David Letterman made exactly that "joke" about Willow Palin, age 14, on his TV show.

I hear absolutely nothing from feminist groups about it.  This proves that NOW is not the National Organization for Women.  It's the National Organization for Liberal Women.

The unwritten rule in politics has always been "hands off" when it came to a politician's kids.  Not so when that politician is Sarah Palin.

I still can not explain the hatred the left and the media have for Palin.  What exactly did she do to deserve it?  I've seen the most vile things written about her, but this is a woman who fought corruption and has never had a scandal.  She has no history of being mean to anyone.

If the left and the media disagree with her policy and expresses that, then fine.  This hatred though is bizarre.  It's hard enough to find good people to run for office.  The Palin hatred on display must have a chilling effect for other candidates, both women and men, to try their hand at serving.  Particularly attacks on family and children.

In Sarah I see a successful governor who wanted to serve her country as Vice President, just as 8 other governors in the 20th Century had done. "Governor" had been the standard by which executive experience was judged in a Presidential candidate, but since she was a woman, the Press changed the standard.  Suddenly Governor meant "inexperienced."

I'm informed by my Christian faith when it comes to apologies.  I'm usually very accepting of them.  I'm not a pundit who automatically rips into an apology as "insincere"  when a celebrity apologizes.  I see pundits on TV do that all the time.

I'm a Catholic.  Accepting apologies to me is as important as making them.  It actually becomes an obligation when the apologist meets the standard:  1) He's truly sorry for the offense; 2) His intention is never to repeat it; 3) He does a penance for the transgression.  When that happens, accepting the apology becomes my burden, and I'm wrong if I don't accept it.

For the first time, I didn't buy an "apology" by a celebrity.  David Letterman came on TV and repeated that "It was just a joke."  We know Dave, an awful one.  That's why you are in trouble.  He made more jokes and laughed along with his audience as he made this "apology" but continued to deny his actions by saying in effect, "This is what I do."

This wasn't an apology, but a rationalization that what he did was OK.

My friend Andy Garruto copied my on an email he sent to the CBS brass about Letterman.  Here it is:

Dear Nina Tassler, Kelly Kahl, Kim Sartori, and Les Moonves:

In the last few years, Dave has been moving from comedian to liberal activist – the Sarah Palin jokes go too far, and the jokes about her daughter (whether or not he was talking about 14 year old or the 18 year old) are way out of bounds.  And to make matters worse, he responds to the Palin family’s criticism with ridicule instead of an apology.

You guys should be ashamed.

You’ve lost me as a viewer, except to check on who is still advertising. 

I'd like to encourage all of you to write your own personal email to the CBS brass asking for David Letterman to be fired.

Here is their respective emails:

nina.tassler@cbs.com; kelly.kahl@cbs.com; kim.sartori@cbs.com; lmoonves@cbs.com

On The Radio Tonight w/ Andy Caldwell Talking About Obama Flipping Off Gays

Please tune in today to Andy Caldwell's show.  He's the most informative and entertaining radio host out there in the People's Republic of California.    His signal is carried on AM1440 and AM1410, but you can listen to him live on the Internet by clicking here.

Andy invited me on to talk about this column I wrote, also being carried on Fox News (with lots of crazy comments there!), about Barack Obama flipping his long, skinny middle finger at the Gay and Lesbian Community, who appear to have given him more than 80% of their votes.

Hope you can join Andy and me Thursday at 6:30 pm Eastern.

Left-Winger Filled With Hate Kills At Holocaust Museum

Why am I referring to James W. von Brunn, the Holocaust Museum shooter, as "left-wing?"  I'm being as sloppy and ill-informed as those who call him "right-wing."  Google already lists over 52,000 links to the story including the words "right-wing."

Exactly what leads the media to believe he is "right-wing?"  Is he a champion of the theories of Adam Smith?  John Locke?  Is he a supply-sider and champion of the Laffer Curve?  Was he studying Milton Friedman?

This is just another in a long line of attempts by media to make every violent nut-job an associate of the American political right, when in fact there is no basis for it whatsoever.

We saw it last week with the shooting death of Dr. Tiller the abortionist.  People started talking about his killer in terms of "right-wing," and worse, even called him "pro-life."  What a joke.  Anyone who kills is the antithesis of pro-life and can't be labeled as such.

Worse yet was media attempts to straddle Tiller's death on those of us who speak out against his violent abortion practice of birthing a baby and crushing her skull. The claim media makes is that speaking out against Dr. Tiller may have caused his killer to shoot him.  A prominent victim of such ridiculous claims was Bill O'Reilly.

There was some palpable outrage on the right about double standards the following day, when no one blamed Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann or President Obama himself for their visceral stance against the war in Iraq when an opponent of that war opened fire and killed military recruiter William Long.

Not that anyone should blame those people; it's a nonsequitur. Those people are no more responsible for the actions of the scum that killed William Long than Bill O'Reilly is responsible for the creep that killed the awful Dr. Tiller.

I'll give you another example of a story the media WON'T claim, but I guarantee you if we had a Republican president the media would stretch until they ripped to make this story work.

James W. von Brunn is a Holocaust denier who shot and killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum.  Did any prominent person recently challenge him? Did an important public figure recently call him out, rile him up and push him over the edge toward violence?  Take a look at this video from 5 days ago:

Now, am I claiming that Barack Obama's comments were the proximate cause that made von Brunn shoot the guard at the Holocaust Museum?  No, that would be stupid.  But you can bet if we had a Republican President the nexus would not only be alleged by media but accepted as a universal fact.

How do I know?  Look at their current coverage of Dr. Tiller's shooting, being blamed on the "right-wing" as is von Brunn's shooting. The media are doing now to the right what they refuse to do to the left.

The media math is clear - all killers = right wing, minus those who kill babies.  Baby killers are civil rights heroes to be compared to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Good grief.

Ask Me Who The Leader of The Republican Party Is

The caption of this post reads like a button a WalMart greeter would wear:  "Ask me for today's green dot specials!"

That there is "no Republican leader" is the media fabrication du jour.  Actually du jour is misleading - it should be "du decades."  The media always claims Republicans are leaderless and they contribute to the public perception of that with false reporting.

USA today did another hit-job on the GOP today, with a front-and-center-above-the-fold attack claiming the Republican Party is leaderless.

Let me be clear - Since January 20, 2009 the leaders of the Republican Party have been its 2 leaders as recognized in Congress - Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House.  Those are the two most influential people in the party because they have the most ability to influence our lives.

Why is it that the average American couldn’t pick McConnell and Boehner out of a lineup?  Because when the media asks what Republicans are thinking, they instinctively seek comment not from them, but from Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter and others.

Yet when the media asks what Democrats think, they do ask Obama, Reid and Pelosi - never Olbermann or Chris Matthews.  The classic double standard.

Folks like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are very insightful, but understand how not being elected officials and having provocative opinions as the wares they sell make them different from McConnell and Boehner.

McConnell and Boehner have to represent everyone of all political thought persuasions, where Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do not.  McConnell and Boehner have to get elected from the entire populace, where Limbaugh and Coulter do not.

Even when their ideas are the same as McConnell and Boehner, the packaging and presentation of those ideas will be different when Limbaugh and Coulter give them.

What was my “ah ha!” moment when I first realized, then independently confirmed, this media trick of never asking Republican elected leaders for a quote so the public won't know them? When I read it in one of Coulter’s books, of course! She has pointed out the problem that the media hides our elected officials who are accountable to the public behind pundits who are accountable to no one.

I appreciate greatly the insights of folks like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele and others, but I've never voted for them, nor have they asked me to do so.  If the media wants to know what Republicans are thinking, the only fair thing to do is to ask the Republicans we voted for.

By the way, here is what they look like:

 

Senator Mitch McConnell (R)                       Congressman John Bohner (R)

Both men make a very dignified presentation.

So here is how USA Today portrays the Republican leadership on the front page today:

 

  Illustration by Keith Simmons, USA TODAY

Not very subtle - USA today shows the Republicans as large headed cartoons who are (excepting McCain) unelected people.  Republicans have no real image problem, just one fabricated by USA Today.

Here is how USA today describes the Republican "leaders:"

"So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate [emphasis supplied]."

All white?  Really?  Did the editors at USA Today miss Michael Steele in their own drawing?  Of course they did - look how small they made him.

All men?  Has the media forget their infatuation with Sarah Palin?  Give them 10 minutes - they'll attack her again.

Oh and thanks USA Today for referring to Republicans has having "strident voices" (meaning harsh, grading and shrill). Nothing like slipping a little editorializing into your "reporting."

Note well that Republicans are not so infatuated with the idea of having a "leader" anyway.  We aren't "sheeple" like the Democrats.  We Republicans are rugged individuals, depending on ourselves to find our own way, not leaders to guide us. That's Americanism in its purest form.

If you ask the average true-conservative Republican who his or her earthly leader is, don't be surprised when that individual says, "I am," referring to themselves.

But the media can't interview each one of us.  If the media wants to know what Republicans are thinking, they should interview Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

 

Will Be On The Andy Caldwell Show Thursday at 6:30 pm Eastern

Ever heard Andy Caldwell's show?  He's the most informative and entertaining radio host out in the People's Republic of California.    His signal is carried on AM1440 and AM1410, but you can listen to him live on the Internet by clicking here.

Andy invited me on to talk about this column I wrote, also being carried on Fox News (with lots of crazy comments there!), about Barack Obama flipping his long, skinny middle finger at the Gay and Lesbian Community, who appear to have given him more than 80% of their votes.

Hope you can join Andy and me Thrusday at 6:30 pm Eastern.

Don't Ask...Don't Ask? Obama Snubs Gays Again

Barack Obama vs Gays. 

His administration won the case of Pietrangelo v. Gates, a challenge to "Don't Ask Don't Tell." The Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. Don't Ask Don't Ask.

The Obama Administration took the position that keeping Gays out  of the military is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

The knee-jerk reaction is to get caught up in the "discipline and cohesion" argument.  Forget it. The more important words are the legalese "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest." It's a phrase of important legal meaning.

Under Constitutional law, government can only outlaw a "fundamental right" if there is a "compelling state interest" to do so. For instance, I have the fundamental right to travel, but a compelling interest in stopping me from traveling with anthrax in my pocket exists. Stopping me from traveling with a blue shirt on isn't compelling, so such a law would fail.

However, if the right involved is lesser, or not a "fundamental" right, then the government does not need a "compelling state interest" to curtail it.  The curtailment of the right need only be "rationally related to a legitimate state interest."  That's an easier burden to meet.

In short, the Obama administration took the position that equality for gays is less than "fundamental." Therefore, they don't need a compelling interest to curtail the rights of Gays, only an interest related to their goal of doing so.

The Gay and Lesbian community did not see this train coming at them, just like they didn't see it coming with Bill Clinton.  In fact, Gays refused to see how Bill Clinton opposed them even when he did.

Early in his Presidency Bill Clinton ditched his campaign promise to integrate the military and instead implemented "Don't Ask Don't Tell."  There was an incident at the White House while receiving some Gay and Lesbian leaders when Clinton's staff wore rubber gloves. Before leaving office, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which holds one state does not have to recognize a gay marriage from another state, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution be damned.

I'm always astonished when Gay and Lesbian people look at Clinton's Presidency favorably.

I suspect that unless there is a change in Gay and Lesbian political rhetoric, they will pretend Obama isn't hurting them either. Gay and Lesbian people seem to be in an abusive relationship with Democrats.  No matter how many times the Democrats hurt them, Gays just keep coming back.

A rallying cry for Gays has been to oppose a measure often cited by Republicans - to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

I can understand their opposition.  As a conservative I'm hesitant to tinker with the Constitution, in particular to take a document originally written as a shield to protect people from government  and turn it into a sword of the government against people.  That's a very anti-conservative idea.

What I've never understood is why Gay and Lesbian people are not as equally vociferous in their opposition to Democrat plans to let state voting decide.  Most studies put Gays at less than 5% of the population.  Which Democrat thought it to be a good idea to put the rights of Gays to a popular vote when they are outnumbered 95 to 5?

Also, would the Democrats support putting Black people's civil rights up to a popular vote or a vote in a state legislature?  How about Latino civil rights or Asian civil rights?  Isn't the whole idea of the Constitution that we don't allow such votes, and rather than having "Gay" rights" or "Black rights" or "White rights" or "Latino rights" or "Asian rights," aren't we all supposed to have the same civil rights?

The Democrat idea for dealing with Gay and Lesbian civil rights is far worse than the Republican idea. The Democrat idea of putting rights to a popular vote puts our entire Constitutional Republic in jeopardy. 

The various and sundry organizations who claim to represent Gay and Lesbian people could not have overstated more the case for Barack Obama when he was elected as to what his election would mean for causes they care about.

Take a look at this article from the Windy City Times in Chicago, appearing the day following the election last November.  The point of it was that Obama mentioned Gays in his speeches.  Indeed he did, and according to the article, that gave Gays some Barackian hope for some Obamian change. 

Think about that - the mere mention of them by Obama gave Gays hope, not even the mention of a policy about them. The level of investment by Gays in Obama was extreme.  Check out some of these lines from the article:

"...U.S. Sen. Barack Obama won the White House Nov. 4. The triumph not only marked an historic moment in American history—with his election as the first African American as president—but a dramatic improvement in the political climate in Washington, D.C., for LGBT people."

"Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese characterized Obama's win as a 'paradigm shift' for LGBT people. 'The pendulum has swung away from the anti-gay forces that dominated the political landscape for too long and toward new leadership that acknowledges our equality.'"

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called Obama's election 'the dawn of a new political era of hope' that 'brings a promise for a sea change in the tenor of the national dialogue on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.'

The article then goes on to give statistics from exit polling in districts with large Gay and Lesbian populations showing the strong voter support given by Gays to Obama. Noting that traditionally Gays and Lesbians vote Democratic 70 to 75 %, exit polling found the following support for Obama in districts heavily populated by Gays:

- Provincetown, Mass., 87 percent of voters supported Obama;

- San Francisco, 85 percent;

- Philadelphia's 2nd and 5th wards, 83 percent;

- Dupont Circle ( Precinct 15 ) in Washington, D.C.89 percent;

- Precinct 1233 in Dallas, 63 percent;

- Chicago's 44th Ward, 86 percent.

Has the Gay and Lesbian investment in Obama paid off?  Of course not.  As usual, the Democrats took the Gay and Lesbian votes and ran.

On the issue of integrating the military and repealing "don't ask don't tell,"  the Obama Administration has thus far told Gays that the President has no time for them, that he is too busy to deal with it now.  He has relegated them to the unimportant status of the proverbial back burner.

That he will deal with it at all is belied by Obama's position in the Pietrangelo case.

Surrounding the Carrie Prejean Miss USA controversy, it really came to light that Obama, like Ms. Prejean and George W. Bush, believes marriage is between a man and a woman.  If Obama believes as Bush, Gay and Lesbian hope for change was certainly misplaced.

Obama has done great damage to Gay rights by taking a position that their  civil rights are less than fundamental.  Several Courts have already said so regarding marriage, and if the Supreme Court ever hears such a case, Obama has established another precedent against Gays with the Pietrangelo case.

Five percent in any election is important.  The smart political play for Gays  would be to declare themselves officially unaffiliated with both parties, and declare the first party to actually take up their cause will get their votes.

Why I'm Buying A Used Foreign Car

Fox News is running my column on this issue.

Read it here.

Let me know what you think!

Tommy.

Reuters Still Helping Obama Switch From "Create" Jobs to "Save" Jobs

Last month I reported to you how Reuters was not only giving Obama a pass on ditching a campaign promise, they were helping him cover it up.

Obama promised to "create" jobs, but now that the time has come to put up or shut up, he has quietly changed his position to "saving" jobs.  The difference of course is that there is no way to know if a job was ever saved, and no way to count it.

Reuters has even let Obama get away with claiming a loss of jobs is some sort of victory, because without his intervention, there would be even more jobs lost.  As said, there is no way to count it.  He could claim every soul in America would be without a job if it weren't for his intervention and Reuters would print it.

Reuters is up to it again today.  Note again how they've adopted his rhetoric on this "saving jobs" nonsense.  You'd think they would ask him to prove it just once.

Dishonest journalism = Reuters.

Only When Obama Is Prez Is The Loss of 345,000 Jobs Good News!

The numbers are out today, and it looks like another 345,000 Americans lost income for their families in one month.  Another one-third of a million Americans who might have difficulty making mortgage payments, car payments, tuition payments, utility payments or even buying food.

Those Americans for sure will suffer anxiety from family support being in jeopardy.

Horrible news, right?

Not if Barack Obama is President!   The media will paint bad news as good news so long as their man Obama is at the helm.  They'll even paint it as GREAT NEWS!

Check out this MSNBC screen shot from this morning:

Best in 8 months!!!  You 345,000 who lost your jobs in a month should just shut up and throw a party!  Invite Obama and the media!

Good grief.

Obama’s Christian-Muslim Double Standard: Our First Dhimmi President

With every speech he gives, President Obama goes further and further in diminishing Christianity in America while inflating Muslims here and around the world.

 

For Americans this appears to be at best an incredibly bad choice of rhetoric or at worst the manifestation of a prejudice hidden in Obama, finally making its way out.

 

To Muslims though, it has a much deeper meaning tied to the concept of “Dhimmi,” the subjugation of other religions to Islam. I’ll define that in more detail at the end of this column, but first let’s examine the proof that Obama is diminishing Christians while inflating Muslims.

 

It started in a speech he gave in 2007 when he stated, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation.”  At that same speech he criticized Christian leaders, claiming they have used their religion for political purposes. 

 

I guess he thinks “Jihad” is a Christian word.

 

He repeated again that “America is not a Christian nation” a few weeks later.  Little was made of it during the Presidential campaign because the media protected Obama from controversy at all costs.  Either that or they just didn’t grasp for themselves the “Dhimmi” implications Obama’s words had for Muslims around the world.

 

One of his campaign promises was to give a speech “in a major Muslim capital” in his first 100 days in office.

 

The only such speech he made was in Turkey.  At a press conference before his speech, Obama said, "[O]ne of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”

 

He went on to say that America is also not a Muslim or Jewish nation, but no one has ever assumed that.  His point therefore was to once again make sure the world knew he doesn’t consider America, comprised of 78.5% Christians, a “Christian nation.”

 

Three times in two years is enough, Mr. President.  I fully understand you don’t consider America a “Christian nation.”

 

Perhaps what the President is referring to is that America has a secular government.  We do, after all, have a secular Constitutional Republic that explicitly allows no state religion while allowing the practice of any religion.

 

The question then becomes does he see nations that are majority Muslim the same way?  Has he made it a point to tell them three times they are not “Muslim nations?” In hypocritical fashion, no he hasn’t.

 

If Turkey was his first speech in a “Muslim capital,” why does he call it that? Like America, Turkey is a secular Constitutional Republic that explicitly allows no state religion while allowing the practice of any religion. See the double standard? According to Obama, Turkey is Muslim but America is not Christian.

 

In his speech in Turkey, as with his speech today in Egypt, President Obama told of his being from a “Majority-Muslim” nation – Indonesia. “Majority-Muslim” is Obama double speak that allows him to point out the Muslim aesthetic of a country without saying “Muslim Nation.” Again, note the double standard.  Like America and Turkey, Indonesia is a secular Constitutional Republic with no state religion while allowing religious freedom.

 

To further diminish American Christianity and inflate Muslim presence here, on June 1^st President Obama told French television, “If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."  In his speech in Cairo today, he put the number of Muslims in America at 7 million.

 

According to the CIA World Factbook, there are only 1.8 million Muslims here.  President Einstein miscalculated by almost 400%. 

 

He isn’t even right about the USA Muslim population being “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Assuming his overinflated number, there are between 30 and 35 countries with more Muslims than we have, and if we stop him from lying and use the real number, the American Muslim community ranks about 50^th in size. Certainly not one of the largest.

 

Once again we see an attempt by Obama to inflate Muslims by overstating their size and saying America would be “one of the largest Muslim countries,” but three times he has insisted America is “not a Christian country,” despite that we are ranked #1 in the world in Christian population and the birthday of Christ is an American national holiday.

 

The significance of Obama’s attempts to raise the Muslim status into something bigger than it is, while diminishing Christianity, is tied to the concept of what in the Muslim world is termed “Dhimmi.”

 

“Dhimmi” is a status historically given to Christians and Jews in Muslim countries.  It is a lesser legal status with lesser rights. Political rights are curtailed. The practice of Christianity and Judaism is allowed only by accepting the subjugation of those religions to Islam, and Christians and Jews pay a tax to the Muslims.  The entire concept revolves around the idea of accepting that Christians and Jews are lesser people, while Muslims are greater people.

 

Obama has made no bones about his wanting to get on the good side of Muslim nations.  He clearly has no reservations about diminishing Christians, consistent with Muslim “Dhimmi” tradition, to do so.  Sadly, it’s a racist gesture.

Internet Debate over Sotomayor!

I've been invited to take part in an all day Internet Debate by PublicSquare.net.  The other participants are Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, and Ron Buckmire, a college professor and Gay Rights activist who blogs with the pseudonym "The Mad Professah."

I did the first post at 9:00 am today and we should be posting responses to one another throughout the
day.

Here is the link to the debate:

http://www.publicsquare.net/bloggerheads/

I hope you will participate by leaving some comments!

We're Number 1!

The rankings from Alexa show that Justified Right has a higher US Ranking than all other independently run Political Blogs in New Jersey, counting those on both the left and the right.

Not bad for a conservative in a blue state!

Thank you loyal readers!

Olbermann Punked By Mancow’s Waterboarding Hoax

What do you call the dumbest sportscaster in the world?  The smartest political analyst on MSNBC.

 In case you aren't one of the few people who watch Keith Olbermann's show, let me introduce you to him.  He’s a sportscaster who now has a political show on the lowest rated of the three cable news networks. MSNBC once had Olbermann doing political analysis while paired with Chris Matthew's leg. The two were so biased toward the left side of politics that MSNBC, an unabashedly liberal network, had to break them up.  Olbermann is the one who while speaking tends to change his voice to a weird, garbled noise that makes him sound like Scooby Doo.

A hallmark of Olbermann's show is that under no circumstances will he ever have on a guest who disagrees with him.  Whether you are a fan or not of the political shows on Fox News, their hosts constantly have on people who hold opinions different than the host.  Adversaries make for political conversations instead of dictates.  Even a liberal such as Bill Maher on his HBO show gets high marks for having on conservatives who disagree with him. Olbermann distorts the truth on his show so much he won’t dare have on a guest who will expose him.

Who is Mancow?  A radio "shock jock" from Chicago. He's a Howard Stern knock-off in a long line of Howard Stern knock-offs who collectively prove the point that as with photocopiers and fax machines, copies are never as good as the original.

Olbermann and Mancow were on two different sides of the debate about whether waterboarding is "torture," with Olbermann believing so and Mancow believing no.  Of course I've never seen or heard either of them flash on the television screen or read on the radio the actual definition of torture as contained in the Geneva or UN Conventions, but they aren't alone in that.  I've watched hundreds of talking heads opine on television whether waterboarding is or isn't torture without making a single reference to the only legal documents that actually answer the question. “What is torture?” is a legal question, not a question to be decided by whether Christopher Hitchens enjoyed himself while doing it, or if President Obama likes it.

So Mancow, who is billed by the media as a conservative (without supplying a reason that proves it) decided he would be waterboarded on his radio show.  After 6 seconds of water poured onto his face he sprang up and declared he has changed his mind and now believes waterboarding is torture.  And the liberal heavens parted.

Although Mancow is someone liberals heretofore wouldn't spit on were he on fire, they suddenly believed Mancow's words as they would the word of God (or the word of Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't believe in God).  Liberal pundits and nutroot liberal blogs believed they could now make the same call little league baseball players make on a close play at second base when a teammate of the runner thinks he was out:  "See, that's your own man saying so!"  As if Mancow were an RNC spokesperson.

No one seized on the Mancow claim that waterboarding is torture with as much zeal as Keith Olbermann, who dedicated a segment on his show to Mancow's waterboarding.  Risking completely his reputation on Mancow and moving his chips all in, Olbermann actually said, "The torture debate ended today." Incredible.

Enter the website Gawker, who makes it their job to beat up celebrities.  Gawker is like the TV show South Park - if they beat up someone you don't like and you declare yourself a fan, next week they are likely to beat up someone you do like and you'll have to eat your words.  Love Gawker or hate them, a hat tip goes to them for blowing the lid off of Olbermann being punked by Mancow, because his waterboarding was a hoax and his opinion that it was "torture" was predetermined.

Gawker published emails from behind the scenes at Mancow's show admitting the waterboarding was a hoax.  Specifically, one email came from Mancow's publicist, Linda Schafran, whose other clients include the likes of Jerry Springer.  While looking for someone to play the role of Mancow’s waterboarding interrogator, Linda was asked in an email if Mancow would "really be tortured?"  In reply, Linda emailed the following answer revealing the waterboarding would be faked:

"It is going to have to look "real" but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning. It will be a hoax but have to look real. Would be great if they could dress in fatigues and bring whatever is needed. We will supply the water"

Game, set, match.  Knowing now that this was a phony stunt to make it look like waterboarding, a review of the video shows how it was faked.

In actual waterboarding, the terrorist's head is on a decline so gravity can pull water up his nose.  Not only was Mancow's head not on a decline, you can hear him tell the "interrogator" to hold his nose closed with his fingers - not once but twice - even grabbing the interrogators hand at one point to direct him to pinch his nose in the right place (who was running this event?  The “interrogator” later admitted to Gawker he never did this before).

There is one camera on Mancow's left, but another video shows it from Mancow's right.  In the camera on his right you get a clear shot that Mancow CLOSED HIS LIPS when the water came down.  The "interrogator" then pours the water on his neck and chest, as Mancow spits what little water entered his mouth.  When he returns to Mancow's mouth, Mancow hops up from the procedure.  All in 6 seconds.  Mancow then blows his nose, obviously a theatrical effect since he had made sure the interrogator held his nose tight.

The best evidence that Mancow barely got a drop was the sound of his voice upon popping up.  Christopher Hitchens, whose waterboarding was at least real, described how it causes your throat to involuntarily tighten.  In that video you can see Christopher flushed, laboring for breath and speech after his waterboarding.  Mancow began a monologue when he got up.  He was not red faced like Hitchens nor was his voice different.  I doubt he took in any water at all.  This was, by the admission of Mancow's staff after all, a hoax.

So Gawker nailed Mancow on his hoax, but Olbermann's problem was he already invested in it as real.  Keith had 2 choices:  Take the high road and admit he'd been had, or continue the hoax at considerable expense to his integrity.  He chose the latter.

Mancow could have saved face by admitting the hoax and having Ashton Kutcher join him in telling Olbermann, “You’ve been punked!” but he too took the low road.

On Friday, May 29, Olbermann had Mancow on his show for damage control.  The best they could come up with was "please don't believe the email."  According to them, the email only says it’s a hoax “one time” (as if one time isn't enough).  To the contrary, it says so 5 times.  Let me highlight those 5 times in the email:

"It is going to have to look "real" but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning. It will be a hoax but have to look real."

If the waterboarding was going to be real, the answer to the question whether it was going to be real would have been a simple "yes," not the quadruple no Schafran put in her email.

Then Mancow and Olbermann went below gutter level to try to deflect attention from their ruse.  Mancow compared his 6-second face wash to the tragic, accidental hanging death of Mike Tyson's 4-year-old daughter last week. Disgusting. Normally Olbermann would spend a week of outrage on that atrocity, giving Mancow a worst person award for life.  Blinded by self-interest, Olbermann didn't even wince. Stay classy, MSNBC.

For another deflection of the spotlight that cooks him, Olbermann keeps pointing out that Sean Hannity has never been waterboarded (which is somehow a license for Olbermann to conduct a Nixonian cover up?).  Let's look at the reason why it would be useless for Hannity to be waterboarded; as useless as it was for Hitchens to be and for Mancow to pretend to be.

Will Hannity choke on the water and experience anxiety when waterboarded?  Of course - we don't do it to terrorists to make their stay pleasant.  Hannity will turn red, cough and have to catch his breath like Hitchens did.  A minute later he will be fine though, which is why this isn't torture.  For torture - see John McCain's arm, which will never heal.

More to the point though, Hannity will not be asked by his "interrogator" to give up a wanted secret, just as Hitchens and Mancow were not asked.  That's the point of waterboarding - to scare someone into giving information.  Simulations designed to prove waterboarding is uncomfortable and scary only proves what we already know.

Were I to be experimentally waterboarded, I'd insist on first having a secret the "interrogator" wanted badly and then see if he can get me to say it by waterboarding.

There are two reasons why liberals who claim waterboarding is torture will never agree to such a test.  If I didn't spill the secret after waterboarding, that would weigh against their argument that it is a severe technique that is torture.  If I DID spill the secret, they would have to admit it works, which they are desperate not to do.  That is exactly why President Obama refuses to agree to Dick Cheney’s request to release memos that reveal the secrets given to us by the 3 terrorist we waterboarded. The President doesn't want to admit waterboarding worked while only scaring, not torturing, the terrorists.

The debate over waterboarding being torture or not rests not with simulations but with a review of the Geneva and UN Conventions (a debate I invite).  All we've really confirmed with experiments and simulations is that Hitchens is too out of shape to hold his breath a few seconds and “the Sportscaster” and “Howard Stern-lite” have no credibility, which we already knew.