Shrillary gets $$ from Bubba’s pardon recipients

As Bryan says, “Quid, meet pro quo“:

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety…

One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.

Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign in August.

Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who gave Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to “report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.
…
Pardoned by President Clinton for charges he had mishandled government secrets — but before the Department of Justice could file the proper paperwork against him — Deutch, now a professor at MIT, gave Sen. Clinton the maximum allowable donation, $2,300.

Illegal?  Nope.  But in light of Her Highness recent Hsu-nanigans, the “smartest woman in the world” is looking dumber by the day.

UNM students reflective of entitlement and lack of responsibility mentality

These kids are clearly not being served well at the University of New Mexico.  When they hit the real world, a rude awakening awaits.  From KRQE:

University of New Mexico students are worried the federal deficit is going to cause a boom in unwanted pregnancies. (That evil Bu$hitler McRummyburton is impregnating women against their will! Damn you, Dubya! – Ed.)

UNM is now feeling the affects of the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 2005 whose funding cuts reduce money used by universities to subsidize birth control.

The price of birth control on campuses and family planning clinics has more than doubled.  Today students at UNM encouraged their peers to call and ask lawmakers to cosponsor a bill that would return the funding for birth control.
…
Restoring the funds will reduce the squeeze on cash-strapped students, added Ambrosia Ortiz.

“So they don’t have to make a choice between their birth control and their cell phone bill or their birth control and their gym membership and their birth control,” Ortiz said.  “These are choices women that women shouldn’t have to make. 

Oh. My. God (insert politically correct deity here).  Heaven forbid that people who have a certain amount of money be forced into prioritizing their money!  I mean, the next thing you know, they’ll be asking me to choose between a 62″ plasma HDTV and a 2008 Hummer H3…and those are choices that men shouldn’t have to make! Budgets? Why, that’s just crazy talk!

Here’s a hint for you, ladies: if you can’t afford both your cell phone and birth control, then either (a) shut your yapper and ditch the cell phone; or (b) close your legs.  There you go.  Free advice, and “you’re welcome” in advance.

Billionaire Buffett whines about estate taxes (or lack thereof) and wealth gap

Just because a person has dollars doesn’t mean he has sense (pun intended).  From al-Reuters:

Billionaire Warren Buffett on Wednesday endorsed the estate tax as a check on wealth accumulation, while two senior U.S. senators said they want the tax repealed.
…
But Buffett, the second-richest man in America after Bill Gates, according to Forbes magazine, said recent tax law changes have tended to benefit people like him.

“Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline,” Buffett said. “A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.”… 

Until Warren Buffett puts his money where his mouth is and personally writes a big #ss check to the federal government that he holds in such high esteem, I’d like to cordially invite him to drink a frosty mug of STFU ale.  If you think you’re overpaid and that your taxes are too low, I’m certain that Uncle Sam won’t return your check that you send them to cover your “tax shortfall”!  Hypocrite.

Lowe’s succumbs to P.C., then relents to common sense

I’ll be honest with you guys.  I don’t usually get too bent out of shape whenever the AFA issues an “action alert”, since I do think they tend to overreact sometimes.  Having said that, one thing I absolutely cannot stand is political correctness, especially when it tries to bully American traditions.

The home improvement corporation Lowe’s recently released their 2007 Holiday catalog, and they referred to Christmas trees as “family trees” (see catalog here, a PDF).  I’m not sure why, since is there anyone who buys a Christmas tree who doesn’t celebrate Christmas?  Anywho, Lowe’s was roundly (and rightly) criticized for bowing at the altar of political correctness, and now, they’ve had a sudden outbreak of common sense:

Lowe’s has contacted the AFA and assures us that it is proudly committed to selling Christmas trees this year, as it has done for more than 60 years. The company apologized for the confusion created in its 2007 holiday catalog when it headlined the page of Christmas trees “family trees.” The error was not caught before the publication was distributed, and Lowe’s says it is disappointed in the breakdown in its proofing process.

Lowe’s assures us that they refer to trees as Christmas trees in this season’s television and magazine ads and in its advertising flyers. The company says it is redoubling its efforts to proof its catalogs in the future to prevent this issue from recurring.

We appreciate Lowe’s for listening to its customers and responding appropriately to our concerns. 

If you celebrate Christmas, that’s cool…but don’t ruin it for the 95%+ of Americans who do, m’kay?

Hezbollah spy in FBI/CIA questioned Al Qaeda suspects in Baghdad

Friggin’ wonderful.  With federal incompetence like this, why in the hell would anyone trust those dolts to manage our health care?  From MSNBC:

Current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News that Nada Nadim Prouty had a much bigger role than officials at the FBI and CIA first acknowledged. In fact, Prouty was assigned to the CIA’s most sensitive post, Baghdad, and participated in the debriefings of high-ranking al- Qaida detainees.

A former colleague called Prouty “among the best and the brightest” CIA officers in Baghdad. She was so exceptional, agree officials of both agencies, the CIA recruited her from the FBI to work for the agency’s clandestine service at Langley, Va., in June 2003. She then went to Iraq for the agency to work with the U.S. military on the debriefings.

“Early on, she was an active agent in the debriefings,” said one former intelligence official. “It was more than translation.”…

“The issue is that she had access to very sensitive information regardless of where she was in the hierarchy,” said [NBC analyst Roger] Cressey. “Because she was able to interview high-value targets, that put her in a very unique position. So if she therefore shared that information, it could have cost major damage to our nation’s security.”

“Daddy Nobucks”

A most excellent column by Amy Alkon:

A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one?

Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby — despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.

He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot — but should it have been?

As I wrote in my syndicated advice column, in no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. In an especially sick miscarriage of justice, even a man who says he was sexually victimized by an older woman from the time he was 14, has been forced to pay support for the child that resulted from underage sex with her. (That’s Canada for you, eh? – Ed.)

While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First , poses an essential question: “Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?”

A child shouldn’t have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there’s a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.

This isn’t 1522. If a woman really doesn’t want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that her partners latex up. Since it’s the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. (Now THAT is “quote of the day” material! – Ed.)

It’s one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he’s, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really “in the child’s best interest” to be the product of a broken home before there’s even a home to break up?

For all you boys out there, until that day there is actual male choice, don’t neglect the birth control…no matter what she tells you. Unless you’re a sterling judge of character, on the level of secret service agents and clinical psychologists, and unless you’re absolutely sure you’ve got an ethical and/or infertile girlfriend, or you personally watch her get Depo Provera injections…prudent thinking is never believing her when she says she can’t get knocked up, always bringing your own condom, and retaining custody over it at all times…lest it find its way to the business end of a pin. (This does happen! – Ed.)

Sound cynical? That’s what a lot of guys think — before they write to me about what they can say to persuade some girl to get an abortion, or whether there’s anything they can do to get out of paying child support…short of dying.

And yes, sure, you can say a man doesn’t have sex if he doesn’t want a child…but let’s discuss this as if we’re living in the real world, ‘kay?

Entertainment rag: Writer’s strike is Rush’s fault

Hey, look at it this way: at least they didn’t blame the usual suspects, i.e. Bush or global “warming”.  Baby steps, my friends, baby steps.  From Variety:

Amid the emotions surrounding the writers strike has been vitriol from some scribes toward any news outlet failing to echo their position — a “blame the messenger” attitude vented at coverage by Variety, among others.

Scanning message boards and blogs uncovers all manner of allegations about kowtowing to corporate interests. The assumption is that those not fully following the Writers Guild’s script must be bowing to pressure from their ownership or currying favor among advertisers, with journalists lacking the spine to bite the hands that feed us.

In this way, strike rhetoric is oddly mirroring modern politics, where partisans now filter straight-ahead reporting through an “us vs. them” prism, seeking out accounts that buttress their views while shunning those that might challenge them.

This represents a relatively recent dynamic, fueled by the Rush Limbaugh era of talkradio, cable news and the Internet, which barely existed during the last strike in 1988. It’s an especially poisonous environment when applied to this fracas, since talent and the studios must eventually reunite once the saber-rattling and marching ends, whereas political combatants (or at least their public mouthpieces) are now locked in a state of perpetual warfare, the better to spice up the give and take on “Hannity & Colmes.” 

I may have just heard it all.

Quote of the day

Today’s “blue-on-blue” action brought to you by Barry O:

Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.

“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination. 

Ouch!

Photo of the day

Possible caption: “John, you were told to kiss his #ss, not kiss an #ss!”