Justified Right

The Left and Disaster Politics

The images from Haiti couldn’t be any worse.  Collapsing buildings create unbearable injuries.  For an American, dead and live bodies trapped in rubble conjure up the worst memories from 9/11. 

Your soul instinctively gears to help and charity, particularly since poverty has made Haitians the economic least of our brothers.  There is nothing else to think about when people need so much help, so fast, than easing their suffering.

Unless you have the soul of left wing politics…then a natural disaster is an opportunity to score points and create election year talking points.

After the 2004 Tsunami, as the world leaped to help, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs Jan Egeland took the time to call Western countries “stingy” in their donations.

Egeland immediate found favor with his comrades at the NY Times, who agreed with him that America is stingy.

Of course we didn’t hear from Jan Egeland when the U.S. government out paced every other country on earth by pledging $950 million in aid. Or when the American people, perennially and by far the most generous on earth, gave a whopping $1.8 billion dollars, exceeding the combined giving of the next 3 countries in the world.   And even though America is 1 of 192 countries in the U.N., we pay 22% of its cost.  Talk about a U.N. official biting the hand that feeds him.

Compare that to the rhetoric of the left today regarding Haiti, now that America’s administration is also on the left.  On Huffington Post, Columbia University professor Steven Cohen has already opined that America’s response in Haiti must be great because, “The role of the United States in the world and in this hemisphere is being redefined.”     Redefined?  We’ve always been in 1^st place in giving.  What shall President Obama redefine us to, second place?  Third Place?

As usual, the base of the Democrat party can be found on Daily Kos, and as usual, they hold the most base and morally low opinions humans can fall to.  A post about helping the Haitian people deteriorated into comments blaming the earthquake on “global warming” and bashing conservatives, including President George W. Bush.

The left suffers from a strange affliction of blaming George Bush for the weather.  That was highlighted when Hurricane Katrina killed hundreds of people, giving it a rank of number 27 on the list of the most deadly hurricanes in this hemisphere that George Bush didn’t cause, and not even the deadliest America suffered.   But the left widely blamed him for it.

Of course when the weather killed 600 mostly poor, African Americans in 1995 via a heat wave, the right didn’t blame Bill Clinton for the deaths or his lack of prevention or response, because we on the right are smart enough to know the President doesn’t control the weather.   And we were probably too busing helping at the time, since a study shows that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

The only thing good people can do right now is donate to the Haitians and work for them to save them as best we can.   And when the left starts complaining about the manner and extent to which we helped, we’ll just have to continue to help them too, in spite of it.

Telling It Like It Is

America will help Haitian earthquake victims because we are a Christian nation, even if Barack Obama says we're not.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

The Ethics of Paying For News Interviews

 

No one will tell you to wash your face, so you can look better than they do.  Sicilian Proverb

 

What a scam news organizations have been running all these years!  

 

Imagine any other industry in the world declaring it “unethical” for them to have to pay for the raw material they use to make and sell their product. 

 

Wouldn’t the electric companies love it were the world to believe it is unethical for coal companies to charge them for coal?   The electric companies would make a fortune off the free coal, but the coal industry would be turned into slaves, supplying all that coal for free.   Of course, the coal company would just stop producing coal if no one paid for it.

 

Wouldn’t the construction industry love it were the world to believe it is unethical for sheet rock companies to charge them for sheet rock?   The construction companies would make a fortune off the free sheet rock, but the sheet rock industry would be turned into slaves, supplying sheet rock for free. Of course, sheet rock companies would just stop producing sheet rock if no one paid for it.

 

The whole thing sounds very anti-capitalist - telling one group they may not profit from selling their own product, while the people making that rule do profit from it.

 

Yet news organizations have successfully pulled off this scam for decades.  They refuse to pay money for an interview with someone in the news, while they make gobs of money themselves off that person’s interview.

 

But the landscape may be changing.  According to an Associated Press report, network television has been skirting around the “no pay for interviews” rule by purchasing items from the interviewee, such as photos of events the interviewee witnessed.

 

They should ditch the rule altogether, and people giving interviews to newspapers and television should insist on a price.

 

Take a look at the phony “problem” the news industry claims could occur if they pay for interviews, according to the Associated Press story: 

 

“Policies against paying for interviews are in place to avoid distorting the news. The concern is that news subjects will change their stories to make them more valuable or please those who paid them.”

 

But doesn’t that same concern exist when the news organization tries to “sell the story” to the public to get ratings and get paid by advertisers?   NBC putting explosives under a truck and falsely reporting that the truck blew up from a collision rings a bell. Jayson Blair made a career out of fabricating stories in the New York Times.  And who could forget Dan Rather’s forged document scandal that appeared to end his career at CBS News? 

 

All humans being equal, there’s no more or less concern for members of the public telling the truth than there is for journalists lying.  Fact checking is the guarantor of truth, and who is getting paid money for their time and effort has nothing to do with it.

 

As we know from “balloon boy’s” father, attention whores like him will falsify stories whether they are getting paid or not.  Money is not the corrupting factor – ego is - and journalists have to fact check regardless of the interviewee, whether they are interviewing Bill Clinton about Monica or Mother Teresa about lepers.

 

The Associated Press article details the “new trend” of paying for peripherals like videos or expensive plane tickets and hotels for the interviewee, and quotes Paul Friedman, a veteran of CBS news who laments, "If we all drew a line again, maybe we could stop this, but that's probably hopelessly naive. It's out of the bottle."

 

Out of the bottle, and let’s pray the cork is lost.

 

This issue is akin to intellectual property, as when a musician has a song.

 

Until a witness to an event tells his story, there is no story.  A singer shouldn’t give his melody away to iTunes to make money alone, and neither should a person with an eyewitness account give away his story to the media for free.

 

It’s a capitalist country.    Sell what you can, and never let the other guy get yours for free. 

Will Smith Inspired

Old and Busted: "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job!"

New Hotness: "The system worked!"

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

A Dozen Upside Down Things In 2009

 

2009 is a weird year, where things are upside down - opposite of what they should be or usually are.  Here’s a list of events that were inverted or backward this year:

 

1. An airline pilot became famous for sailing in the Hudson, not over it.

 

2. The IRS was headed by a man who didn’t pay his taxes.

 

3. The President, a community organizer, belittled Tea Partiers for…community organizing.

 

4. Instead of buying new cars and destroying them, the US government bought a new fleet of destroyed cars.

 

5. Carrie Prejean, who said, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose” gay marriage, became a rallying point for people opposed to gay marriage.

 

6. Wall Street became socialist takers and the Chinese became capitalist lenders.

 

7. A man who was arrested got invited to the White House for drinks, and a couple who weren’t invited may be arrested for going.

 

8. During a speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama accused his opposition of lying, and Joe Wilson was sanctioned for calling the President a liar a moment later.

 

9. In a failed attempt to become famous, Balloon Boy’s father became famous.

 

10. After years of parents and teachers telling kids not to wipe their noses with their sleeves, the US government told kids to sneeze into their sleeves to fight H1N1.

 

11. Instead of hitting with a golf club, Tiger Woods may have been hit by one.

 

12. A Nobel Peace Prize winner sent 30,000 troops to war.

 

Year New Happy!

 

 

Abortion - The Slippery Slope To Killing More People

If you don't think Abortion in general cheapens life and causes people to make excuses for violence, watch this video.

If you still don't think so - if you still don't think innocent life is worth protecting, then don't complain to me when liberals make an excuse for killing you:

Justified Right Quoted In The NY Daily News

Along with Newt Gingrich and Tom Friedman!!!

Read it here.

Palin and Shatner - Sure To Be Classic TV!

Obama's Jekyll and Hyde Nobel Speech

Just prior to President Obama’s arrival in Oslo to accept the Nobel Prize, millions of Norwegians were captivated by an unexplained spiraling halo in the sky. While the president’s most fanatical supporters will herald the light as a messianic celestial event comparable to the star of Bethlehem, his detractors will be equally sure that it is the beginning of the apocalyptic black hole the next three years of Obama’s presidency are sure to bring.

Some scientists are beginning to assure us that the light was generated by a wayward Russian missile -- as if wayward Russian missiles are reassuring.

President Obama did not have time for sky-watching. As a wartime President receiving a Peace Prize, The president had, as Ricky used to say to Lucy, “some ‘splainin' to do.”

He began his speech by admitting his award was not for any achievement toward peace, but his “aspiration” to obtain peace. Upon hearing that, my 12-year-old asked me if he could receive an A on his math test not because he passed it, but because he aspired to pass it. 

Having better sense than a Nobel committee member, I told him no.

The Peace Prize winner then launched into a commercial for war, albeit a “just war.” He wavered between a peaceful Dr. Jekyll and a rapacious Mr. Hyde: He called for “international standards” for the use of force but in the same sentence cancelled that out with a “unilateral right” for a country to defend herself.

It has been noted by some that over the last decade the Peace Prize is lately been given to people for “not being George Bush” (see Carter, Gore and El-Baradei). Yet on the issue of war, the Nobel Committee was hoping for “Bush minus” not “Bush squared.”

Obama has proved to be “Bush on steroids” when it comes to war. Since winning the Peace Prize he has not created any peace but he's tripled the amount of troops in Afghanistan that Bush left him with. In his speech today Obama noted that those soldiers will both “kill and be killed.” One has to wonder if Gandhi, mentioned by Obama in his speech (who never won the Peace Prize himself) would disagree about killing being in any way “peaceful.”

Obama then went all in as Mr. Hyde, and adopted “The Bush Doctrine” in his speech. He noted that sometimes “the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense.” The president sees it as moral to protect people from their own governments, even if America is not at risk (as in the Balkans). That thinking creates a moral groundwork to rescue the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or no.

It appeared Obama was just about to praise military men like or Patton or MacArthur, but then he slipped back into Dr. Jekyll mode and honored Dr. King.

That this award can even be given to a man who thus far has created no peace but governs two wars confirms that the Nobel Peace Prize is now nothing more than the “Norwegian People’s Choice Award” and carries the same gravitas as having a Hollywood Star in front of Mann’s Chinese Theater.

DALTON FURY. WHY WE SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE TROOPS IN TORA BORA

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had a rather human approach to war.  The kind of approach that I image those who oppose war would have taken if they were forced to go.

Bush and Rumsfeld tried to use as few troops as possible in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The thinking was that the fewer men they used, the fewer Americans who would be killed, the fewer of the enemy who would be killed and the fewer civilians who would accidentally be killed.

A kinder and gentler war.

Unfortunately, war doesn't work that way.  Wars are won by overwhelming force (see WWII) and not by being small and surgical (see Vietnam).

While I usually deplore all things CBS, particularly 60 Minutes (in high school I had a social studies teacher and self-described socialist named Russ Leidy who made us watch a tape of 60 Minutes every Monday morning), but I have to give props to this interview with Delta Force Commander Dalton Fury (pseudonym).

This is fascinating:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Rooting For The White House Party Crashers

 

In the little town where I’m from, Asbury Park NJ, there were no less than 3 men who billed themselves as celebrity party crashers.  And they were good at it.  People would go to their homes to ogle at the hundreds of photographs of these guys standing with every celebrity imaginable, from New York parties they snuck into.

 

Did they get their picture with Presidents?  Easy peasy. They all had pictures with Presidents.  The best “get” I ever heard about was from the master of celebrity party crashers – a cop named Billy Dello.  Billy once crashed a birthday party for Dean Martin that was attended by only 12 people, and he sat right at their table and had dinner.

 

Would these guys be impressed with Tareq and Michaele Salahi, who party crashed the White House state dinner?  No they wouldn’t, for this reason:  The Salahis got caught.  Their party crashing days are over.  One of the secrets to being a successful celebrity party crasher is to be a familiar face and nothing more – when they learn your name and background is when the host throws you out. 

 

I’ve watched supposed legal pundit after supposed legal pundit on TV address whether the Salahis should be charged with an offense.  I laugh at the experts who say “yes” then watch them struggle to say exactly what the Salahis should be charged with. 

 

No crimes were committed by the Salahis.  These people didn’t sneak into the building.  They didn’t break a window and jump in.  They walked right up to the front door and asked to be let in.  Then they were let in.  The people in control of the property eventually INVITED them in.

 

Did they lie at the door about having a previous invitation?  Probably, but here’s a newsflash:  Lying isn’t a crime unless you do it under oath or you are giving a statement to a criminal investigator, and neither was the case here. 

 

Trespass? Give me a break.  They were eventually invited in by the people in control of the property. 

 

If some overzealous prosecutor charges them with anything, I dub that person the dumbest prosecutor on the planet.  They only way a prosecutor will get a conviction is to play the “overcharge game”  - by telling the Salahis, “You can go to trial on Count 1 and risk 10 years in jail, or plead guilty to Count 2 and pay a $50 fine.”  Everybody chooses Count 2.

 

America loves an underdog, and that’s what these people were when they went to the White House door with no invitation, and they beat the system.  Let’s not forget the White House is the people’s house, so I’m not going to get upset that two non-celebrities got to party with the President.   

 

It’s also hysterical to watch political and media mucky mucks be so appalled about mere commoners having eaten at their table, that they would spend the next week discussing whether to arrest them.  Royalty much?

 

I understand the safety implications for the President and the fear of copycats.  The fault there lies not with the Salahis  - that’s the Secret Service’s problem.  Embarrassing the Secret Service or the Administration is not a crime. 

 

The party crashers may have done the Secret Service a favor by making them reassess their procedures.  The Administration is promising to keep New Yorkers safe during the upcoming terror trials, but they can’t keep that pretty blonde lady from sneaking into a party?

 

This story is nothing but fun.  The Congressional hearings today (good grief!) over the incident are a waste of my tax money.  I think it would be hysterical if the Salahis donned disguises and sneaked in!

 

Peace Prize Winner to Muster 30,000 Troops

It was an oration of tight-rope walking rhetoric straight talk on foreign policy.

 

President Obama’s inarticulation speech last night made clear that he has no intention of being bullied by the far left wing of his party terrorists.  He will deliver 75% of General McChrystal’s request for 40,000 30,000 troops to fight in Afghanistan.

 

This is the first time the President has shown real commitment to fighting the war on terror Overseas Contingency Operations. 

 

As a presidential candidate Obama identified Afghanistan as the good talking point war, compared to Iraq, which he labeled a Republican weak point distraction.

 

In his speech, the President’s justification for fighting in Afhganistan was to ask Americans to recall that on September 11, 2001, nineteen jihadists from the religion of peace men hijacked four airplanes and used them to kill nearly 3,000 people commit “a man-caused disaster.”

 

In addition to al-Qaeda, President Obama identified another enemy disputant as The Taliban, who he promised to fight until America achieves victory for a maximum of 18 months.

 

Moving forward, Obama announced a committed to a pander to partner with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust nuclear weapons.

 

Yet in a proclamation of bowing to foreign powers American world leadership, Obama also noted that American’s Afghan war was supported by his daddy the UN Security Council.

 

The speech showed President Obama is a man who makes decisions with a speed and commitment that rivals President Bush Brett Favre.

Guido Goes To College Too, MTV

 

Now comes MTV, in the bigoted footsteps of a show like the Sopranos, with a new show called “Jersey Shore.” It will exploit the worst and most mythological stereotypes about Italians in New Jersey, produced no doubt by people who or neither Italian nor from the Jersey Shore.  

One of the last stereotypes our American pop-culture still believes it is OK to exploit is that of the Italian American – if he’s rich he’s a mobster, if he’s poor he’s too stupid to be a mobster, but in a lovable, illiterate, Joey Tribbiano from “Friends” sort of way. In the movies, Guido never goes to college.  

Why are stereotypes and wiping them out important? Because a stereotype impedes assimilation.  

What is most important to any ethnic group, Italians included, is to assimilate into America – to be thought of as Americans first and our ethnicity second.  That being true, each ethnic group has to obliterate old stereotypes. Culturally you can master the language, clothing, education, business and politics, but a stereotype will be the last lock on the door to assimilation if you can’t pick it.  There will always be something that says “outsider” about a group with a widely accepted stereotype.  

Unfortunately in Pop Culture, it’s Ok to stereotype Italians, because our “identifier” has changed.  We are no longer branded with real names like Galileo and Da Vinci; instead we are identified with fake names like Corleone and Soprano.  

What caused this shift in identifier for Italian Americans?  The movie The Godfather.  

In real life, organized crime had many ethnicities: Dutch Shultz, Bugsy Segal and Meyer Lansky were Jews.  Dion O’Bannion and Bugs Moran were Irish.  Of the Midwest Crime wave including John Dillanger, “Pretty Boy” Floyd, “Baby Face” Nelson, “Ma” Barker, Bonnie & Clyde and “Machine Gun” Kelly, none were Italian. Movies reflected that.  

Then came The Godfather. So successful was it that everyone tried to copy the genre.  After The Godfather more than 400 feature films have been made where the mobsters are JUST Italian, despite the historical inaccuracy.                         

Add to that the TV shows and endless parade of advertisements showing Italians as criminals and clods, and suddenly people forget Marconi invented radio telegraph but remember Moltisanti on the Sopranos fenced radios.  

This stereotype is still “OK” in Hollywood. No other ethnicity suffers from their hurtful stereotype being politically correct.  Imagine an HBO series today about a Step ‘n Fetchit Black family, a drunken Irish family, cheap Jews or dumb Poles.  Those wrong stereotypes haven’t been wiped out, but they are universally reviled and controlled by making a pariah of anyone who uses them.  Yet portraying Italians as murderous, awful, immoral criminals will get you an Emmy.  MTV is counting on that bigotry for their new show.  

I’m not saying other ethnicities don’t take it on the chin – they do.  But when we catch someone being insensitive to Blacks, Jews, Gays, etc., we make them pay for it.   

Don Imus got punished heavily for his “nappy headed hos” joke.  Here’s something no one considered:  

At that year’s Academy Awards, the song that won was called, “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp.”  The song uses the word “Hos” 4 times, “Bitches” 8 times and the word “Niggaz” too.  

America awarded that song an Oscar.  Not one girl’s basketball team complained about it.  

Since we are giving lyrics of such “creative genius” as “Bitches, Hos & Niggaz” the Academy Award, the highest accolades we give in American Popular Culture, are we really going to pretend to be surprised when a 60 year old man says it  on the radio, or worse yet, a 6^th grader on a school bus?  

His own remarks were not Don Imus’ fault – they were our fault for lavishing praise on that song.  

Will stereotypes like we will see in “Jersey Shore” really hurt Italians? Is it just “fun” (you know, like white people used to think Step n Fetchit was fun)? It’s not our stars like Scalia and Giuliani who are at risk; it’s ordinary Italians who have to use the Court system who will get hurt by the stereotype.  

Twenty years ago when I was in law school, three students were in the booth next to me at a campus restaurant.  One said, “In criminal law we’re studying a case where all the defendants had these looooong Italian names…they were sooooo guilty!”  I wonder where that student is today – a judge? A prosecutor bringing charges against Italians because their long names make them soooooo guilty?  

There was a criminal indictment in New Jersey a few years back where several Italians were arrested, and they all had nicknames in “quotes” between their first and last names.  The problem?  The Defendants didn’t really have those nicknames.  The prosecution invented them and put them in the indictment, in an attempt to sway the jury who likely believe, as that law student from 20 years ago did, that Italian = guilty.  

Press reporters won’t help the Italian American in Court either, with newspapers insisting that all Italians must have a middle name in quotes.  Locally where I live there was a trial involving a man the Press called James “Jimmy” (last name).   Is “Jimmy” such an unusual aberration of the name James that it requires quotation marks, or are the marks just a media signal to the jurors that the defendant must be guilty because he’s “mobbed up?”  

That the characters on MTV’s “Jersey Shore” are Italian themselves, as were many actors on the Sopranos, only highlights the depth of the problem.  Hollywood has so engrained in the minds of America that there is a sexiness to the murderous, killing gangster or the dumb lovable “Guido” that it’s easy to recruit such useful idiots from our own ranks.  That the actors are Italian doesn’t make it OK – it makes it worse.  

Let’s just hope the show doesn’t win an Emmy, further solidifying the bigoted Italian stereotype into American Pop Culture.

The Church's Association With Kennedy, Or Not

Ask the average person what their First Amendment rights are, and they are quick to list Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly and Petition the Government.  Those are specifically expressed in the language of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that within the right to Assemble is another right, equally as important as the other First Amendment Rights:  The “Right to Associate.”

The cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Freedom to Associate was in NAACP vs Alabama (the state could not subpoena the group’s list of members) and The Boy Scouts of America v Dale (the Boy Scouts do not have to admit Gay and Lesbian members).

The right to Associate exists because it is understood that political progress and even enjoyment of life can be tied to a person’s association.  To split like-minded people apart is to divide their power (divide and conquer).

This is the proper background to view Bishop Thomas Tobin’s decision to not let Congressman Patrick Kennedy receive communion because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights.

Kennedy does not share the belief system of the Catholic Church on either the moral front or the political front.  Why Kennedy would want to belong to a religion he disagrees with is a mystery anyway.

The Church not only has the right to suspend Kennedy form communion (a form of minor excommunication), they could have, and should have, gone further and ex-communicated him completely.

History Lesson for Chris Matthews

While Chris Matthews doesn’t make my leg tingle (sorry Chris – you won’t live that down until President O is out of office), he’s not completely objectionable like other hosts on MSNBC.  Chris is the only one who routinely has on guests who disagree with him.

 

On yesterday’s show he made a mistake - a mistake of omission for not telling all the facts. 

 

There’s a 40 year old chestnut on the left that they love to tell – that Democrats were the ones who championed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, over Republican opposition.

 

That wrong fact was challenged on the floor of Congress yesterday when Representative Virginia Foxx (R North Carolina) said this:

 

The GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country, just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the sixties, without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle.

 

By the way if you’re wonder what environmental programs were started by Republicans, look up “Environmental Protection Agency” which was proposed and signed into law by President Nixon.

 

Chris Matthews, seeing truth finally entering into the civil rights debate, took exception to Representative Foxx claiming it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act.  Chris put forth this fact in response:

 

Well here are the facts. 46 Democratic senators voted for the Civil Rights bill, 46 and 27 Republican senators. Well that's the numbers.

 

Uh, that’s not quite all the numbers Chris, is it?  Chris didn’t tell you how many members each party had in the Senate back then.  If you think that’s not important, let me play the same trick on you Chris did by telling you how many Senators voted “No” on the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

 

23 Democrats voted no, 6 Republicans voted no.

 

Nearly 4x as many Democrats opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act as did Republicans!  But don’t let me play the same trick on you that Chris did.  His numbers and my numbers don’t tell you the real story.  The percentages do.  Let’s look at the percentages to see which party was united in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and which party had a huge bloc who wanted to kill the bill.

 

In the Senate, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did.

 

In the House, these were the Republican votes for and against:  136 for (80%), 35 against (20%).

 

The House Democrat votes were 165 for (63%) and 91 against (37%).

 

You have to wonder how Democrats have traditionally been credited with passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act when 80% of Republicans were for it compared to only 63% of Democrats.  I blame bad media and bad school teachers.

 

If Chris Matthews still isn’t convinced the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a Republican accomplishment, he should consider these facts:

 

·        Senate Democrats filibustered the bill.  The left leaning Wikipedia calls it a “brief filibuster.”   If by “brief” Wiki means 3 months and the longest filibuster in Senate history, then yeah, you can call it “brief.”

 

·         Senator Richard Russell, (D-Ga) led the filibuster, and he said:  "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states."

 

·        Senator Robert Byrd, the Democrat who was a recruiter for the KKK, talked for 14 straight hours against the bill.

 

·        Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen championed the cause to break the Democrat filibuster, with 82% of Republican voting to break it and only 66% of Democrats.

 

Immediately after Rep. Foxx made her comments yesterday, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Ca) either made a blunder or proved that Democrats intentionally revise history.  He said:

 

"It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's state that we passed that civil rights legislation."

 

Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964 and 1965.  Jesse Helms took office in 1973.

 

Another reason people black and white associate the Civil Rights Act with Democrats is because President Johnson was a Democrat, and in America we tend to credit/blame presidents for everything while ignoring the work of Congress.

 

For a more recent example of the crediting/blaming presidents instead of Congress, see President Obama’s endless complaints about the economy over “the last 8 years.”  He, the media, and many people fail to consider that in January, the Democrats will enter their 4^th straight year of control of Congress, and it’s Congress who spends the money, not the President.

 

Hasan - A Muslim of Convenience

Have you ever heard of a “cafeteria Catholic?” It is one who does not follow all of the Church’s stated doctrines, instead picking and choosing which doctrines to follow or not, as if deciding which foods he likes while standing in line at a cafeteria.

 

Muslims come in the “cafeteria” variety too. 

 

Surely there are Muslims who are genuine and put great effort into following their religion correctly.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar seems to be a shining example of Muslim sincerity.   However, as with other religions, there are some who use certain elements of Islam as a political tool rather than a spiritual way of life. 

 

The most famous “cafeteria Muslim” is the boxer Muhammad Ali.  Modern day “pop history” romantically paints Ali as a man who stood for his religious beliefs in refusing to fight in Vietnam.  If you believe that, you’re allowing the left make up history as they go along (as usual).

 

Ali was not standing for strong religious conviction; rather, he was cowering behind mere religious affiliation to avoid the inconvenience of going to war.  In the 1960’s, Ali was a “Muslim of Convenience.”

 

Cheating on his wife and boxing for the white man’s money were also things forboden by Muhammad Ali’s religion in the sect of the Nation of Islam.

 

Yet because Ali found cheating on his wife and boxing so much more enjoyable than going to war or Islam, he kept doing them.  That prompted Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad to kick Ali out of the Nation and strip him of the name Muhammad Ali for his transgressions, retuning him to the name Cassius Clay.

 

Even that didn’t stop Ali from committing those sins against his religion.  Got sincerity?

 

The only truth one can divine from Ali’s actions is that he wasn’t a true follower in the Nation of Islam  – he hid behind Islam to avoid fighting for America, but cast it aside rather than give up sexual promiscuity and boxing for money.  He was a “cafeteria Muslim” to the Nation of Islam.

 

As it turns out, Ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan may be a “cafeteria Muslim” too.

 

Reports indicate that he spent plenty of time in a strip club called Starz, complete with drinking and raunchy lap dances.  The radical jihadist form of Islam outlaws these things.  The general manager of Starz relates that Hassan stayed at the strip club for as much as 7 hours straight.   That’s not a casual brush with debauchery – 7 hours is a Larry Flynt sized commitment to sexual immorality.

 

How are we to reconcile Hasan’s supposedly ultimate act of loyalty to Islam through martyrdom with that deed being preceded by sins against Islam? (We have to label his martyrdom attempt “epic fail” since he is still alive.)

 

Hasan isn’t the first to lust in strip clubs before yelling “Allahu Akhbar” and committing mass killings.  Reports from all over the country indicate the September 11 hijackers spent a great deal of time at strip clubs, buying pornography and sleeping with prostitutes before September 11.

 

One theory suggests that since Islamic Jihadist believe that if they die while killing infidels (meaning you and me) all of their sins are washed away, so they can go ahead and sin with impunity.  Jihadist plenary indulgence = prostitutes are fun!

 

Another theory suggests that since Jihadist believe that God will reward their martyrdom with 72 virgins in heaven, they’re just getting themselves in shape for heaven’s orgy.  Jihadist plenary indulgence = prostitutes are practice!

 

What is clear is that Islamic Jihadists are political, not religious.  They pretend a rigorous religious commitment to incite others to fanaticism, but in reality they are religious fakers.  Saddam Hussein epitomized this practice.  Who could forget his rallying his sons to fight to the death, but when he crawled from his rat hole he announced, “I am willing to negotiate.”  What a faker.

 

Some of America’s politically correct insanity may have let Hassan slip through the cracks because the Military was afraid to offend his “Muslim faith.”  That thinking has to end.  Guys like Hassan have no genuine Muslim faith – only Jihadist political aggression.

 

Profiling a Muslim for Jihadist beliefs is not targeting Islam or any sect of the religion.  It’s targeting someone who is doing Islam all wrong.  It’s targeting him for the misuse of Islam for political gain at the expense of American lives, which has nothing to do with religion.  Investigating Jihadism insults no religion, but is a warranted investigation into the murderous bastardization of Islam into a political tool, which all good Muslins should applaud. To remain vigilant, America must target and investigate “Muslims of Convenience.”

Obama's Pet Goat

This is the best cartoon of the day.  If you don't understand it, you must be watching mainstream media. Congrats to the cartoonist, Eric Allie.

The No Class Yankees

He’ll cheat without scruple, who can without fear.”  Ben Franklin

 

Yankees were at one time the “classiest” team in baseball.  It’s what I liked about them.  Short haircuts.  No facial hair.  No names on the back of the jerseys.  It was often said of the Yankees that they were all business – they came to your park, beat you in baseball and left.  Very professional.

 

That’s changed.

 

I’m not complaining about the money spent on mercenaries to build dream teams.  That fits well with the free-market, capitalist ideals I love so much.  The bought player is reminiscent of the romantic western gunslinger riding from town to town, hired by the local sheriff to handle the bad guys he can’t. 

 

Besides, since the coming of free agency every team buys the best players they can.  The Yanks do a pretty good job of raising and keeping home grown talent anyway, like Jeter, Posada, Rivera and Pettitte.

 

What has me irked (for starters) is the Yankee treatment of Pedro Martinez, and the organization is at fault for allowing people to bring the “Who’s your daddy” signs and display them (pox on the New York Post for doing the same).

 

In 2004 after losing a game to the Yankees, Pedro Martinez said this:  "They beat me. They're that good right now. They're that hot. I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy."

 

Permit me to interpret for those of you who went through the New York City school system:  Pedro was being humble.  He was being a good sport.  He was paying the Yankees respect and a compliment.  If Yankee fans and the New York Post don’t realize that, I ask, who’s your English teacher?

 

So what is the reaction of Yankee fans and the NY Post to someone who is being humble and complimentary?  Rub his nose in it!  Humiliate the guy!  Demoralize the man who pays you a compliment! Good grief.

 

Interesting message they’re sending to youth baseball.  Next season when the Little League team I coach lines up after a game to shake hands with the other team, instead of saying “Good game” I’ll have them be like Yankees and ask each player, “Who’s your daddy?”  Maybe we’ll get covered in the Post.

 

Yankee fans and NY media this week sank to the lowly depths of acting worse than Philadelphia Eagles’ fans, who notoriously booed and threw snowballs at Santa Claus during a halftime show.

 

The other thing irking me is that the Yankees are, for the past decade, a team littered with cheaters.  CHEATERS!  That’s right – steroids are CHEATING. The Yankees who profited from them were CHEATING CHEATING CHEATING.

 

Clemons. Pettitte.  Giambi.  Rodriguez. Neagle. Knoblauch. Grimsley.  Stanton.  Justice. 

 

The men named in steroid reports are accused of cheating to win, no differently than if my Little League team was to cork their bats.  While some of them juiced for others teams, several of them were juicing for the Yankees the year they won the 2000 World Series.

 

Steroids are like a government stimulus/bailout/cash for clunkers deal all rolled into one:  It’s against the regular rules, it gives you an artificial performance spike and you pay for it later.

 

The problem is the Yankee cheaters are not “paying for it later.” A few wrist slaps here and there, but their records stand – records achieved against men who followed the rules.

 

Major League Baseball moralizes with Pete Rose over a bet.  How dare they?  How dare an organization that spent half its life not allowing black men to play but allowing cocaine junkies to play moralize with anyone?  I’ll take Pete Rose as a player and role model over the juiced Yankee cheaters any day.

 

After the Barry Bonds steroid scandal broke, we were rooting for Alex Rodriguez to take back the home-run crown.  I’ll never forget the look on my little boy’s face when we heard the news that Alex used steroids, or the way he said, “Oh no, not A-Rod.”  I must admit to less shock – I should have expected cheating from a man who showed only Clintonesque fidelity in marriage.  Why should I think he’d be true to the fans?

 

What an awful message to kids that in the same year A-Rod was suspended for prior (2003) steroid use he gets a World Series ring.  Cheaters prosper.

 

For years baseball wrongfully used an asterisks in the record books for the wrong reason against Roger Maris.  Until they do the right thing and use it against the Yankees and the rest of baseball’s cheaters, I’ll just keep calling them cheaters.

 

We have now placed our faith and hopes with someone new to clobber the home run record and make baseball pure again.

 

We need a hero.   We root for the hero and he’s not a Yankee.

 

He’s Albert Pujols.

Politics Are Back To Normal In NJ & Elsewhere

Add this to your political fact book:  The “Obama Bounce” only exists when Barack Obama is running.  It disappears when he is not.

 

The pundits who guessed Virginia would be a “Blue State” post-Obama can quit their jobs now.  Stick Virginia back in the swing-state category, and with tonight’s 17% margin of victory by Robert McDonnell, expect the Republicans to be swinging all night.

 

The bigger story is New Jersey.  The Garden State at one time had gone 8 out of 10 Presidential Elections for Republicans, but since the Democrats ran the table the last 5 Presidential elections in row, pundits declared New Jersey a “Blue State.”  After the Democrats still managed to win the Governorship after Jim McGreevey resigned in shame and then Barack Obama cleaned McCain’s clock by 15% here, no one was sure if there was a Republican left in New Jersey.

 

Until tonight.  Proving late Senator Moynihan’s old adage that “All politics is local,” Republican Chris Christie upset Democrat John Corzine as well as the Tea Party crowd and the “Throw the Bums Out” crowd by beating Independent challenger Christ Daggett.

 

Even Obama’s appearances in Virginia and NJ didn’t help the Democrats. 

 

People voted issues tonight – so politics is truly back to normal.

Please Buy This Song and Help My Daughter Raise Money for Charity!

Please excuse this commercial and this short break from politics, but I need to ask readers for a favor.

My daughter Annalisa, age 15, has recorded an original Christmas song entitled, "There's Still Christmas."

It was written years ago by a friend who died of brain cancer.

Annalisa has recorded it and is using sales of the song to try to raise $100,000 for the Ronald McDonald House by Christmas.  The website tells the story of her and the songwriter.

You can download the song for only $1.25 by going to her website, www.TheresStillChristmas.com.  

The website accepts Visa, Amex, MasterCard, Discover, Amex, Pay Pal and eChecks.  The song is emailed to you with a download link. Payments securely handled by Pay Pal.

Please pass along a link to Annalisa's website in all your emails, and post a link to it on your blogs, your Facebook, MySpace and Twitter pages!

Thanks so much for your support of Annalisa's project, and I hope you enjoy the song!

A “Daggett” To Chris Christie’s Heart?

What do they call it in New Jersey when 44 politicians are arrested for corruption at the same time?  Thursday.  Jersey politics are so dirty it can make a Chicagoan wince. 

 

With public affairs in such sorry shape, the Garden State grows some nasty tasting political campaigns.  Jersey’s gutter politics used to be defined by Republican Pete Dawkins calling Senator Frank Lautenberg a “swamp dog” back in 1988. This year Democrat Governor Jon Corzine broke open the sewer pipes of political advertising, actually making juvenile “fat jokes” about his Republican opponent, who struggles with obesity.

 

Let’s recap how the Tea Party movement coupled with the anti-incumbent movement may backfire and give the Jersey Democrat his second term.

 

Governor Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie are in a race too close to call.  The Real Clear Politics composite of several respected polls gives Christie a statistically insignificant 1% edge. The fly in Christie’s campaign victory ointment is that Independent Chris Daggett is polling over 11%.

 

The only conclusion the polls give is that most New Jersey voters want a new governor.  But even though Corzine’s approval ratings have been stuck in the high 30’s for most of the year, thanks to his $30 million personal bankroll coupled with the surprisingly strong showing by Daggett, Corzine could still win.

 

Christie was leading this race by as much as 14% over the summer.  His campaign mantra was bad times under Corzine—highest taxes in the country, highest unemployment in the region, 450,000 New Jerseyans voting with their feet and moving out of the state.  Christie offered an 88 point plan to turn New Jersey around that was short on specifics but generally promised lower taxes, lower government spending and an improved business climate. 

 

It was working. Then came September.

 

Corzine charged that Christies’ plan to make healthcare more affordable by allowing competition from out of state insurers and reducing mandated coverage was “anti-woman.” Corzine alleged that Christie would take away women’s access to mammograms and that new mothers would be kicked out of the hospital hours after delivering babies.

 

Suddenly the campaign was not about taxes, spending, unemployment and the economy, but mammograms.  Christie surrendered his double-digit lead among independent women to Corzine.  Corzine’s numbers stayed in the high 30’s to low 40’s, but Christie came down to the low to mid 40’s and stayed there. 

 

On September 30, the day before the first televised debate, Independent Daggett unveiled a plan to reduce property taxes 25% by expanding the state’s 7% sales tax to goods and services currently not taxed, and increasing tolls on New Jersey’s highways.  After a credible debate performance, Daggett’s numbers shot from the mid single digits to as high as 20% in some polls, most of his support taken from Christie. 

 

For the first time all year, the fight was on.

 

Christie, who receives state matching funds and is therefore limited to spending just under $11 million against Corzine’s personal fortune, spent precious resources fighting off Daggett’s surge. He characterized Daggett’s plan as “Corzine-lite.”  Daggett’s numbers started to come back to earth and 60% of his voters told pollsters that they were likely to change their minds before Election Day….most in favor of Christie.

 

Corzine counter-punched with more negative attacks on Christie and also by relying on the star power of President Obama and former President Clinton to rally New Jersey’s large but sometimes too lazy to vote radical left wing.

 

But one of those Corzine ads backfired.  Coupled with an unflattering picture, Corzine accused the obese Christie of “throwing his weight around.” The state Democratic chairman Assemblyman Joseph Cryan mused at a rally, "What would it feel like if the next governor weighs 350 pounds?"

 

Voters and the media pushed back on the personal attack, and Christie, who has been sensitive about his weight, used the attacks to humanize himself, culminating in a very funny and self-effacing appearance on Imus.  Fox News’ Neil Cavuto declared it a game changer and predicted Christie would win because of how well he performed on Imus.

 

With apologies to Cavuto and Imus, the final game changer could be Jon Corzine's interview with the NY Times wherein he called his terribly unpopular scheme to sell NJ's highways and increase tolls by 800% "an idea that worked."  In that moment of candor, Corzine may have wasted his $30 million campaign.

 

Why raise this unpopular and dead issue again?  Perhaps sensing victory was at hand, Corzine was imagining that after an election win he could declare, "Even during the last days of the campaign I spoke in favor of an asset monetization plan.  The voters gave me a mandate to do it." 

 

But the negative reaction was swift and fierce. Union workers and Democratic political appointees at the NJ Turnpike Authority were throwing pro-Corzine flyers in the trash.  Down line Democrat candidates who recently were warming to Corzine were again running for cover.  Republicans have spent the final days of the campaign talking up what voters least liked about Corzine – his “sell the Turnpike” plan.

 

The momentum appears to be with Christie, but the impact of President Obama’s 11th hour appearance for Corzine has not been reflected in the polls yet.

 

As Daggett leaning voters are reconsidering their choice, Republicans are accusing The NJ State Democratic Committee of making automated calls into Republican areas urging voters to vote for Daggett.  That is fueling lingering suspicions among Republicans that Daggett’s campaign has been nothing but a stalking horse for Corzine all along, designed to siphon the Tea Party votes and New Jersey’s perennial “Throw the Bums Out” votes away from Christie.

 

The Quinnipiac University and Monmouth University polling teams have both been working through the weekend with reports expected to be published by noon on Monday.  That will give us a better idea whether Christie will keep his lead, or if the four horsemen of his political apocalypse will be mammograms, weight jokes, an Obama bounce and Chris Daggett.

 

Contributing to this article was two Jersey Boys - Art Gallagher of More Monmouth Musings and Tommy De Seno of Justified Right.

Read Pelosi's New Health Insurance Bill Here!

It's only 2,000 pages.

There goes my weekend ;-)

Download a pdf of the bill by clicking: Download PelosiBill.

Obama Reacts To Losing War Against Fox News

My Limbaugh-McNabb Media Challenge Met! Rush Called Media Hopes For McNabb A Good Thing!

Thanks so much to a reader identifying himself as "EBounding," and I have know idea if that is ESPN ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer or not.

EBounding uploaded more of the ESPN segment from 2003 when Rush Limbaugh was speaking about Donovan McNabb.

Just as my extraordinary, elephant-like memory recalled it, Rush said the media rooting for McNabb to become a league dominant quarterback in the NFL was "a good thing."

That of course obliterates the argument that Rush was saying something racist, not that those who live to hate him will ever admit it.

Special thanks to EBounding here.  Every other news outlet in America has edited out that part of the video for the past 5 years.  EBounding, it appears, is more honest than the rest.

Watch the video below, and pay close attention when it gets to the 1:42 mark:

650,000 Readers For One Post!

Got the happy news that the column I wrote last week, "How To Win The Nobel Prize In Only 12 Days"  was clicked on 650,000 times when it appeared on FoxNews.com!

It was in the top 10 most read pieces that appeared on Fox for last week.  Not bad since that website is ranked #40 in the US for Internet traffic by Alexa.com.

I knew the column was blowing up when I got the news that it was being cited in news stories (not opinion pieces).  For instance the BBC (ranked 45th in the WORLD by Alexa) quoted me in a news item called "US Media On Obama Nobel Award."

According to the BBC, this blog is "US Media."  I don't know whether that's a compliment or an insult.  I'm a blogger! Cutting edge.  Don't want to be lumped in with so called mainstream US media who hide opinions behind phony claims of objectivity.  Justified Right is more honest than that.

MSNBC quoted me in a piece called "GOP, Even Some Liberals, Dismiss Obama's Prize." 

So according to MSNBC, I'm "the GOP."   Now if that were true, the GOP would be winning.

Actually I'm just having some fun with the BBC and MSNBC here.  I'm thrilled they quoted me and I'm happy to get the recognition.  Hope they do it regularly.

A google search on the title of my Nobel piece reveals it showing up on over 2,700 websites and search engines already.  People have reprinted the piece on their blogs by the thousands. 

Let me go out to my mailbox and see if any of them have sent me royalty checks........Nope!  Mailbox still empty.  I'm sure the checks are on their way though ;-)

The most fun of all the alerts I received about where Justified Right was linked has to be Wikipedia, in their entry on the Nobel Prize.

Since my piece is critical of the award (note that well - critical of the award, not the President) I'm sure some Wiki-Monster will go edit me out of the entry.

But it's fun to see while it lasts!

Plot Thickens On My Limbaugh-McNabb Media Challenge

I've pointed out that the Internet seems to be scrubbed clean of any transcript or video of Rush Limbaugh talking about the media's favorable treatment of Donovan McNabb in 2003.  No media outlet plays the whole segment, particularly when Rush says, "It's a good thing,"  which completely belies the allegation that he said something racist.

Old friend and JR reader Darren Cytryn alerted me that ESPN's Sunday Countdown has an archive, and mysteriously, the whole month of September (the month Rush was on the show) is missing.

See the page from ESPN's website with the month of September missing here.

I've written to the ESPN ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer for a copy of the segment to play on this blog.

Let's see if he responds.

Follow Up To My Limbaugh-McNabb Media Challenge

From ESPN's website, this might be the reason why I can't find on the Internet a video of Rush talking about McNabb and the Media in 2003, or even an official transcript:

COPY OF AN ESPN TELECAST OR PROMO

ESPN, Inc. doesn't release or sell copies of its programming or promos. We generally only have telecast rights to programs on our networks and not tape-distribution rights.

I'm going to write to ESPN's ombudsman to see if he will get them to release to me a copy of the segment in the interests of good journalism.

Hey Media: Take My "Limbaugh-McNabb Challenge!"

“It’s a good thing.”

 

I know that “It’s a good thing” is Martha Stewart’s tag line, but today it stands for two other things.

 

1. It is the line that proves 100% that Rush Limbaugh said nothing racist about Donovan McNabb in 2003.

 

2. It is also the line delivered by Rush Limbaugh about McNabb that has been cut out of every news story from every news outlet in America since 2003.

 

In fact, so scrubbed from the public record is the portion of Rush’s statement when he said, “It’s a good thing” about McNabb, that you can’t find a video or audio of the whole exchange between the ESPN analysts.  Not even on ESPN’s website, which carries plenty of video and audio of people trashing Rush.

 

Perhaps my “Googling Kung Fu” isn’t that strong and the audio or video of the entire exchange is out there.  If you can find it, send it to me.

 

In this column, I’m going to dare every news outlet in America to dig up the audio or video of the show and play the entire piece right to the point to where Rush said, “It’s a good thing” instead of editing it out.  Particularly you, ESPN.

 

Let me recreate the scene from 2003 on the show “ESPN Sunday Countdown.”

 

The topic, as decided upon by ESPN producers and not Rush Limbaugh, was Donovan McNabb’s popularity despite his dismal performance.  He was the highest paid player in NFL history and he seemed to be on every television commercial on every station.

 

His performance was awful to that point that year.  He had the lowest quarterback rating in the league.  His team had only won 1 game and his offense was ranked #31 in the league. He had yet to throw a single touchdown pass. Fortunately for the Eagles, their defense was highly ranked at the time.

 

Before Rush spoke, another analyst on the show, a former NFL quarterback if I recall, even suggested that McNabb be benched in favor of backup quarterback Koy Detmer.  Although it would have been unfair, I’ve always found it curious why that analyst wasn’t called a racist for suggesting McNabb be benched just before Rush spoke.

 

So the ESPN topic, decided on by ESPN producers and not Rush, was McNabb’s popularity vs. his terrible play.  Rush was asked to give his opinion of why it was happening.

 

He said, quite correctly, that McNabb was popular WITH THE MEDIA because THE MEDIA wanted to see a league-dominant black quarterback. His comment is about the media rooting for McNabb, not McNabb himself.

 

Here is the part of the quote often cited in writing and played on television, and you don’t have to be an English major to identify that the subject is the media, not McNabb:

 

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

 

Limbaugh’s sin was not insulting McNabb – there was no insult.  Every analyst on the show already conceded the numbers showed McNabb wasn’t playing well.  Limbaugh’s sin was that he dared question the objectivity of the media, and the media decided to make him pay for it.

 

Seizing on the fact that he brought up race at all, every news outlet cut the last part of the quote where Rush said the media investment in McNabb was “a good thing” and they called him a racist.

 

However the claim of “racism!” only works if you cut out Rush saying, “It’s a good thing,” about the media and McNabb, so that’s what every news outlet in America who wanted to bury Rush did – they left truth on the editing room floor.

 

Is it racist to say the media, even America herself, wanted to see a league dominant quarterback?  Of course not.  The big narrative in football in the 1970’s and 1980’s was that the NFL had no black starting quarterbacks due to racism (which was correct), and it was certainly OK to root for a black man to become one to break that color barrier.

 

Now that the NFL has black starting quarterbacks, it is OK to similarly root for one to be the first league dominant QB. I’m rooting for it. It’s OK to root for that since it was racists in the NFL, not Limbaugh, who kept black players away from the QB spot for so long.

 

To show that it is OK to root for black men to have quarterback milestones in the NFL, take a read of this 2005 column from the Washington Post just prior to Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb squaring off in the NFC championship game.  It’s loaded with quotes from prominent people both white and black about why it’s “a good thing” to root for a black man to become a league-dominant QB.

 

Yet no one called any of them racists.  

 

Rush is no racist either, if you listen to the whole ESPN segment from the moment one analyst suggests McNabb be benched to the moment Rush says the media rooting for McNabb is “a good thing.” 

 

So today I call on media to be fair and show the whole clip, highlighting this time instead of editing out where Rush said, “It’s a good thing.”   Since racism sells better than non-racism, I’m going to call my bookie and bet my last dollar no media outlet will bother showing the truth.  Racism gets better ratings than truth.

 

Earn bonus points:  If you can find it, also send me a video of the segment from the ESPN show the week prior where Rush excoriated the NFL for not having enough blacks in front office jobs. 

 

You know - 'cause he’s such a racist.

 

 

Debunking Liberal Lies About Columbus

Happy Columbus Day!  Sorry if your holiday celebrating America’s Columbian beginnings will be interrupted by silly claims about Christopher Columbus being a bad person, but it will be, by the same people who manufactured such silly claims as JKF conspiracies, alien abductions and George Bush planning 9/11.

Phony anti-Columbus claims of his mistreating the Indians are put forth in books by such exceedingly bad fellows as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, whose credentials for hating America are unfortunately honored on leftist college campuses throughout the fruited plain. 

Since academia has shut out the light of truth about Columbus, let’s turn it back on and have a look at true history, shall we?

Detractors of Columbus fail to admit their allegations are based upon the claims of a man named Francisco de Bobadilla.  Who was de Bobadilla? The man who wanted Columbus’ job as Governor of Hispaniola, that’s who, so he attempted to discredit Columbus.

Exactly how trustworthy do you suppose was the word of the man who wanted Columbus ousted from his job so he could take it himself? About as trustworthy as the word of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Jewish holocaust - a word leftists allowed Ahmadinejad to give two years ago, coincidently at a place named for Christopher Columbus: Columbia University.

Believing Columbus committed a holocaust against the Indians takes the same intellectual dishonesty as believing Hitler didn’t commit one against the Jews, and proponents of both theories have something in common – they dislike America intensely.

The King and Queen of Spain did send de Bobadilla to the New World to check on Columbus because of complaints about him.  This is important:  THE COMPLAINTS WERE NOT ABOUT HIS TREATMENT OF INDIANS.  They were complaints of EUROPEANS who weren’t getting enough out of the New World as they wanted.  That means Columbus was protecting the Indians, for those on the left who need it spelled out for you.

So de Bobadilla came and claimed to talk to people for only a few short days.  He did not speak to Columbus, who he arrested on sight with his brothers and sent them back to Spain.  As you could have predicted, de Bobadilla immediately assumed the Governorship for himself.

How wide of an investigation can one do in the year 1500 with no telephones and no motorized transportation?  How many people can you actually talk to in a day in year 1500?  And what of due process for Columbus?  Have his detractors nothing to say of conflict of interest? - de Bobadilla both investigated Columbus and reaped the reward of his expulsion.

While Columbus’ modern detractors may have nothing to say of it, The King and Queen of Spain did.  They yelled shenanigans on de Bobadilla, recalled him back to Spain and re-instated Columbus as Admiral.  de Bobadilla’s ship home was destroyed in a hurricane and he drowned. Too bad. His trial would have given us a great historical record of his lies about Columbus, which in turn would have forced Zinn and Chomsky to read books instead of write them.

Contemporaries of Columbus thought he conjured up the hurricane to kill de Bobadilla, the same way leftist loons today like Kanye West and the media think George Bush conjured up Hurricane Katrina because he didn’t care about New Orleans’ 9^th ward.

Columbus was NOT involved in slavery.  During his first voyage a ship of his crashed on modern day Haiti.  Having no boat left to take his men away in, Columbus founded a colony called La Navidad (Christmas).  He left all 39 men there to start the colony.The Taino Indians killed every white man they could find, until all 39 were dead (yet anti-Columbian historians refuse to call the Indians genocidal).

When Columbus returned a year later expecting to find a colony and instead found the dead bodies of his men decaying right where they fell without burial, he went to war with the Tainos.  There were 500 taken as POW’s, NOT SLAVES, and sent to Europe.  They deserved it for killing 39 men.

The silliest claim of all is that Columbus was a killer because his European body carried pathogens that the Indians weren’t used to so they died of new diseases.  These same people laugh at Columbus for thinking he was in the East.  That being true, he certainly had no plan to kill anyone with diseases, the mechanism for which he didn’t understand anyway.

The truth is no matter who the first Europeans were to interact with Native Americans, even if it were Zinn and Chomsky, they were going to spread disease, much like Zinn and Chomsky spread diseases of the brain harming history and intelligence today.

So try to ignore idiots and hypocrites who demean Columbus today.  Take for instance Brown University, who earlier this year voted to change the name of Columbus Day to “Fall Weekend.”  The hypocrisy of course is that the Brown family was slave traders and Brown University was founded with slave money.  Yet they didn’t vote to change the name of the University.

Happy Columbus Day!

J. Lavery Nails The Problem With The Obama Nobel

Cartoonist J. Lavery sums up the Obama Nobel win best with this cartoon.

You can enjoy more of Lavery's work on his twitpic page by clicking here.  He's really good!

This silly Nobel pick has been wonderful for laughs.

While listening to liberals on television struggle to defend the pick, they kept talking about Obama's "promising" to bring peace as deserving of a Nobel. Upon hearing that my wife asked, "If my son promises to get an A on his next test, does he get one?"

We heard some libs also argue that  Obama is "attempting" to bring peace (by making speeches), therefore the attempt alone is deserving of a Nobel prize.  To that my wife asked, "If my son attempts to get an A on his next test, does he get one?"

Some of my other favorites so far have been these:

"The Norwegian People's Choice Award."

"The European Equivalent of Hollywood's Walk of Fame."

Justified Right Quoted By BBC, MSNBC & FOX

Pretty good day for this blog yesterday.

Posted on Fox News here.

Quoted by the BBC here.

Quoted by MSNBC here.

How To Win The Nobel Peace Prize In Only 12 Days

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning.  Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed ElBaradei and Jimmy Carter).

 

President Obama has broken new ground here.  Nominations to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended February 1.  The President took office only 12 days early on January 20.

 

Let’s take a look at the President’s first 12 days in office from his publicized schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

 

January 20: Went to a parade.  Partied.

 

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests.  Held an “open house” party at the White House.

 

January 22:  Signed Executive Orders:  Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; Re-affirmed Army Field Manuel Techniques for Interrogations; Expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?);

 

January 23:  Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries.  Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

 

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

 

January 25:  Skipped church.

 

January 26:  Gave speech about jobs and energy.  Met with Hillary Clinton.  Attended Geithner swearing in ceremony.

 

January 27:            Met with Republicans.  Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

 

January 28:  Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.        

 

January 29:  Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning US Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages.  Party in the State Room.  Met with Biden.

 

January 30:  Met economic advisors.  Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force.  Met with senior enlisted military officials.

 

January 31:            Took the day off.

 

February 1:  Skipped church.  Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it.  The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize:  Party, go to meetings, skip church, abort some fetuses, party some more.

 

Good grief.

Obama Pulls A Palin, But Media Doesn't Care

It was less than a year ago when Sarah Palin was speaking to an audience in North Carolina, and she called small towns “Real America.”

Liberals everywhere suffered a collective heart attack.  They immediately played the race card. So cloistered are liberals that they don’t know Black people live in small towns too.

Of course Palin’s comments had nothing to do with race.  Since conservatives like to read, read her full quote below to get the context.  What Sarah Palin referred to as “Real America” was “hard work” and “patriotism,” which she often finds in small towns.

Even though liberals will never believe it, Black people share the values of hard work and patriotism too, and shame on liberals for thinking Black people don’t.

Here is the full Palin quote from October 16, 2008:

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."

Joe Klein of Time Magazine used the speech as an opportunity to bash white people.  That kind of racism is OK with Klein and Time. 

However, Jon Stewart’s reply to Palin really encapsulated the personality, intelligence and commitment to civilized discourse held by the American left.  He said, “F*** You.”   Not sure if that was done with or without the clown nose, Jon.

The American liberal was so apoplectic with self pity that Sarah dared to compare another part of the country favorably to their beloved seat of government power in Washington D.C., Palin eventually offered the old, “If you took it wrong, I apologize.”    

So the liberal rule is that you can’t say one part of the country is “better” at being American than another part of the country.  You just can’t, and if you do, you’re a racist.

Unless your name is Barack Obama.  If he says it, well that makes it OK then.

Last week, President Obama told the International Olympic Committee that “Chicago is that most American of American cities…”

“Most American?”  Really?  If Chicago is most American, doesn’t that mean other parts of the country are less American?  What parts of country do you see as having a lesser American aesthetic, Mr. President?  Perhaps you are downing – small towns?  Are you challenging the Americanism of those who do not live in a metropolis? 

While Alexander Hamilton may be smiling at your preference for urban life, surely Thomas Jefferson frowns upon your anti-rural shenanigans, Mr. President.

Sarah Palin’s remark was about characteristics anyone of any color can have – work ethic, patriotism, kindness, goodness and courage.

Barack Obama’s comment was not about individual character.  His was about – you guessed it – race and nationality, because with our “post racial President” it’s always about race.

Since conservatives like to read, read Obama’s whole quote below to get the context:

“You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. And I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. Then I came to Chicago. And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion. I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.”

While Sarah Palin was favorably judging people solely on the content of their individual character, Obama was favorably judging people solely on the color of their skin.

I think Sarah is right.  People should be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  You know, someone famous should put that in a speech.  I bet it would catch on.

So what do we learn from this? 

If conservative Sarah Palin says that small towns have people with good values, media paints her a racist, even though people of all colors live in small towns.

If liberal Barack Obama says Chicago is better than small towns based on nothing more than the skin color of people who live there, the media ignores it, because it’s impossible for Barack Obama to say something racist.

Good grief.

Top Ten Reasons To "Commemorate" China

The Empire State Building will blaze Red and Yellow tonight to “Commemorate” the 60^th anniversary of the Chinese government.  Here are the top 10 reasons to Commemorate the People’s Republic of China:

 

10. Governments established with the help of the Soviet Union have always made people smile.

 

9.      Communist chic.

 

8.      From mannish female Olympic swimmers to Maria Sharapova – now that’s some

      Communist progress right there!

 

7.      Mao Zedung’s “Great Leap Forward” created a famine that killed only 30 million

      people,  which isn’t a lot when you have more than a billion.

 

6.      Tank Man, who stood in front of the tanks at Tianaman Square, is a better magician than David Copperfield, having made himself disappear now for 20 years.

 

5.      One party government and population controls are a New York east coast liberal’s dream!

 

4.      After reading the New York Times, having the ability to shut down the press like they do in China is sometimes my dream!

 

3.      Death Panel envy.

 

2.      Atheist chicks are sexy.

 

And the number one reason to commemorate Red China:

 

1.      American taxpayers have to suck up to their landlord!

 

Good grief.

 

Medicare: It’s a Capitalist Thing

 

Labels are devices to save talkative persons the trouble of thinking.  John Morley

 

Let’s dispose of a liberal talking point about Medicare that the Obamabots in media are constantly getting wrong.

 

When Americans complain that Obama’s government health insurance mandate is a move away from Capitalism, Obama’s supporters counter with Medicare.  They label it a limited form of Socialism, in an attempt to make the point that America has already moved away from Capitalism, so moving further away is no big deal.

 

As is usual with Obama supporters, they’re wrong.  Medicare is an expected derivative of Capitalism, not Socialism.

 

If you’re a Capitalist, read on to examine this issue further.  If you’re an Obama supporter, go cry in the corner over the loss of yet another of your weak arguments (or take your usual position and just call me a racist).

 

Let’s talk about competition in the market.

 

Capitalism is competition.  People compete for resources, which they sell or use to make other resources, which in turn grows the economy.  Competition is the key to both success and failure.

 

Competition being good for the economy is the official position of the United States government.  The Department of Justice Anti-trust Division exists to defend competition.

Here is the position of the DOJ Anti-trust Division about “competition,” taken from their website:

 

Antitrust laws protect competition. Free and open competition benefits consumers by ensuring lower prices and new and better products. In a freely competitive market, each competing business generally will try to attract consumers by cutting its prices and increasing the quality of its products or services. Competition and the profit opportunities it brings also stimulate businesses to find new, innovative and more efficient methods of production. 

 

Since America is based upon people competing against one another, we recognize that there are 3 groups of people who can’t be expected to compete: 

 

1)      Children 

2)      The Elderly

3)      The sick

 

While Americans are competitive, we are also the most compassionate people on earth, giving away more dollars to the rest of the world than any other country by far (yet according to liberals, everyone still hates us).

 

Were we not compassionate, we would let those 3 groups who can’t compete in America (children, the elderly and the sick) fall by the wayside.  But we don’t.  Our system of competition sets up programs to care for those not in the competition.

 

Medicare for the elderly is one of them.  It’s a sum of money collected from those who are competing, to take care of those no longer competing.

 

Capitalists fund many such programs for children, the elderly and the sick.  In addition to Medicare, we fund Medicaid, Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, SCHIP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, Food Stamps, Federal Housing, free schools, etc.

 

These programs are a product of Capitalism, and it’s benevolent understanding that those who cannot compete must be cared for.  They exist as part of the Capitalist structure, not in spite of it.

 

This is precisely where President Obama parts company with America.  He now wants to extend federal benefits beyond the children, the elderly and the sick.  He wants the government to involve itself in the distribution of resources to those who are supposed to compete for them.

 

That means people who say Obama’s health insurance mandate is a move away from Capitalism are correct.  They are calling him a Socialist (more aptly his plans are Corporatist, mirroring 1930’s European fascist economy) because he wishes to mandate the taking of money from some and redistribute it others (namely insurance companies).  It’s Eminent Domain on steroids.

 

Redistribution of wealth is what Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do, and spent the rest of his campaign swearing to us that he wouldn’t do.

 

So the next time a Dummycrat attempts to convince you that Medicare was America’s move toward Socialism, let him know that Medicare is a Capitalist function. Obama’s mandate to purchase insurance for those who should buy their own is the anti-capitalist proposal in the dwindling marketplace of leftist ideas.

Nutty Newsweek Idea: Pass Health Reform To Reduce Juvi-Crime

Is there any lengths the media won't go to in an attempt to shill for Barack Obama?  In the case of Newsweek, apparently not.

They are spreading the silly idea that if we send nurses regularly to homes with children, they can teach the parents how to be better parents, and therefore the kids won't get arrested so much.

"Billions for Babysitters."

Leave it to Democrats to insist they are better parents than anyone else.

Obama still insists he can have massive spending initiatives like this, cover 45 million people and have the whole thing be "deficit neutral."

To that I shout a Wilsonian "You lie!"

I think we should send a mental health nurse to the White House.

Joe Wilson Wins! Obama Admits To Lie!

When the White House wants a story to get minimal coverage, they release information on a weekend so less people see it.

Boy did President Obama drop a bombshell this weekend, and according his plan, I'm betting many people won't see it because the mainstream media will barely touch it.

When my new hero, Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled, "You lie" at the President, he was acting within the tone the President had set moments before by claiming his Republican critics were lying.

While Democrats had no reservations about Obama using the chamber to call people liars, they are apoplectic with outrage that Wilson responded in kind.

Of course Wilson's response was more honest and manly.  Obama singled out no Republican, while Wilson said it right to Obama's face.  Good for him.

The exchanged centered around the issue of illegal aliens having access to government run health insurance, with Obama insisting they'll have no access, and Wilson now famously claiming that's a lie.

The problem with the pending legislation is that it has a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for illegal immigrants.  While the intent of the law may be to not have illegal aliens covered, it does not allow anyone to question an applicant's immigration status either.   Therefore, if all 12 million illegal aliens in America applied for the insurance they would receive it, since no one would know they were here illegally.

It's not as if the Democrats don't know this is a problem, since they previously rejected Republican calls to amend the bill to include a verification system to check for citizen status.

Representative Dean Heller (R-Nevada) proposed an amendment that the government use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system (known as SAVE) to check for residency status before allowing someone to purchase the insurance. In July every Democrat on the House Ways & Means Committee (the committee that spends your tax dollars) voted down Heller's amendment.

While Congressional Democrats focus on whether Joe Wilson is polite, The White House just released a list of issues the President wants addressed in the pending health insurance legislation. As published by MSNBC, here is one of the bullet points from the White House:

Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible. 

That is exactly the measure the house Democrats voted down in July.  The absence of such language in the pending legislation is exactly what prompted Joe Wilson to yell "You lie!" when the President insisted illegal aliens would not be covered.  Without that system, they'll all be covered just by applying.

The media and the Democrats owe Joe Wilson an apology.

But no one more so than President Obama.  The President was, after all, lying. 

The Worst Part of September 11, 2001

Watch this video.  You owe it to them:

Health Insurance: Sucker's Bets and Privatized Communism

There is no one with endurance like the man who sells insurance. Frank Crumit song

Insurance is a bet.  That’s how they teach it to actuaries, salesman, law students and anyone else in the industry.

Every month when you pay $1,000.00 for your health insurance, you’re betting you WILL get sick.  The insurance company is betting you WON’T.  YOU win the bet if you get sick and they pay more than $1,000.00 for medical bills that month.  THEY win the bet if you don’t get sick, or you get sick for less than $1,000.00 (colds, flu, etc).

While there are unfortunate people who get sick, serious illness for most people is rare for most of their lives.  Every month working-aged families make a sucker’s bet:  Betting $1,000 dollars that they will get sick when the odds say they won’t.  Month after month they lose the bet, and lose another $1,000 that could be well spent elsewhere.

For most families, the only winning move is not to have insurance. In ten years they will save about $120,000.00, which will be more than enough to pay doctors for the usual sicknesses and calamities such as broken bones, etc. 

Now if you are an American who has wealth to protect either in savings or home equity, you should buy medical insurance not for the bet, but to protect your asset in the rare instance you do get terribly ill. However, if you are the average American living “paycheck to paycheck” with little savings and little home equity, the better bet for you is not to buy insurance at these prices, since the $12,000 price tag is a whopping 23.9% of American median income ($50,233.00).  Why spend 1 out of every 4 dollars on something you don’t use?

In America, we are free to not buy the products we don’t want.  Cherished American freedom is based upon one concept:  “Free will.”  The concept has religious beginnings, was made politically important during the Enlightenment and was the main ingredient the founding fathers used in developing the concept of America: Live Free or Die.

President Obama last night promised to change that.   He vowed to force every American to make the health insurance bet, to buy it whether they want to or not, even when it’s a sucker’s bet financially for their family.

While the word “historic” has been worn out in relation to Barack Obama, he’s finally done something that really is historic:  This will be the first time in history the American government will force people to buy a product directly.  This isn’t raising taxes so the government can buy a product – this is the government asserting control over a huge percentage of individual income, directing spending as the President sees fit, whether the wage earner likes it or not. 

If you could smell arrogance, Barack Obama would stink. If you love your own American “Free Will,” you have to hate this new concept of government control of your discretionary spending.

The moral issue of taking care of one another is a canard in the health insurance context.  My church requires me to tithe 10% of my income to them.  My government hits me for 40% in all taxes.  That means half my money is already gone before I decide whether I wish to be charitable.   I’ll decide to whom I’ll give. It’s not the government’s job to force me to give more.

However, forcing me to give my money to others is the “social progressive” dream come true.  Spreading around your wealth is exactly what Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do, and spent the rest of his campaign promising us he wouldn’t.

Having a nation fully insured is bad policy.  Let’s see why.

Privatized Communism

As the President said last night, COMPETITION is what drives PRICES DOWN and QUALITY UP.  The reason for having a Department of Justice Anti-trust Unit is to make sure there is no monopoly, no single source for goods or services, because that hurts price and quality. 

Imagine a country were everyone is insured, even with PRIVATE coverage.  Richer people will buy costly policies and poorer people cheaper policies.  All of the money gets “pooled” and only the people who get sick, rich or poor, will use it.  Those who stay healthy won’t use it.

So full insurance will work like this: “From each according to his ability [wealth], to each according to his need [illness].”  Sound familiar?  It’s how Karl Marx described the principle of Communism in 1875.

A system where everyone is fully insured is therefore “Privatized Communism.”  Nothing changes if you include a “public option” or “co-ops” or go fully socialized with a government single-payer plan.  The political theory of Communism still governs.

It’s bad policy because the more insurance you have, the less competition you have.

In America, there are approximately 630,000 physicians who could be competing for you medical dollars.  They used to, and they hustled from house call to house call to be your doctor.  Today, you sit for 2 hours in a waiting room to be seen, for no other reason than the doctor takes your insurance.  Why’d that change?

Competition is now whittled down from 650,000 doctors to 1,300 health insurance companies. Also, you can’t buy insurance across state lines.  Therefore, the competition for your insurance money is really a choice of about 25 companies authorized to sell insurance in your state.  The president mentioned last night that in 34 states 5 or fewer insurance companies control the market. Don’t be fooled into thinking insurance companies represent the best of capitalism.  They don’t.  Insurance pools limit your choices instead of expanding them.

The Department of Justice Anti-trust Unit, who slept while so many companies became “too big to fail” and filed no charges while the companies bragged about it get tax dollars, are still sleeping.  

Here’s what they should be focusing on:

Unfortunate Death of “Hospitalization” and “Catastrophic” Insurance

Ever wonder why Ozzie & Harriet, Howard & Marion Cunningham or even Fred Sanford never complained about the cost of health insurance?  In the 1940’s, ‘50’s and ‘60’s people could buy a “Hospitalization” policy to cover only when they went into the hospital, and a “Catastrophic” policy to cover when they had a disease that needed constant care.  Since those events are rare, the policies were cheap.  They paid their family doctor directly.  That was choice.

In the 1970’s, the concept of the HMO was unveiled.  Suddenly there would be coverage for EVERY LITTLE THING, from the doctor visit right down to the 10-cent aspirin.  Ask anyone with health insurance how much their doctor charges for an office visit.  They don’t know and don’t care, even though they are paying $1,000 a month for insurance to cover that 10-cent aspirin.

Doctors and Insurance companies love it!  You HAVE TO buy the whole package now, even if you rarely or never use it, or you can buy nothing.  It’s called an “illegal tying agreement” when a company makes people buy a second product in order to buy the first.  That’s whey the DOJ Anti-trust Unit sued Bill Gates for selling Windows bundled with Internet Explorer.  Yet the insurance industry is so powerful, the Dept. of Justice keeps on slumbering while they make you buy an all or nothing policy.

Insurance killed competition among doctors.  Insurance killed competition further by forcing you to buy comprehensive coverage instead of just coverage for things you want.  Making you unable to buy insurance across state lines kills competition further.  Paying your doctor directly is the better, more competitive option.

In a power grab that would wow the pants off Mussolini, President Obama is going to force you to purchase insurance, even if it’s bad for you, to satisfy his utopian fantasy.

Will Be On The Andy Caldwell Show tonight at 6:00 pm Eastern!

If you've never heard Andy Caldwell's show out in California, you should.  He's very insightful and very funny!

I'll be on his show tonight kicking around some politics. Hope you'll join us.  You can listen in over the web by clicking here:

http://www.calchronicle.com/ac_show.asp

Advanced Text of President Obama's School Speech Tomorrow

The White House has released the text of the President's speech to students all across America tomorrow.  It has a good theme - students taking personal responsibility for their own education.

Self-reliance is a very socially conservative theme.  This won't go over well with the liberal crowd that outlaws games of tag so their precious little snowflakes won't have their feelings hurt.

Looks like I can send my kids to school tomorrow after all.

Here's the speech:

The President: Hello everyone - how's everybody doing today? I'm here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I'm glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it's your first day in a new school, so it's understandable if you're a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you're in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could've stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning. Now I wasn't too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I'd fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I'd complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I'm here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year.
Now I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked a lot about responsibility.

I've talked about your teachers' responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn. I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world - and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer - maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper - but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor - maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine - but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life - I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn't just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that - if you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.
Now I know it's not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn't fit in.

So I wasn't always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn't have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don't have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there's not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don't feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life - what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home - that's no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That's no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. That's what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn't speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer - hundreds of extra hours - to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he's headed to college this fall.

And then there's Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she's on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren't any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That's why today, I'm calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education - and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. 

Maybe you'll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you'll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you'll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. 

 

And along those lines, I hope you'll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don't feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.
That's OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures. JK Rowling's first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can't let your failures define you - you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one's born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. It's the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust - a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor - and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you - don't ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country? Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too. 

So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down - don't let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

 

Obama School Speech Furor: It's A Trust Thing

There's been lots of controversy over tomorrow's planned speech by the President to be broadcast in schools all over America.

Some parents are objecting and some schools are not allowing the speech to be shown.  There is a fear he is going after the seed corn - the children - to indoctrinate them into his radical ideas.

Supporters of the speech say it's just good civics to let the children listen to the President.  Of course, many of them are the same folks who go apoplectic when a military representative shows up to speak at a school.  Civis lessons be damned then, huh liberals?

It's fascinating.

School teachers take an oath promising allegiance to the Constitution.  The Presidency is the highest Constitutional office we have.  It doesn't seem an imperfect fit to have a President address the nation's students.

Lesser ranked politicians are in schools all the time.  It's not unusual for one of my kids to come home and tell me they met a State Senator or a County Sheriff at school.  No one is up in arms about it.

President Reagan spoke in the schools and even added policy to his speech by downing taxes.   Of course, downing taxes is a good thing and only a pinko-commie bastard would be offended by that.

What is different about the reception Barack Obama's speech is receiving as opposed to Reagans's is something of his own making:  His attempts to change the very structure of America.  Many Americans just don't trust him because of it.

While the American aesthetic was always the rugged individual who takes care of himself, the President's policies have been toward a new system, where one class of people has the burden of taking care of another class of people, like it or not.  That is the personality adopted by many failed states, both socialist and and fascist.  The problem always becomes that those who are to be taken care of can never be taken care of as well as they could have taken care of themselves.  Eventually both sides of society revolt.

Americans will always react against that kind of terrible change.

This furor was bound to happen as Obama's popularity numbers plummet during the health insurance debate.  This is a defining moment where America finally found out who Obama really is - a big government, ultra welfare-state superstar. 

In his first 6 months he quadrupled George Bush's biggest deficit, passed a bigger bail-out package than Bush did, increased the debt by several trillion dollars and at the same time is dolling out money for old cars and trying to force the purchase of other products he likes with measures such as cap and trade and government health insurance.  All of it is designed to have one group of people give money to other people.  He's "spreading it around," just as he promised Joe The Plumber he would, and he spent the rest of his campaign promising he wouldn't.

Trust.

For those dumb folks on TV who bring up race, I remind them that when a southern white boy named Bill Clinton tried to governmentize health care, Americans caused his popularity to go south like a duck in winter and handed Newt Gingerich the Congress.

Add to it that many Americans are greatly insulted by the President's constant apologies for America, when we did nothing wrong for him to apologize for. 

Trust.

In short, parents wonder how radical the radical President might be with his words to our children.

The White House has already admitted to a blunder when the President was going to ask the children to write a letter telling of how they promise to help HIM, not help themselves.  That's the ultimate in big government indoctrination. 

Good thing we stopped him in his tracks on that.  Schools and Hollywood have already pumped out plenty of YouTube videos of kids trying to get them to pledge their allegiance to Barack Obama, fueling the cult of personality he hopes for.

Like this Hollywierd video, where celebrities promise to be a "servant to our President."

You can see videos of the children they have already indoctrinated, like here.

And this one here. 

And this one here.

It reminds people of the loyalty Kim Jong Il demands of Korean children who must call him "Dear Leader."  Just look at the total dependence he insists they have on him in this video here.

For something even scarier, lets not forget this "youth movement" found in a video here.

I must admit though I do have a personal favorite "kids love Obama" video: - "There's No One As Irish As Barack Obama."  Enjoy:

Chappaquiddick Swimming Champ Speaks From The Grave

There's usually a period of respect after one dies to allow family and friends a grieving time.  Is it too early to end that and beat the tar out of Ted Kennedy's legacy?

Hell no.

His friends the Dummycrats didn't respect any time out for grieving, instead using his death as a tool.  Former KKK recruiter and the man the Dummycrats call the "Conscience of the Senate"  Robert Byrd used him the day Kennedy died to press for "commie-care" medical insurance, and Dingy Harry Reid admitted to the same with his vulgar statement that Kennedy's death "...is going to help us."

Ted Kennedy's estate will next week publish his memoirs, so in fact Teddy himself has ended the respectful greiving period that never was.

So let's have at him.

"Chappaquiddick" is now the shorthand name for a heinous selfish act committed by then Senator Ted Kennedy.   It's the island at Martha's Vinyard where Teddy (hicup!) Kennedy drove off a bridge after a party.  As he swam away to safety at speed records Michael Phelps would envy, his passenger Mary Jo Kopechne was left to drown.

Kenndy walked past several homes without aksing anyone to call for help.  He went back to the party and had friends give him a ride.  They drove him back to the bridge, and Teddy then swam home.  The two men who drove him didn't report the incident either.

Now whenever a friend of mine leaves a party with a girl and shows up again soaking wet with no car and no girl, I never get suspicious.  I guess incidents like that are just usual when you're partying with a Kennedy.  I always drop off my friends at a bridge in the middle of the night so they can swim home.

For 9 hours, Kennedy didn't call the authorities.   Hmmmm.  What would he be doing (hicup!) for 9 hours?  Why would he not want authorities to see him (hicup!) for 9 hours?

From his soon to be released memoir, MSNBC reports Kennedy's view of  Chappaquiddick:

"In it, Kennedy said his actions on Chappaquiddick on July 18, 1969, were "inexcusable." He said he was afraid and "made terrible decisions" and had to live with the guilt for more than four decades."

He also states in the book he as been in the process of "atonement" for what he did to Mary Jo for 40 years.

Atonement?  I'm thinking not so much.

As a fellow Catholic to Kennedy, I know a little something about atonement.  It requires an admission about what you did.

I suspect what he did that night had more to do with this part of his memoir:

"I have enjoyed the company of women," he wrote. "I have enjoyed a stiff drink or two or three, and I've relished the smooth taste of a good wine. At times, I've enjoyed these pleasures too much."

The scuba diver who retrieved Mary Jo's body, John Farrar, has stated that when he found Mary Jo, she was holding the seat and had her head pressed into the foot well.  Farrar said that in such a submerged vehicle, there is often an air pocket in the foot well that can last for 2 hours.

That means when Teddy decided to leave the scene for whatever reason (hicup!) and walk past the houses without knocking on doors for the police to be called for whatever reason (hicup!) Mary Jo could have been saved by the scuba diver, who also said from the time of the call to rescue would be only 25 minutes.

All Ted Kennedy ever admitted to was being guilty of leaving the scene of an accident.  He paid a fine, while Michael Vick went to jail for killing a dog, not la ovely young campaign staffer.  Grand jurors later complained that they couldn't indict Kennedy becuase, for reasons still unexplained, the prosecutor would not show them evidence.

If atonement requires admission for what he did, Kennedy never atoned.  He'd have to admit to killing Mary Jo for atonement.  Kenndy posthumously calls his action "inexcusable"  but when it came time to face punishment in life, he certainly had himself excused.

So long, Chappaquiddick swimming champion.  Satan awaits your arrival.

Death Panels? Oh That Could Never Happen, Right?

Read the horror from Great Britain's government medicine here.

Different Presidents, A Different Corps

Check out the video before the Libs at YouTube delete it:

Obama: Please List The Muslim Contributions To America

I'm not out to disparage any religion.  I love religion.  Religious people tend to be smarter than atheists, which makes sense.  The only intelligent beings on the planet - humans - are also the only beings who seek a fellowship with God. It's one of the things that separates us from the animals. It's a sign of higher thinking to be religious, while atheists align themselves with the insensate beasts of the world.

Of course religion is best when done right, and can be downright awful when done wrong.  The homicide bombers of Islam are doing it wrong.  Then again, my fellow Catholics who claim to be for the "right" of a woman to stab her baby to death in-utero are doing it wrong too.

I'll take a Muslim who follows his religion correctly over a "Catholic" who hires a doctor to kill his or her baby any day.

On the other hand, I don't want to inflate any institutionalized religion beyond what it is, great or not.  President Obama though seems intent on elevating Islam to a place in American history it does not hold.

President Obama has already proven to be our first "Dhimmi" president, and his reprehensible "apology tour" to make Muslims who hate us like us better, as well as his  "America is not a Christian Nation" speeches are well documented.

And he's at it again.

He said in a speech yesterday: 

"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country."

This isn't the first time he's made that claim either.  He said it in Cairo as well.

Saying the Muslim contribution to America is "too long to catalog" is perhaps nothing more than a sneaky way of hiding the fact that the catalog of Muslim contributions to America would probably make for a leaflet, not a book.

The President quoted boxer Muhammad Ali.  As a true Joe Frazier fan, I never liked Ali as a person.  I'm happy that in the fight where they were both closest to their prime, Joe kicked Muhammad's rear end.

Joe Frazier was a sharecropper's son from South Carolina who later lived in the tough streets of Philly, who went on to be the first man to win both Olympic Gold and the Heavyweight championship for America.  His life was far more representative of the African-American experience than was Ali, who was raised in a middle-class neighborhood.

If a white man had said of Frazier what Ali said of Frazier, particularly the gorilla comments, he would rightfully be held up as a bigot, not praised in a President's speech.

I never bought it that Ali had a religious objection to going to war for America.  His religion also said he couldn't box for the white man's money or cheat on his wife, but he did those things. His was a coward's objection to war hiding behind religion.  So committed was he to not being a good Muslim that the Nation of Islam even stripped him of the name "Muhammad Ali."  So no, I don't think his "religious" objection to war was real.

I'll concede Muslim contributions to America for all Muslims who did fight for their country, America.  I honor them as American patriots.  They take their place among our best.

However, Mr. President, if you are going to repeatedly tout the Muslim religion as having made  other great contributions to America, don't cop-out and say the list is "too long" to make.

Make the list.  In fact, wouldn't it honor Muslims best if you took the time to make the list, sans the faker Muhammad Ali?

47, Not 2

47 is the number of troops who died in Afghanistan in August.  It was the deadliest month of the war.  What was the previous deadliest month?  The month before - July.

When Bush was President, a "deadliest month" statistic would be headline news, complete with anti-war protesters from Cindy Sheehan to...Barack Obama.

Two months in a row would likely have the media interrupting regular programs to run specials on how bad the war is going, in an attempt to sway public opinion away from it.

Now that Obama is President, this is barely making the news. 

The Associated Press Headline is:  "2 American, 2 British Troops Killed In Afghanistan." 

"Two" is the headline?  Not "47?"  Two is the number that was killed just yesterday.  That this was the deadliest month of the war ever was buried in the story.

God bless our troops. Let's pray for their safety and a successful completion to the war.

What's Wrong With The Health Care Debate? The Press, As Usual

Today I'm going to use the Town Hall meeting of Health Bill sponsor Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) as typical of all Town Halls, and his local newspaper, the Gannett owned Asbury Park Press, as representative of all mainstream media.

Because they're all the same.

I blogged about my experience at Pallone's Town Hall meeting here.  I went with a question about an analysis of the bill that found the promise to get rid of all "pre-existing medical condition exclusions" in insurance policies, as promised by the President, isn't actually in the bill.

I purposely asked my question respectfully and in a non-accusatory, non-partisan manner.  I even gave the Congressman a break and conceded that the issue is so complicated I didn't expect an answer from him that night.

There were many well presented and rational questions - like the accountant who brought with him a report drafted by him and other accountants about financial shortcomings of the bill.

What did the media think of my question and the accountant's question?  BOOORRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGG!  Neither of us were mentioned in any of the news coverage the following day.

Oh but the screamers - boy did they get press coverage!

I was the first speaker.  The speaker right after me, without referencing any portion of the bill or even letting on whether he read it, did what we've seen in news clips and YouTube videos at every Town Hall Meeting - he began breathing fire into the microphone - complete with untoward insinuations against the Congressman.

The media rushed to interview that man for his biographical information.  When I inquired of  New Jersey Network (public television) reporter Adrienne Supino why she hurried to interview that angry man, she dropped an "F" bomb on me!  I guess she was looking to interview like minded people as herself.

The day following the Town Hall, the Asbury Park Press, corporate media with a daily monopoly covering more than a million residents in central New Jersey, made certain they covered only the screamers, including the firebreather who spoke after me.  They showed photographs of a man holding a sign saying, "Obamacare May Kill My Daughter." The Asbury Park Press column described the crowd as "booing and hissing."

Yet there was no mention of those of us who read the bill and posed real questions about its problems. We were there too, but the crowd was only portrayed as angry, not inquisitive.

I guess that Jerry Springer stuff sells newspapers, and questions about the bill don't. 

Hey but look - the Asbury Park Press is a private company.  They can edit their stories to sell papers any way they wish.  If I don't like it, I can go start a competing paper.

Then, as usual, the Asbury Park Press went too far.  A couple of days later, they "editorialized" the Pallone Town Hall.

You can read the sanctimonious blather here.

Let's do a descriptive word round-up used by the Asbury Park Press about the crowd at Pallone's Town Hall:
 
Incivility, rancor, disgraceful, unsettling, disinterested, unreasoned, rude, heckling, booing, echo chamber, misinformation, misconception, ignorant, not factual, disturbing, shouting, cheap talk, lynch mob, lies, hijackers, rabble, incendiary.

Wow.  Makes you wonder if the crowd, so described, should ever buy the Asbury Park Press again.

My two favorite descriptions of the crowd used by the Asbury Park Press editorial board were these: "Rugby Scrum" and "Reign of Terror during the French Revolution."  The writer, on  metaphor steroids, managed to put those two concepts in the very same sentence!

Reign of Torror?  Really?  I suppose if I had brought my guillotine and killed 30,000 people rather  than pose a question about whether pre-existing health conditions will be covered under the plan, I would  have been taken more seriously by the Press.
 
The editorial's final analysis was this:

"Those who wouldn't let others voice their opinion did nothing to advance the cause of a badly needed nuanced, intelligent debate."

There were people who brought "intelligent debate" to Pallone's Town Hall, but the Asbury Park Press refuses to acknowledge or cover us.  Instead, by showing nothing but the screamers in print, they, like the rest of media, invite and perhaps even create the screaming.  Nothing enables like the media.

Here's a challenge to the Asbury Park Press:  Why not have  us opponents of the bill and Congressman Pallone up to your editorial board offices for a discussion on real questions about the bill?  You can cover that in your paper to advance "nuanced, intelligent debate."

If you're worried that it won't attract readers, I promise to throw at least one Jerry Springer chair at the Congressman.

For a similar blog post about the misleading Asbury Park Press coverage of Pallone's Town Hall, go see the Dean of New Jersey's blogging contingent, Art Gallagher, whose post is here, complete with video of the audience being respectful to Pallone.

Texting While Driving PSA

I showed this to my teenage daughter today.  Show it to everyone you care about.

Using Ted Kennedy; Democrats Are Awful

I blogged about it yesterday - Rush Limbaugh predicted back in March that the Democrats would eventually call the Health Insurance proposal the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Law."  Democrats pretended to be outraged.

Within hours of Kennedy's death yesterday, Senator Robert Byrd, the former KKK recruiter who the Democrats call the "conscience of the Senate," proposed changing the name of the law exactly as Rush predicted.

Instead of being outraged like they were at Rush, Democrats are lining up behind Byrd to exploit the death of Ted Kennedy to raise the pity factor and pass their government Health Insurance plan.  See the NY Times article on it here.

Disgusting.  The man isn't even buried yet and the Democrats are using him as a tool.

What was it that Rahm Emmnuel said?  Never let a crisis go to waste?

Stay classy, Democrats.