Courtesy Michelle Malkin’s HotAir.com
-By Warner Todd Huston
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, back on Monday, Erin Burnett let loose with her real feelings and laid it on the line right on the air, calling President Bush a “monkey” during a business news piece about the Nicolas Sarkozy visit to China.
During the news piece, Burnett said that she couldn’t see how anyone “could not have a man-crush on that man,” in an apparent allusion to French President Sarkozy. The video on the screen at the time was a shot of president Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy walking side by side, with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel just behind them. After her “man-crush” comment, Burnett made quick to say that she didn’t mean “the monkey” and that she meant “the other one.”
This caused Joe Scarborough and his co-hosts to wonder what the heck she was talking about? “The monkey? Who’s the monkey. What’s she talking about,” Scarborough asked.
After the crew kept asking her who the “monkey” was, Burnett then compounded her gaff by acting as if she thought they were talking about chancellor Merkel. “Why would you be talking about Angela Merkel like that? I don’t understand,” she bumbled in a failed attempt at humor.
Joe was nearly indignant at that one saying, “Now she’s attacking Merkel, she’s our ally in a time of war.”
Naturally, they all treated it as a big joke, but it really was a reveling episode, telling us all how Erin Burnett feels about allies and our own president.
Check out this video:
Jeeze, not much bias there, eh?
November 30, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Crime, Democrats/Leftists, Immigration/Immigrants, Media Bias, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, The Law, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
The AP has used the somewhat heartwarming tale of an illegal alien who found an American boy and his mother suffering from a car accident in the Arizona desert and stayed with them until help arrived as an excuse to plead that illegals aren’t “criminals” and should somehow be given a break. The AP tried to pin this wild leap in logic on Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, but they offer no quote marks around the sentence, so it is hard to say if the Sheriff really said that or the AP was extrapolating and putting words in the Sheriff’s mouth. Still, that this one illegal did something morally right even while he was breaking our laws, does not erase all the illegalities and law breaking that every other illegal immigrant has done over the last 30 years. Nor does it erase the fact that this particular illegal was breaking the law even as he was nice enough to help the little boy and his mother.
Here is the tale:
PHOENIX (AP) — A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.
The 45-year-old woman, who eventually died while awaiting help, had been driving on a U.S. Forest Service road in a remote area just north of the Mexican border when she lost control of her van on a curve on Thanksgiving, Sheriff Tony Estrada said.
The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, Estrada said.
Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help.
As night came on, Mr. Cordova built a fire to keep them warm and stayed with the boy until a couple of hunters spotted them and called for help. Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents and slated for return to his country.
OK, it was nice that Mr. Cordova had that pang of conscience enough to stay by this helpless child. It is possible he saved the boy’s life, and if he didn’t really save his life he certainly comforted the poor, scared kid through the trauma which may or may not have made the whole mess less of a trauma on him. For that Mr. Cordova deserves warm congratulations for his efforts and the knowledge that he did the right thing by the child.
But he doesn’t deserve a free pass into our country.
Here is how the AP ends their story (My Bold):
Why are so many people fooled by unions? It is because unions care about the little guy they are told. It is because unions are supposed to be against the “rich,” or so gullible people are led to believe. Well, here is another case that proves the lie to that claim.
Realtors and business groups in Florida are squaring off against big labor unions in an attempt to pass a property tax cut amendment in the Sunshine state. The labor unions oppose this legislation because they claim it would “cost” local governments and schools “$12.4 billion in lost revenue over the next 5 years.” Why are they worried about that so-called loss? Because it might cause cities and schools to cut some deadwood jobs and that means union jobs cut.
In other words, to save union jobs in our bloated local governments and to save the jobs in failing schools, unions are trying to INCREASE taxes on EVERYONE.
Once again, unions prove how much they are out to help “the little guy.” This time by trying to tax him out of his home.
Nice going unions.
-By Scott Cleland
The top Senators overseeing antitrust matters, Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Ranking Republican Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), wrote a strong letter to the FTC urging serious scrutiny of the Google-DoubleClick merger (see pasted copy of the letter at the bottom of this article).
Having testified before their Senate Subcommittee in opposition to the merger September 27th, I was gratified to learn of the subcommittee’s serious bipartisan concern about the merger and also their very strong grasp of the potential anti-competitive issues arising from the merger.
There are three big takeaways from the letter.
First, the Subcommittee defines the relevant market as Internet advertising: “…combining these two companies’ leading positions in these two forms of Internet advertising could cause significant harm to competition in the Internet advertising marketplace.”
-By Thomas E. Brewton
A very tough standard for our relationships with God.
In the Old Testament, God was exacting when affronted by disobedience to his commands and, especially, by efforts to hide that disobedience from Him.
Pastor Steve Treash used the Book of Joshua, chapters 6 and 7, as his text for the Sunday sermon at Black Rock-Long Ridge Congregational Church (North Stamford, Connecticut). These chapters recount the famous assault and conquest of Jericho, one of the first victories of the Israelites after their entry into the Promised Land.
All went according to God’s word to Joshua, except for one important detail:
[Jericho] and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury. (Joshua 6:17-19)
But the Israelites acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things ; Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel. (Joshua 7:1)
Having conquered Jericho, Joshua turned his attention to the town of Ai, expecting an easy victory. Instead,
-By Frank Salvato
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” – Congressional Oath of Office
One of the greatest responsibilities bestowed upon elected officials is that of constitutional stewardship. While each elected official has a duty to represent his constituents in a faithful manner, each swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We, the citizens of this Republic, through democratic elections, entrust this responsibility to those we elect and expect them to abide by the tenets mandated by the Constitution and to honor their oath to preserve it for future generations. Few have executed that oath more fully than Congressman Henry J. Hyde of Illinois.
Politics in the United States circa 2000 has evolved into what can be legitimately described as a cauldron of special interest narcissism. More often than not, those elected to office are more committed to their political parties and personal political well-being than they are to faithfully representing their constituencies. Because of this manipulation, the massaging of the truth – political spinning – has become acceptable; it has become status quo. While every elected official condemns the manipulation of truth in the political arena very few actually disassociate themselves from the practice. Where, it is said, there is honor among thieves, it would seem that there is little, if any, among America’s political class.
It was for his refusal to compromise neither his oath of office nor the trust of his constituents that Henry Hyde stood out amongst his counterparts in Congress. I can say this because Mr. Hyde served as my congressman for many years and I am proud to have voted for him.
Professionally, his door was always open to his constituents, his attention toward their concerns genuine in nature. Where most politicians view their constituents as entities to “handle,” Mr. Hyde served his constituents as a realist, helping when he could and explaining the intricacies of tough situations and providing guidance and assistance when he couldn’t effect the desired outcome regarding their concerns.
November 29, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, GOP, Media Bias, News, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
The CNN YouTube debate was a sham with planted Democrat operatives posing as “spontaneous” YouTube questioners — one of them being an official Hillary Campaign operative — and a post debate coverage full of apologies and further spin against the candidates all of which ended up being a showcase for CNN’s leftism placed on full display. It isn’t called the Clinton News Network for nuthin’ it appears.
In one instance with the post debate coverage, not only does CNN try their best to muddy Fred Thompson’s stance on the Confederate flag but to accompany the piece they use a picture that makes the candidate look ashamed of himself or pensive, cementing the fact that CNN is trying their best to flavor Thompson’s flag stance as a “bad” thing for him. This is one of the most manipulative articles I’ve seen this election cycle thus far, shameful for its slant and subtle enough that many won’t recognize it for the anti-Thompson spin that it truly is. But, in many ways, this CNN presentation is a perfect example of the sort of spin that CNN specializes in making the lie to their claims of being purveyors of “news.” They are, instead, purveyors of spin designed to harm GOP candidates — in this case Thompson.
In the entry titled, “Romney, Thompson criticize Confederate flag,” this particular piece on the Political Ticker section of CNN’s website fashions itself as a claim that both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson “criticized” the Confederate flag during the YouTube, BoobTube debate on Tuesday evening. However, Romney is barely mentioned in the body of the piece with the focus being mostly on Fred Thompson. And, in that focus, CNN distorts Thompson’s position badly.
They begin with Thompson’s initial reply to the YouTuber who asked the question about where the candidates stood on the flag issue.
But Thompson added that, “as far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capitol.”
But the Confederate flag in South Carolina’s state capital is in a very public place — located on the Statehouse grounds along Gervais Street in Columbia, next to the Confederate Soldier Monument.
CNN then goes on to remind us that, “On Nov. 6, Thompson held a campaign event on the Statehouse grounds, just yards from the flag.”
CNN is clearly trying to make it seem as if Thompson didn’t know that the Confederate flag does fly in a “public” place at the South Carolina state capitol. Thompson clarified to CNN that the memorial over which the CS flag flutters there is acceptable as far as he is concerned.
-By Thomas E. Brewton
The “common good,” Democrats’ current campaigning slogan, is a new name for the same old attack upon the moral virtues championed by Plato and Aristotle.
Academic propagandists of atheistic materialism have warped Plato’s dialogues into a formulaic skepticism aimed at discrediting Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian heritage.
A couple of illustrative examples:
A classic that used to be on most college reading lists illustrates the negative aspects of public opinion, the hook upon which liberals hang their demand for elimination of the electoral college and selection of the President solely by popular vote.
Plato’s short dialog, The Apology, recounts Socrates’s address to the Athenian assembly that was to decide whether his fate was to be death or exile. The democratic assembly, 501 Athenians chosen randomly by lot, and thus a good representation of public opinion, had already convicted Socrates of talking to young people in ways said to be subversive to the Athenian city-state.
Remember the scene in “The Blues Brothers” where Jake Blues (John Belushi) was on his knees in front of Carrie Fischer pleading with her that all the things he did to her wasn’t his fault. His ending line was something like, “I swear to GOD, it wasn’t my fault!” Keep that in mind when watching this gee-we-didn’t-know apology from CNN for having a Hillary Campaign shill in the GOP debate last night!
Well, do you believe that the Clinton News Network didn’t know they had a Hill shill in the GOP debate??
Do, ya, huh?
November 28, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Media Bias, Military, News, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | 6 Comments
General Keith Kerr who appeared as a “spontantous” questioner on CNN’s YouTube Republican Debates hosted by Anderson Cooper is a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But this was not mentioned upfront, Kerr treated as a regular, spontaneous questioner. Shouldn’t that have been made clear to the audience? Or does CNN think it’s OK to sandbag the GOP candidates with a Hillary operative without mentioning it?
In fact, he was so interesting to the CNN folks that they not only had his YouTube video question but he was there in person to ask follow up questions.
Here is the information about General Kerr’s efforts for the Hillary Clinton campaign:
On the eve of the 38th anniversary of Stonewall, Hillary for President announced the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary,” a national steering committee of over 65 leaders in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Members of the steering committee include LGBT elected officials, activists from national LGBT and Democratic Party political groups as well as leaders from the worlds of business, entertainment and sports. This leadership committee will work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel, and fundraising….
At the tail of the info about this Hillary committee is a list of those who have joined Hillary’s efforts:
LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee Members (Committee In Formation)*:
(Among the many members is…)
Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve
And, what does this endorsement mean? According to Hillary’s website:
* Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization.
So, what do you all think? Was this a stealth Hillary shill by CNN?
-By Warner Todd Huston
I have to say, this little L.A.Times editorial really takes the cake for insensitivity. It should receive some sort of award for being one of the most gauche pieces I’ve seen from the extreme leftists masquerading as “journalists” for a long, long time. Yes, the Times deserves condemnation for exploiting someone’s tragedy to make a mere political point. In “Sandra Day O’Connor’s loss, and ours,” the Times laments that because of the former Justice’s husband’s Alzheimer’s disease, Sandra Day quit the bench so we lost her to the court and that loss has resulted in the court being “radically tilted to the right.” Imagine exploiting John O’Connor’s disease like this? If a Republican had written this editorial, imagine the hate that would be spewed against him?
This is really a shocking editorial.
From Arizona last week came the sad news that John O’Connor, husband of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has grown romantically attached to another patient in an Alzheimer’s facility where both live. For Justice O’Connor, the pain of watching her husband drift away must at some level be balanced by the notion that his new relationship brings him some measure of happiness and peace. Their son reported she was gratified that her husband “was relaxed and happy and comfortable living here.”
Undeniably this is sad news but is it something we need to know? Is it our business that this man’s brain disabling disease has caused his unknowing infidelity? Shouldn’t this be left in the realm of personal family tragedy not open for public consumption? Where is the public’s need to know here? But wait until you see where the L.A.Times takes this story…
John O’Connor’s fading connection stands as a reminder of the capriciousness of this tragic disease and, in this case, of its consequences not just for the O’Connor family but for the nation.
Their loss is our loss? How is that, you wonder?
-By Warner Todd Huston
Here are five reasons why forced association with unions breeds corruption and why right to work laws are good to stem that coercion.
- Freedom to Associate Also Means Freedom Not to Associate – The average man on the street, as well as constitutional scholars, understands that any genuine personal right should include the freedom to refrain from exercising that right.
- Right to Work Bolsters Job Creation, Personal Income Growth – In addition to freeing millions of Americans from the yoke of forced union dues, a national Right to Work law would at the same time help to improve our nation’s economy.
- Right to Work’s Benefits Reach Citizens at All Income Levels – In addition to protecting the freedom of association and promoting economic development, Right to Work laws are an anti-poverty program with a proven record of success.
- Passage of a National Right to Work Law Would Eliminate All Forced-Dues Politicking by Private-Sector Union Bosses – Not passing a national Right to Work law means not only that American workers will be denied a brighter economic future. It also means that millions of private-sector workers will continue to be forced to contribute to political candidates they do not wish to support.
- A National Right to Work Law Would Reduce Union Corruption – The incestuous relationship between forced union dues and corruption was captured perfectly by the late U.S. Sen. John McClellan (D-Ark.): “Compulsory unionism and corruption go hand in hand.” McClellan was referring to the corruption inherent within labor organizations that depend on the forced tribute of workers.
-By Thomas E. Brewton
Mr. Krugman waves his magic wand and presumes to banish future difficulties for Social Security.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, in his November 16 piece, tells us:
But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.
As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.
First, while it’s true that Medicare and Medicaid will become the largest drain on Federal funds in coming decades, it’s not true that concern about Social Security in misguided. That’s analogous to saying that, compared to a category 7 hurricane, a tornado is no problem, because its total devastation is confined to a smaller area.
November 27, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, 2nd Amendment, Congress, Constitution, Crime, Democrats/Leftists, History, News, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, The Law, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | 5 Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
The recent outrage against Constitutional liberty by the Boston Police raises some very interesting questions. Can we voluntarily give up our Constitutional rights? Further, can government legally violate our rights even if we ask them to do so? These are questions that we all need to consider before allowing police into our homes, invited or no.
Last week The Boston Globe reported that the Boston police are about to launch a program in “high-crime neighborhoods” where a roving band of policemen will walk door-to-door and ask parents if they have permission to search the home for guns. These police squads intend to conduct searches without warrants, claiming that the invitation by the homeowner is all they need to commence the search.
Like all steps down the road to tyranny, the pavement here is being laid by folks with good intentions, officials who are, after all, only trying to “help” the community. The Commissar of Police, Edward Davis claims that he is giving the folks of Boston “an option” for what to do about gun violence in the city. The cops “ask permission” to enter and supposedly only do so when given the OK. They also target specific homes that have been fingered as troublesome by neighbors and other intelligence sources.
Some community leaders are professing their faith in this new program that is patterned after one instituted, but later abandoned, by the St. Louis police. Boston’s community leaders seem ready to give this a try because the program is supposed to be spurred by community interaction and tips to the Boston PD. It is interesting and instructive, however, to note that some reports about the demise of the St. Louis program claim that one of the reasons they shut it down there was because the St. Louis PD began to rely more on their own intelligence and less on community tips. Meaning, the community was no longer involved and the police there began to act as if it was solely their own resources that should support the program.
It seems the St. Louis PD shut down their program before it got completely out of hand, but the shift from a program based on community involvement to one that relied solely on the supposed powers and authorities of the police is an indication of where the program would have, must have, ended up — as an out of control program run by storm-troopers who imagined they had the right to kick down the door of any home they felt the desire to target.
In any case, whether the people of Boston allow police to roam through their homes or not, this is a clear violation of civil rights, illegal search and seizure laws, and the very Constitution itself. It is also a violation of principles that the Founders held dear, namely that man has certain unalienable rights that government cannot violate, no matter what. Apparently the Boston police don’t much care about such rights.
But you should.
-By Frank Salvato
The people of the United States, for all practical purposes, like to believe we are fair-minded. We believe that everyone should get a fair shot. Most of us believe that if you work hard you should get ahead. Many of us have even embraced the ever advancing multiculturalism counter-culture, which is completely antithetical to the concept of E Pluribus Unum; “Out of many, one.” With regard to the latter, vindication has come to those of us who believe we are fair-minded while being opposed to the “Balkanization” the United States.
It would seem that in our nation’s quest to prove to the world that we are inclusive and tolerant we have, literally, allowed those who want to kill us into some of the most sensitive areas of our government, areas where they put our national security at risk.
In two recent and separate instances, individuals linked to terrorism organizations have been allowed to rise to important positions within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition the Inspector General for the United States Agency for International Development has issued a report that states:
“…policies, procedures, and controls are not adequate to reasonably ensure against providing assistance to terrorists…[ USAID’s] policies or procedures do not require the vetting of potential or current USAID partners.”
The USAID internal audit came in the aftermath of a fierce gunbattle between Hamas and al Fatah terrorists at the Hamas administrated Islamic University in Gaza. After the battle, large caches of weapons and ammunition were displayed, recovered from inside the university. The Islamic University in Gaza received more than $140,000 in funding from USAID. Hamas is a State Department designated terrorist organization.
November 27, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Congress, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Media Bias, News, Society/Culture, Taxes, Uncategorized, Vince Johnson | Comments Off
-By Vince Johnson
The IRS currently allows various tax breaks designed to encourage citizens to invest in various products and technologies that will conserve energy derived from natural gas, oil and coal. Some examples of these tax breaks are listed below: (Quoted from the Sierra Club web page)
Hybrid vehicle tax credit: this credit varies by make and model, but can be up to $3,000.
Home energy efficiency tax credit: up to $500 for home improvements designed to make your home more energy efficient, such as new windows or a more efficient heating/cooling system.
Residential solar and fuel cell tax credit: up to $2,000 for installation of a solar electric, solar water heating, or fuel cell system. Any excess credit can be carried forward one additional year.
Energy subsidy exemption: Any rebates or incentives you receive for energy conservation measures, directly or indirectly, from utilities are not counted as taxable income.
There are many more similar tax breaks, but those listed above will be sufficient to illustrate the need for similar tax credits and allowances designed to encourage people to prepare for the oncoming devastation that will be caused by Global Warming. The unquestionable certainty of this oncoming disaster is based upon scientific studies and reports made by the United Nations, hundreds of respected and well educated authorities on climatology and meteorology, front page coverage as approved by the influential editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Denver Post, Atlanta Constitution and the Oregonian.
In light of the overwhelmingly unanimous clamor about Global Warming, it has therefore become appropriate and judicious to suggest that Congress instruct the IRS to make some critically important modifications in the Tax Code as listed below: (And do so before it is too late!)
Allow up to $150 tax credit for FEMA approved books and educational materials advising families how to prepare for the impact of Global Warming. (At present, no such books are available, but it is reasonable to assume many are currently being rushed to the printers with all possible dispatch.)
-By Warner Todd Huston
On the CBS “Early Show” on Nov. 13th, co-host Julie Chen claimed that there was “an alarming suicide rate among veterans” of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. CBS then aired a report that went on to claim that the suicide rate for our troops had wildly climbed. Our friend at Newsbusters, Kyle Drennen, had his doubts about the report when the show originally aired and now comes an editorial by oftentime military reporter Michael Fumento further casting large amounts of skepticism on the CBS report.
The CBS show specifically wanted to make it seem like Iraq war vets are the ones that have seen these outrageously rising suicide rates. Reporter Armen Keteyian included in his report this opener:
Staff Sergeant Justin Reyes spent a violent year serving in Iraq…Medical records show Justin suffered severe psychological trauma after witnessing “multiple dead” and having to “sort through badly mutilated bodies.” Earlier this year, one month after separating from the Army, Justin hanged himself with a cord in his apartment, at just 26…families recently sat down to talk about losing loved ones, all veterans of Iraq, to suicide…Mia Sagahon’s boyfriend, Walter, shot himself at age 27 about a year and a half after he came back from Iraq.
Clearly CBS is pinning these so-called high numbers on the war on terror.
But, Fumento comes out now to throw some cold water on CBS’s inflamed claims and give us some much needed facts to ponder. Initially remarking that the statistics that CBS arrived at were had by their own reckoning, not that of any third party agency that might be less biased than CBS, Fumento wonders how those numbers were arrived at?
-By Warner Todd Huston
To keep my integrity, I must say when it is good to see one of our own go. Actually, I use “one of our own” guardedly for Trent Lott, who was a life long Democrat until he changed parties in the early 1970s, was never really one of our own. He changed parties not because he was a real Republican, but because he thought it might afford him a win to office. In that he was right… and that was the last time there was much “right” about him.
Ever since he entered Congress he acted like a center left Democrat. His tenure as Senate Majority leader in the early part of the 2000’s was a disaster for the Republican agenda as he constantly allowed the Dems to win issue after issue while he stymied the GOP agenda.
It should be noted, he is also a supporter of the wretched and misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”
Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, will announce his resignation effective this year, FOX News has learned.
Lott, 66, was re-elected in 2006 amid speculation that he would retire. Instead, against his wife Tricia’s wishes, he ran again, regaining a Senate leadership position after being forced from the top Republican seat in 2002, following remarks he made that were seen as racially insensitive.
He won’t be missed as far as any conservative feels!
I don’t do entertainment very often, but here is a great song/commercial for the National Guard by the Rock band 3 Doors Down. I should say that my oldest son is a member of the ANG.
November 26, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Business, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Media Bias, News, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
What is it with the MSM and their fetish with worrying so much about everyone but Americans? For the L.A.Times, for instance, even the weakness of our dollar is cause for worrying over how bad it is for… wait for it… foreign companies. While our dollar weakens and could perhaps bring us major economic trouble, the L.A.Times shows serious concern and laments that the soft currency crisis is hurting European companies who are finding their prices rising because of our falling dollar. The Times is all upset that foreigners are losing profits, but there isn’t a word in its story about what it might do to Americans, befitting its general disinterest in America and perfectly reflecting its heightened concern for foreigners. Worse, the tone of this article serves only to make America look like the bad guy once again, like it’s our fault that the falling dollar is hurting those poor, innocent Europeans.
Amusingly, the Times starts out by giving us the worries of high fashion industry leader Yves Saint Laurent as the company tries to figure out how many pockets to remove from its next line of clothing so that the company can save materials and bring down costs. As if this sort of worrying over haute couture is something that will alarm its readers, the Times sonorously reports the fashion giant’s worries.
PARIS — At Yves Saint Laurent, the storied French design house that manufactures exclusively in Europe, the plunging value of the U.S. dollar has Chief Executive Valerie Hermann thinking about the number of pockets on a skirt and the price of embroidery on a dress.
Yeah, I’m cryin’ over their troubles. And so is every average American… all broken up that a company that caters to the nouveau riche has to remove a pocket from their latest frock that only a tiny segment of the world can afford in the first place. Way to connect with the readers, L.A. Times!
After that clueless opener, the Times goes on to worry over the rising worth of the euro in comparison to the falling dollar.
November 26, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Islam, Islamofascism, Judges, Media Bias, Military, News, Patriotism, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
Tuck yourselves in, children, for tonight I’m going to bring you a nice bedtime story. It’s all about our nice friends in the animal kingdom and how they dealt with their nemesis, the wily and ravenous wolf.
Barnyard Justice and the Animal’s Court
The forest is aflame with terror. Animals were being eaten at a voracious rate by the wily wolf and his carnivorous henchmen. For a time, the barnyard watched from a distance barely noticing. Eventually they became uneasy, yet they were still secure that they were safe inside their fences. But, soon enough, the terror was visited upon the barnyard animals, too. It came to pass that all involved decided that it was time that both communities did something about wily wolf’s reign of terror so the accused was brought before the animal court.
Wise judge Owl banged the gavel and called the court to order.
The stalwart Cow brought the accused into the courtroom to face justice.
The sly Weasel, representing the accused, took his place beside his client and winked his weasely wink.
The accused, the wily Wolf, stood proudly unrepentant and faced the court. He glanced at the jury with a slight snarling smile and nodded his head self assuredly. He unconsciously licked his lips and stared hungrily at the animals in the jury box making the Hens and Ducks there feel somewhat uncomfortable though they didn’t know why.
“A whoo-whooo, I bring this court of the Animal Kingdom to order”, said wise judge Owl as he banged the gavel.
“Yer honor”, interjected the sly Weasel, “I move fer a dismissal for the reason dat dis here pillar of the community, my client the wily Wolf, is being maliciously maligned by the court of public opinion and that these jurors could not possibly be unbiased seein as how they have been brainwashed by the powers that be against my innocent and shy client, the wily Wolf.” With that the sly Weasel sat down confident of his perspicacity.
“Motion denied,” Said the wise owl. “The court will now take opening statements.”
-By Warner Todd Huston
OK, we here at the UnionLabel blog are all about being fair. Here we have a report that the folks at the Tropicana casino in Atlantic City have filed a complaint against the good ‘ol folks of Local 54 (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO) for unsavory and, perhaps, illegal union tactics. But, far be it for us to automatically accept the word of a casino.
But here is what the casino’s General Manager said:
“Not only are the tactics in direct violation of our agreement, but this is a classic case of the union’s leadership trying to further its own agenda with callous disregard for employees who must suffer the consequences, both financial and job-related, when we cannot maintain certain levels of business,” Tropicana General Manager Mark Giannantonio said. “These kinds of tactics go beyond advocacy and it’s high time that someone stood up for the interests of the 3,700 people working on our property who are being hurt by the union’s destructive intent.”
So, a casino guy. OK. But let’s consider this. We ARE talking about a union here! So, who do we believe? Well, as America’s Founding Fathers said during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, “let history be our guide.” And a perusal of history finds us unable to be too overawed by the innocence, truth and peacefulness of Local 54.
Speaking of “peace”, these fine peaceful union folks have been photographed carrying signs that proclaim “No Contract, No Peace!,” so their peaceful intentions are certainly above question.
Of course, it should go without saying that since the 1990s this particular local has been mixed up with the mob and had various officials accused and convicted of embezzlement… but then, seemingly what union hasn’t? Even as late as this month The New York Times reported that claims of unsavory tactics of Local 54.
In announcing a civil suit aimed at taking over Local 54 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh said the Philadelphia-based Bruno/Scarfo crime family had used violence and intimidation to control Local 54 for 20 years and to systematically loot its health and welfare funds.
Hmmm. So, who do we believe?
I’ll leave that you, our faithful readers.
-By Thomas E. Brewton
Upward pressure on oil prices intensifies.
Profligate spending at the Federal level, funded by the Federal Reserve’s creation of money out of thin air, in excess of the underlying increase in production of real, useful goods and services, is destabilizing worldwide currency exchange rates.
The dollar, since World War II, has by default been the world monetary standard. A responsible central bank in that circumstance has a duty to maintain a sound currency to prevent disruptions and dislocations in world commerce. The Federal Reserve has signally failed to fulfill that role.
The fault is not entirely the Fed’s. It can be traced to the Employment Act of 1946, which enshrined John Maynard Keynes’s socialistic economic doctrines as the official policy of the United States. The Fed was directed, among other missions, to manage the economy via currency manipulation in order to maintain full employment. Keynesian orthodoxy, which is the ideology of the Democratic Party, dictates that every economic glitch can be cured by increased Federal spending.
The Fed’s ever-ready response to the spurs of Federal spending has made it a poor steward of a sound currency for the rest of the world.
-By Scott Cleland
The WSJ article, “Google has even bigger plans for mobile phones,” appropriately addresses the big “open” question of whether Google is serious about becoming a wireless carrier, because if it is, it will need to bid and win substantial spectrum in the upcoming FCC 700 MHz spectrum auction.
The WSJ article states: “the behind-the-scenes moves illustrate just how serious the Internet giant is about trying to reshape the wireless world.” The evidence in favor of Google’s serious entry into wireless is significant, as Google:
- Successfully extracted unprecedented FCC auction rules that would favor Google’s advertising business model over the existing wireless subscription model, and that would likely depress the business utility of the spectrum so Google could acquire it at below market value;
- (Google understands it broke a lot of china at the FCC and in Washington this summer in order to win the “Google spectrum concessions.” Hopefully, Google also understands it would be more than bad form to slap the hand that tries to feed you, by not bidding on the band specially tailored for Google’s model.)
- Has repeatedly pledged it would bid almost $5B in the auction;
- Acquired a test wireless license, built towers and is operating a wireless service at its headquarters using “googley” phones;
- Has hired game theorists to game out its strategy;
- “Discovered Wall Street was enthusiastic about the company’s ability to raise any needed cash;”
- (Truly amazing that Wall Street bankers would in fact loan a company money that already has ~$10B in cash in the bank and the number one brand in the world. Good for Google for clearing up that big uncertainty…) and
- Had discussions with a variety of potential partners like Clearwire, but is reportedly likely to go it alone to maximize its bidding flexibility.
Let me add another reason that the Googlers may bid: EGO. Googlers believe they are the smartest of the smart, and they must be drawn to the challenge and complexity of this “high-level chess game” in auction game theory. What better forum to showcase their intellectual, algorithmic, and business acumen superiority?
-By Warner Todd Huston
The WaTimes has an interesting story today about the newest scare and strong-arm tactics that unions are using to force their will on employers and employees who do not want them around.
Everything from hiring faux protesters at less than union scale to picket a business to using the internet to attack companies that refuse their representation is being used by this newest crop of union thugs. And they are getting a nice rap sheet from the government because of it!
Welcome to the modern world of labor warfare. Call it RICO 2.0. For the second time in as many weeks, an employer has filed a civil-racketeering case against a major union, opening a new battleground in the fight over how unions get (and keep) members.
For decades, employers, government officials and honest union members used RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuits to fight mob influence in the labor movement. It was “On the Waterfront” in real life. Some people got killed, some things fell off the back of trucks, and some businessmen were muscled into toeing the union line.
But as times have changed, so has the style of union extortion.
Here is another case of a government misusing Eminent Domain laws to enrich themselves and their developer buddies. This time Richie “King” Daley is trying to destroy the privately held property in Lincoln Square, Chicago so that he and his mob infested pals can build new buildings to make cash.
Help save these property owners’ private property. Go to http://www.savelincolnsquare.com/ and find out about the illicit actions of the money grubbers and corrupt, mob infested Chicago Aldermen and their leader Richie “King” Daley.
-By Michael M. Bates
The notion of a common good has traditionally been popular in this democratic Republic. In recent years and among certain public figures, however, the expression has taken on a more collectivist connotation.
When Senator Clinton said, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” we knew she meant the government would do the taking as well as the determining of what is defined as the common good. Decision making by individuals would be replaced with state edict.
Last year Mrs. Clinton’s husband gave a speech on the common good. Using the term no fewer than two dozen times, he said it means a covenant for equal opportunity, shared responsibility and an inclusive community.
He went on: “We believe in mutual responsibility. They believe that in large measure people make or break their own lives, and you’re on your own.”
Other deep thinkers such as John Edwards and Barack Obama have hailed the concept of a common good. We know from their track records that they, like the Clintons, view this primarily in terms of forced economic redistribution.
As we celebrate Thanksgiving, we’re reminded that the Plymouth Colony’s Pilgrims gave their own form of the liberal common good theory a try. It failed miserably.
November 25, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Democrats/Leftists, Education, Islam, Islamofascism, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized | Comments Off
-By Nancy Morgan
I was surrounded by sartorial splendor at the magnificent Breakers hotel in Palm Beach last weekend as world class experts expounded on some truly frightening topics – our government’s handling of the war on terror, the pitiable state of Muslim women unfortunate enough to be born under Sharia law, and the consequences of a Hillary victory in 2008.
The Restoration Weekend, hosted by David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, is my all time favorite conservative gathering. Unlike CPAC or other well known conservative conferences, attendees have three days to hobnob with true conservative luminaries. To hold actual conversations with the likes of Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Bill Sammon, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, Tom DeLay, James Woolsey, John O’Neill, etc. To get the inside scoop on the issues of the day in relaxed and elegant surroundings.
Pricey? You bet. Worth it? Absolutely.
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School