I don’t know why I’m commenting on this now, since I’m not much in the mood for my friends to pull a Linda Chavez on me again. But, the show must go on.
Dubya may say “Don’t call it ‘amnesty'”, but Charlie Rangel says “Sure it is!” From the Washington Times:
On other weekend talk shows, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he and others who want to legalize illegal aliens should be up front about calling it amnesty.
“I don’t know why this word ‘amnesty’ is such a terrible word,” he said on CNN. “I think these people would make good citizens. We ought to give them amnesty.”
At least give Rangel credit for being honest about the amnesty. He’s saying that…what was the expression again? Oh, right…”if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…“
Linda Chavez, conservative in nearly all ways, penned a nice little race-baiting screed against people with principled objections to the amnesty plan in Congress. From Junkyard Blog:
Ragnar’s Really Mad At Linda Chavez
And I can’t say I blame him, because she’s really making a scene, dragging out the ad hominems against anybody who disagrees with her:
Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.
No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy “experts” at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.
What a divisive hack Chavez is. I’m beyond sick of being called a racist by these open-borders zealots because I have a good-faith bee in my bonnet–and whether or not it’s a concern you share, please accept this isn’t some proxy issue for my secret phobia of Peruvian janitors–about the idea of terrorists, gangs, drugs, and weapons sneaking over the border. I spent some time and political capital defending Chavez’s self-scuttled appointment to my friends, back in the day. Now, I’m very glad someone with that much ill-disguised contempt for her party’s base isn’t Secretary of Labor.
Speaking of which, that 2001 nomination of Chavez as Sec. of Labor gives a clear indication as to why she’s all gung-ho about granting amnesty to criminal aliens. If you recall, she withdrew her nomination upon revelations that she once housed and employed…yup, you guessed it…a criminal alien. Hey, if nothing else, at least she’s consistent!
This is truly pathetic. When it comes to issues like gerrymandered districts, affirmative action, quotas, or hate crimes, we’ve come to expect the left to abandon all pretense of honest political dialogue and go straight to the intellectually lazy and dishonest tactic of race-baiting, portraying all opponents of those things as being closet Klansmen. Now we’re beginning to see the same lazy and dishonest (and shameful) approach from parts of the right. Well, screw them. Just as I won’t cower in fear from some leftard breaking out the “bigot” label to describe my genuine opposition to race-based laws and policies, I certainly won’t back down from a purported conservative trying the same crappy tactic.
…should rarely go in the same sentence, since it is a bigger myth than unicorns. From Texas Rainmaker:
How do you think the MSM would cover a story involving a conservative refusing to shake hands with Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman or Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish? I can almost guarantee there’d be a lot more coverage and certainly more specials on diversity or tolerance than there is when a liberal refuses to shake hands with a conservative candidate because he’s a Mormon.
Mitt Romney’s visit to New Hampshire started on a sour note Tuesday when a restaurant patron declared he would not vote for the Republican presidential contender because of his faith.
“I’m one person who will not vote for a Mormon,” Al Michaud of Dover shouted at Romney when the former Massachusetts governor approached him inside Harvey’s Bakery. Romney was kicking off the second of two day’s worth of campaign visits in the lead primary state.
Romney kept smiling as he asked, “Can I shake your hand anyway?”
Michaud replied, “No.”
Michaud later told reporters he was not “a right-winger,” alluding to some evangelical Christians who have compared Romney’s faith to a cult. Instead, Michaud stated he was “a liberal.”
Cultural diversity is a one way street for liberals. When they preach “tolerance” it’s tolerance of them, not tolerance from them…
As one of TR’s commenters point out, there was indeed MSM coverage of the incident. However, I think TR’s point wasn’t that the story wasn’t covered, but how it was covered. In other words, had a Republican done the same thing, the spin would have clearly been more pronounced.
But to me, the MSM bias or lack thereof isn’t the point. The point is that the myth of liberal “tolerance” is being exposed more and more each day.
Excellent post by Michelle Malkin! Here:
President Bush attacked immigration enforcement proponents for engaging in “empty political rhetoric”–and the NYTimes was all too happy to report on it:
President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”
President Bush, meet the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
President Bush, meet Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
President Bush, meet your oath of office in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Talk about “empty rhetoric,” President Bush.
The Heritage Foundation has a great analysis of rewarding criminal aliens’ behavior by undermining the rule of law that Dubya was sworn to uphold and enforce…just in case Dubya wants to take a gander. Yeah, right.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I can’t wait until this guy gets the hell out of D.C.
From Hot Air:
“I think that celebrities did not expect that free speech is a two-way street, and that on the Internet, we can now talk back to them. And so when they preach that we get rid of our SUVs, those middle class out there who go to Costco with their three or four kids … while they’re flying in private jets — I don’t think that celebrities understood … that putting out ideas that marginalize them from their core audience, that shows a sense of elitism, is probably not in their best interest.”
Too bad he was re-elected last year, otherwise he might actually listen. From the NY Slimes:
Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.
“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room…
The day after the proposal was announced, the eight phone lines at the [state Republican] party headquarters were so jammed that staff members almost decided to close the office.
“Every single line was literally off the hook most of the day,” said Sean McCaffrey, the state party’s executive director. “None of these were happy calls. Truly, from our headquarters to the 15 county parties, the ratio was 100 to zero. Not a single county chairman, not a single legislative district chairman reported having a single call from a grass-roots individual saying, ‘Please pass this immigration bill.’”
No one likes it, but since “compromise” and “bipartisanship” are paramount in the Senate, it will pass anyway.
Accounting ignorance is obviously a bipartisan problem. From USA Today:
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.
“We’re on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations,” says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.
Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.
The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don’t show up when the government reports its financial condition.
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
I always maintained that the economic “boom” of the 1990’s was an illusion, but the left wanted so badly to give Clinton credit for the economy. Well, there’s no ignoring it anymore: it was an illusion, and despite the economic indicators today that were better than the 90’s (interest rates, unemployment, tax rates, tax receipts, home ownership, etc.), the economic “good times” we see now are also an illusion.
Sometime, some day, the piper has to be paid. Then again, as alleged Republican Rob Simmons put it, our elected officials don’t care because they’ll be dead by then…to hell with the rest of us.
I’m not going to link to the Kostards’ web site, but if you go there, you’ll see where Cindy She-hag has a pity party column. Apparently, many on the left have labeled her as an “attention whore” (go figure). Perhaps there’s hope for the left yet.
Part of her “goodbye” screed: “Good-bye America … you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.”
Hey, don’t go away mad…just go away.
This will be my last post until after Memorial Day. I’d like to take this opportunity to do two things:
1. I’d like to wish all of you a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. Please take the time to reflect on the sacrifice of those who died in our nation’s service.
2. I’d like to request that you offer prayers for the family of my cousin Derek, who died Monday in a tragic swimming accident. His father, mother, and sister will need God’s strength and love to pull them through this.
It looks like the whole “smelly hippie” thing isn’t just a stereotype after all! Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery:
German authorities have discovered the obvious when it comes to fighting moonbats: tracking them by smell.
The tactic will be used to keep track of the odoriferous left-wing types likely to use next month’s Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm as a pretext to riot in protest against economic freedom. Scent samples will allow police dogs to zero in on the likely instigators if violence breaks out.
Moonbat scent samples might also have chemical warfare applications.
Here’s guessing that the cops’ patchouli-sniffing K-9’s will be going crazier than a blind gay dude at the San Francisco Bean-Eating Contest.
Good Job, Wolf [Greg Pollowitz]
Kathryn linked to this interview earlier, but I though Wolf’s next question deserved notice as well (emphasis mine):
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: You know, Wolf, first, I understand there’s some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty. …
BLITZER: Secretary Gutierrez, what do you say to those other critics who say you’re rewarding illegal activity?
Good job, Wolf. Sec. Chertoff just said that conservatives want to kill illegal immigrants, and you didn’t challenge him.
Not content with stepping in it once, Chertie does it again a day later:
Chertoff is really losing his professional demeanor:
I understand that some people think it’s not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed.
And like Wolf Blitzer earlier today, Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe didn’t challenge Chertoff’s assertion that conservatives want to kill illegal immigrants.
Why would Wolf or Wolffe challenge him? They both believe what Chertoff says to be true.
Damn…Chertie’s done got us righties figgered out, dudn’t he? We are opposed to the enforcement of our immigration laws and to any attempts to reward the flouting of our laws, because…we’d rather the illegal aliens be executed and made into Soylent Green. Just when I thought our devious secret intents were more secure than a teenage girl at a Barney Frank sleepover, Chertie’s gotta blow the whistle on us like that! Curses!!!
Sec. Chertoff, with all due respect: you’re a dipsh#t.
Man, I wish I had the entrepreneurial talent that the Silky Pony has…not to mention the chutzpah. First, he decides he wants to learn more about poverty by working for (and making a lot of non-poverty money off of) a hedge fund. Now this:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged “every financial barrier” be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself — as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.
The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus’ Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.
The earnings — though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate — could hand ammunition to his competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidate — who was then the head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina — chose to speak on “Poverty, the great moral issue facing America,” as his $55,000 topic at UC Davis.
That could cause both parents and students to note some irony here: UC Davis — like the rest of the public University of California system — will get hit this year by a 7 percent tuition increase that likely hits many of the kids his speeches are aimed at helping.
Allah at Hot Air opines:
For some reason, people keep asking him on the campaign trail about that mansion of his that’s big enough to encompass one of the two Americas he’s always yammering about. His answer: “So would it be better if I had done well and now I didn’t care about people who are struggling?” My answer: No, it’d be better if you led by example, liquidated 75% of that $40 million nest egg you’re sitting on, and showed us proles how someone committed to redistribution and income equality means business. Exit question: Could he eke by on only $10 mil?
I must confess, reluctantly, that I now agree with John Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme: one America for $55k-a-pop speeches on poverty while wearing a $400 ‘do, and the other America for the rest of us.
Yet another reason I can’t wait for this guy to get the hell out of office. From Hot Air:
A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes…
Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for Kennedy, said a provision for requiring back taxes was in Kennedy’s original bill and that [DHS Secretary Michael] Chertoff called for it to be removed. “Chertoff thought it would be too challenging to accurately determine the amount of an applicant’s back taxes,” she said…
Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which says it has 362,000 members, was stunned that the provision was removed. While saying it would be difficult to come up with a precise estimate of the amount of back taxes owed by undocumented residents, he said it would be in the tens of billions of dollars, with a similar amount in fines for failure to pay the taxes.
Too challenging, you see. In contrast to, say, the bureaucracy that’s going to be needed to enforce the moronic, purely symbolic touchback requirement. That’s not too challenging.
The real reason they stripped it is because they know illegals wouldn’t comply with it, just like many of them aren’t going to comply by paying the $5,000 penalty. Which is why that’ll end up being stripped too.
Just you try and tell the feds that figuring out your taxes is “too challenging” and see if that won’t land you in the federal hoosegow. Law-abiding Americans can get in trouble for screwing up their tax burden, but illegal aliens get a pass on it. Tell me again how this is NOT amnesty?
BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink before reading this. From Nancy Pe-loco, regarding the “points system” part of the illegal alien sham-nesty bill:
The point system Pelosi refers to would grant those seeking citizenship points based on English proficiency, work history, family status and passing a criminal background check.
“We’re about families and family values,” Pelosi added.
Oh. My. (insert politically correct deity here). The party of abortion-on-demand and “oral sex isn’t sex” and running a prostitution ring (er, “escort service“) is going to call itself “pro-family”? Pffffff-bwhahahahahahahaha! Oh my…I haven’t laughed that hard since Dan Quayle misspelled “potatoe” or Dukakis rode in the tank (before his election went in the tank)!
Talk about beating a dead horse.
Air America is scheduling a high-profile lineup of presidential candidates, political players and celebrities for next week as part of the liberal talk network’s “relaunch” after suffering financial woes.
When are we idiot Americans going to wake up and recognize the true radio genius of Air America, hmmmm? For those of you on the left, the prior question was both rhetorical and sarcasm.
Air America: stuck on stupid.
Color me with the “unsurprised” crayon. From JustHillary:
PR.com: “Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?”
Jenna Jameson: “Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office.
I bet you would, Jenna. I bet you would.
Ted Kennedy On Immigration
1965: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
1986: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”
2007: “Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system.” (With amnesty, like the one from 21 years earlier that he swore would never be brought forward again! – Ed.)
My friends, pardon me for referencing yet another “good enough for me, but not for thee” situation, but this stuff just presents itself. From Michelle Malkin:
Associated Press writer Nancy Benac plays the “diversity” card with a piece tallying up how many women and minorities service in power positions for the various presidential candidates. The hit piece slamming Republicans for not promoting enough non-white people is titled “Democrats seek diversity in advisers:”
When the leading Republican presidential candidates sit down with their top advisers, those with a seat at the table don’t exactly look like America, to use the phrase popularized by former President Clinton.
The 2008 presidential race is notable for the presence of a woman and a black among the leading Democratic candidates. But progress is much slower when it comes to diversifying the ranks of top decision-makers within the various campaigns, especially those of the Republicans.
The campaigns of the top GOP candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani — couldn’t point to any key advisers who are black, although there are some women in the top tier. Not unsurprisingly, those campaigns with the most women and minorities among top staff members are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
“Not unsurprisingly,” eh? Fair and balanced at the AP, as always.
Perhaps Ms. Benac–journalistic concern troll for “diversity”–should start counting the racial and ethnic beans at her own organization. Take a look at the AP Board of Directors. Not unsurprisingly, it’s “Do as we say, not as we do” with the liberal media elite. …
Let’s tally up so far…Here’s your final tally:
22 members of the AP Board of Directors.
19 out of 22 are men.
0 out of 22 are “women of color.”
1 out of 22 is a “man of color.”
Ahem: Perhaps journalists who live in non-“diverse” houses…
“Diversity” at the AP
Man, this is pure gold! From EU Referendum:
It is not often one whoops with joy listening to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, but Jon Humphrys interviewing John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, this morning was a sheer delight. (You can listen to the piece here.)
From Humphrys we got the usual BBC droning, with forthright responses from Bolton. Eventually though, after a run of sneering negativity over Iraq, Bolton had had enough. What did it was the suggestion that the US was “a busted flush”, Humphrys calling in aid George Soros.
“Are you kidding me!”, responded Bolton. “This is a man of the extreme left. I am sure you will find a great deal in common with him, as would many others on the continent.“
A sniffy Humphrys was not going to take that lying down though. On the attack, he demanded: “Do you make the assumption then that because one asks questions – perfectly valid questions about the conduct of American policy – one is on the extreme left?”
Bolton was unfazed: “I can see it from the content of your questions and the perspective from which you’re coming and from the direction that your questions are taking. If you tell me you’re a conservative, I would be happy to accept it.”
That really got Humphrys going: “I would tell you that I’m neither conservative, nor left wing not right wing, nor middle wing, because…”
A laughing Bolton took that in his stride: “You have no views at all. Your brain is empty, you have no views at all…”
Attempting to muster all his majesty, Humphrys was almost squeaking in indignation: “I have an awful lot of views, Ambassador, a view for every subject under the sun but I don’t express them during the course of my interviews. (I needed a beverage alert for THAT statement! Now I have to clean the Diet Dr. Pepper off of my monitor after reading that laughable statement! – Ed.) I ask questions… That’s what interviewing is about… You’ll have heard of a thing called devil’s advocate… Maybe they don’t do it like that in the United States, but…”
“I know, you’re a superior Brit as well!” rejoins Bolton.
You can see why he really pissed them off at the UN.
Yeah, referring to Moveon bigwig George Freakin’ Soros as an objective outsider who has issues with the war in Iraq shouldn’t call into question a reporter’s objectivity, should it? No liberal media bias!
Why can’t any of our “leaders” (and I use that term loosely) be as savage with the bedwetting leftist MSM as Bolton was with this Europinko?
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway on the lack of will by the American people:
But he said the United States is operating on a time frame far shorter than that of al Qaeda.
“You know, the bad guys’ timeline’s 100 years. Ours is probably somewhere short of two at this point,” he said.
For those of you on the left, “the bad guys” means Al Qaeda and “ours” refers to the United States (i.e. the good guys). Hope that helps.
From Neal Boortz:
My goodness, people! Don’t you realize that there are things in your life that you really need to be worrying about? What’s all this weeping and moaning over gas prices?
With every single paycheck the Imperial Federal Government seizes about 14% of the money you have earned. This money is put into an income redistribution fund from which you may or may not draw a check when and if you reach a certain age. Die too soon and that money goes to someone else .. not to your heirs. Live long enough and you may .. just may … get most of your money back, though there is no legal guarantee that you’ll get a cent.
Yet here you sit pissing and moaning about gas prices.
We did the math here last week, but let’s pull out the calculator again for those of you who don’t come here every day.
First, the figures:
According to the AAA, one year ago the price of regular was $2.929. Today that price is $3.114. That’s an 18.5 cents per gallon increase over the past year.
Now we go for the average gas mileage for cars in the U.S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that as of 2004 the average mpg for new cars sold in the U.S. was 24.7. In 1980 it was 23.1. So, to make a point here, we’re going to go even below the average price for 1980. We’re going to use 20 mpg.
Now … for those of you who went to government schools, I’ll do the math for you. You’re driving your family of four 1400 miles to get to Disney World and back. That means you’ll be burning 70 gallons of gas at 20 mpg. The gas is now 18.5 cents more expensive than it was last year. Let’s go ahead and round that UP to 20 cents. So, we burn 70 gallons and each gallon costs 20 cents more than it cost last year. That’s going to cost you an amazing $14.00.
Oh My God! What an incredible tragedy! What a devastating blow to your finances! You’re going to have to spend $14.00 more to drive your family to Florida this year than you did last year! That’s $3.50 for each family member! How in the hell are you ever going to be able to afford this? Alert your local radio station news department! Call the newspaper! Sound the alarm! Americans are being crippled by these rising gas prices! Call your politician. Something has to be done about the evil oil companies! Get the government involved! We need more regulation!
Oh .. and you people driving to and from work need to be outraged too! Are you doing your share of the whining?
The average commute to and from work in this country is 16 miles. Now of course we know that cars don’t get the mileage on a stop-and-go commute as they do on the road, so we’re going to lower the gas mileage figure from 20 to 15. So, you’re driving 32 miles (on the average) to get to work and back every day. That is gobbling up about 2.13 gallons of gas. Go back to that 18.5 cents per gallon increase over last year and you’ll see that you’re spending about 40 cents more for gas for your commute this year than you were last year. That would be about $2.00 a week. Less than the price of a decaf skinny latte at Starbucks. A lot less.
Oh, the humanity! You’re spending less than the cost of three text messages on your cell phone every day to cover the increasing cost of gas! Tell your boss you’re going to have to quit! You just can handle this any more! Get fired! Go on unemployment! Forty cents a day! That’s it! Your back is broken!
Come on people, wake up! Your governments — local, state and federal — are stealing money from you every single day to fund vote-buying programs. Your local elected officials are ripping you off to support welfare artists and to study the mating habits of Polish zlotnika pigs. How do you think they feel when they see you griping about gas prices? They LOVE it! They steal you blind and there you sit complaining because you’re going to have to spend $14.00 more to drive your family to Disney World and back. They take 14% of the money you earn every day — money you may or may get back with virtually no interest — and you’re spinning around on your eyebrows because you’re spending 40 cents a day more to get to that job and back home again!
Now I don’t like the gas prices any more than anybody else does. It seems like yesterday (though it was actually nine years ago) that I stopped and fueled up my van in Brunswick, GA, for $0.78/gallon. But those days are gone, and as Neal shows, the price difference between this year and last year doesn’t affect the average Joe/Jane nearly as much as the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would have us believe.
Three words: supply and demand. Deal with it.
Light blogging today, since I’m busier than Hillary Clinton with a paper shredder. Here are some topics du jour:
The global warming crisis has now spread beyond Mars all the way to Neptune, the most distant planet in the solar system (Pluto doesn’t count anymore).
Neptune has been growing brighter and hotter since 1980. Scientists have correlated Neptune’s warming trend, Earth’s warming trend, and solar output.
This can only mean that our selfish refusal to rescind the industrial revolution is heating up not only the Earth, but the rest of the solar system, including the Sun itself, thereby causing it to emit more energy.
The only solution is for the United Nations to take full control of the planet and ban all modern technology. The alternative is an apocalypse of interplanetary dimensions.
The possibility that polar bears are drowning on Neptune at this very moment cannot be ruled out.
Not the Neptunian polar bears! Curse you, George W. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush!
Excellent column by Thomas Sowell, via RCP:
That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, “progressives” or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn’t even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. “Tax cuts for the rich” is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.
All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?
The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call “tax cuts for the rich” are in fact tax cuts for the economy.
Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.
A highly regarded economist once observed that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” so that sometimes “a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget.”
Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.
Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes’ statement — the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.
Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.
Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.
Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left’s obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high — or higher — incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.
If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.
Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don’t really seem to set them off.
If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.
Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.
It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people’s lives than the free market and its defenders.
Total ignorance or bias (as if either were acceptable)? You be the judge. From Hot Air:
Yeah, WhiteHouse.org. The most infamous, relentlessly anti-Bush parody site on the ‘Net.
You can imagine how it played out. Producer to intern: “We need a fawning description of him from the White House website to show how influential he was with conservatives.” Intern to producer: “Great! I’ll just google white house falwell…”
Have a look at what, in their haste, they evidently thought was an official White House webpage. Sample quote:
I was enjoying breakfast in my kitchen, righteously poring over my daily foot-high stack of mostly gay hardcore pornography so that I might issue informed denunciations to my flock. I had just paused to admire the contours of my third helping of some especially handsome kielbasa, when suddenly there was that awful parody staring at me from the pages of Hustler!
And yet, when they realized what they’d done, they couldn’t admit their mistake. Watch what the anchor says at the end to “clarify” the earlier report. There’s no admission that they were fooled; on the contrary, she implies that they meant to quote WH.org and merely didn’t want to leave viewers with the impression that it’s the official White House site.
In the old days, a reporter would be ashamed at making such a fool of herself. Not any more.
They haven’t learned a d#mned thing from Nov. 2006, have they? Here’s some good news for my illegal alien apologist visitors, bad news for proper-thinking folks:
Sources on Capitol Hill tell me the Senate may be very close to a deal on comprehensive immigration reform.
But as the immigration deal comes together, Senate conservatives are growing uneasy about the state of the negotiations, fearing that Republican leadership will sell out to the Bush Administration and liberal Democrats to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
The issue boils down to whether Senate Republicans leaders, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Conference Chairman Jon Kyl (Ariz.), will give Democrats a free pass to bring up the bill without ever giving Republicans a chance to review it. Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) is leading negotiations for the Democrats, and has so far negotiated a favorable deal for Democrats, according to sources close to the negotiations.
“There is concern among conservatives on the Hill that leadership will cave in on the motion to proceed on a bill that they’ve never seen,” one senior Senate aide told me. “Conservatives don’t want to do this because they don’t trust that the negotiators will produce a bill that will be satisfactory to conservatives.”
“It’s unlikely that any deal will be cut that will satisfy conservatives,” said Brian Darling, a congressional analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “Any legislation containing ‘Z’ visas is a non-starter because a ‘Z’ visa is an amnesty visa.”
LA Times is saying it’s a done deal.
Ah, yes. The “compassionate” left. It seems that if you’re a cop-killer, child-killer, or serial killer, the left gets all teary-eyed at your plight at the hands of our legal system. If you tilt to the ideological right, then the same sympathy the left extends to axe murderers won’t be coming your way.
The Kos kooks, DUmb#ss Underground, and even MSM reporters (nope, no liberal media bias!) are giddier than Bill Clinton in a room full of kneepad-clad portly interns. And that Fred Phelps sicko apparently didn’t think that Falwell “hated f@gs” nearly as much as God supposedly does, a sentiment that the Frisco freaks apparently don’t share because they’re having a little “Ding-dong, Falwell’s dead” party…it’s gonna be soooooooo fab! Leftard reaction round-up here.
If we ever kill Osama (assuming he’s still alive), I doubt we’ll see even a fraction of this level of glee from these cretins. I certainly didn’t see it when the Husseins and Zarqaward took their eternal sand naps. Glad to know the left is able to identify the REAL enemy.
And this is the paper that the leftards hold in such high regard? From Newsbusters:
New York Times reporter Alan Feuer, seen on Times Watch last May giving respectable coverage to a convention of “Bush-caused-9-11” conspiracy nuts, went to enormous (and erroneous) pains on Monday to soft-pedal the Muslim beliefs of the Fort Dix terrorist plotters in “Two Mosques Are Shaken by Ties to a Terror Plot.”
“It is unclear what role, if any, religion played in the attack Mr. Shnewer and the five other men are charged with planning. (The sixth suspect, Agron Abdullahu, had no apparent connection with Al-Aqsa or the South Jersey Islamic Center.) The authorities have described the suspects as Islamic extremists, but the lengthy criminal complaint summarizing the F.B.I.’s 15-month undercover investigation of the group does not mention where — or how often — they prayed. Certainly there is no evidence that they picked up radical ideas at either mosque.”
In contrast to the Times’ uninformative, politically correct take, the New York Post filed a complete story, with details on the suspects’ radical Islamic beliefs.
“When the teen and another employee went into a back room and began the conversion of the tape, they saw a group of bearded men wearing ‘fundamentalist attire’ and shooting ‘big, f-ing guns,’ the teen later told co-workers.
“Throughout the 90-minute-long tape, above the booming gunfire at a Pennsylvania target range, the jihadists could be heard screaming ‘God is great!'”
“That call to authorities set in motion a 16-month undercover investigation in which six of the men caught on tape chillingly discussing killing soldiers ‘in the name of Allah.'”
Yeah, I could see where six guys talking about killing soldiers in the name of Allah while wearing jihadi garb could be a tad bit confusing as to whether or not they are Muslim.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett