Do You Have Something In Common With The JournoListers?

Hey, you just might. I admit, I was surprised to see that I agreed with at least one opinion of theirs. But I did. Turns out, the JournoListers hate Keith Olbermann, too! I know, right??

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR'ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn't an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn't it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, "the chickens have come home to roost!"

And how.

Friends, I will be out of town from 7/24 - 31. Have a good week!

JournoList Members Protected Obama In 2008

We knew this was happening - we knew that many in the MSM were protecting Obama, were refusing to vet him, to investigate allegations against him, or those with whom he was very close, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But here's the thing. A number of these journalists (and academics), including from major news outlets, wrote down their plans to do what they could to protect Obama, both in the Primaries, and in the General Election. And did they ever. Check out this interview with Tucker Carlson (I know, I know - he was horrible to Hillary Clinton, but he does acknowledge that these "journalists" worked against her, too). It is eye opening:



We knew it - we knew they were using the race card to help Obama, and to protect him from scrutiny. And use it they did, over and over, and over again. They STILL are using it, for that matter.

But wait, there's more. In this report, more of the actual statements by some of the so-called journalists who colluded to help Obama are brought to light:



And finally, and I bet you knew this was coming, these "journalists" are revealed to have coordinated attacks against Sarah Palin:



Daily Caller has much, much more on this topic, with more revelations each day, it seems (I am having some technical issues with my computer, so please forgive the lack of links to the actual stories).

I used to scoff at the charges of the "liberal bias" in the media. I thought they were ridiculous, sour grapes, and all of that. But this isn't just bias, this is intentionally controlling news about one candidate, protecting a candidate from being properly vetted, and using a despicable tactic to deflect any questions, the race card. Despicable.

These people are not journalists, not by a long shot. Each and every one of them should lose their jobs over this. They shaped an entire election by their collusion, engaging in character assassinations, race baiting, and propaganda, to protect their chosen politician.

And they wonder why people in this country have lost faith in the media. After this revelation, they should wonder no more...

Technical Difficulties

Hey, friends - my computer is having technical difficulties today Thursday. Very frustrating, to be sure, especially since I will be out of town for a week starting early Sat. morning (7/24 - 31) have a lot to do between now and then.. I was hoping to get a couple of posts in before I go, but that doesn't look likely now that I have spent hours fighting with the damn thing. Sorry!!

So, I hope your summertime is going well, that you are getting some rest, relaxation, and fun, too! See you soon (and sooner, if I can get this thing working right).

"Changing Tune"? No, Changing Semantics

The NY Times had an article recently entitled, "Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax." Why the hell is this news? Had they or any other water-carriers in the MSM actually done their jobs when this bill, now a law, came out, they would have KNOWN this already. Those of us who had our eyes and ears open sure knew it (not that we weren't assailed by the Obamanation for claiming such a thing).

Is this really the level of press we have now in this country? No wonder we are in such dire straits.

Let me just share with you the beginning of this article:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

Ah, yes. Obama's refusal that this was a tax. As the article points out, Obama flat out lied, um, I mean, denied that was the case in his discussion with George Stephanopoulos. I am sure you remember this little video highlight:



So, apparently, Stephanopoulos was right, and Obama lied to his, and our, face.

We also know, now (well, those who denied it then know now), that this law WILL add a ton to our deficit. Another bigass lie from Obama, thanks so much. Pretty much every claim made by Obama, in that clip and while campaigning for this law, has turned out to be a lie.

I blame him, but mainly, I blame a Congress that didn't bother to read the damn thing before voting on it, not unlike the recent "Financial Reform Bill," and a media that failed to do their duty in accurately reporting the discrepancies between what Obama said, and what the law said. And I fault all three for ridiculing those of us who were asking reasonable questions about how this bill would affect our personal health care, how much it would cost, and how it would be paid, even, as always, using the race card against us. The attacks were constant and unrelenting.

Surprise, surprise - we were right all along. And one other thing about which we were right, which the article also mentions: those 16,000 new IRS agents, the funding of which was not set apart in the bill. Yes, we will have to note on our Income Tax returns whether or not we have health insurance. The IRS, despite its claims that it is not set up for this, and is not trained for this, will be policing us and our small businesses to make sure we are compliant.

Oh, and one last thing about the ObamaCare Law:



Can we finally agree that Obama is a massive liar, who uses condescension and derision to dismiss and discount reasonable questions about his plans? If not now, when? How much more are we going to be screwed before Congress stops doing Obama's bidding?

I shudder to think.


By the way, I have my nephew and his family coming for a visit today, so I may not get back to the blog for a few days. If I can, I will! If not, hope your days go well!

A Private Jet And A Car Care Tool **Updated**

One would be hard pressed these days to not know that many people in this country are struggling. New Unemployment claims continue to be over 400,000 weekly, and unemployment benefits have been extended to 99 weeks (yes, almost 2 years). The DOW continues to hover around 10,000.

Home foreclosures are skyrocketing. People are struggling, they are suffering, they continue to lose their homes, and their jobs. The Gulf area has been particularly hard hit, as one can imagine, for an area that depends on fishing and tourism.

Which makes this piece of information all the more maddening.

As you most likely know, the Obamas have been on vacation this weekend. No, no, not to the Gulf Coast, despite both Obamas suggesting regular Americans should go there. No, they went to Maine. But they were not the only ones who went to Maine. Their dog, Bo, also went to Maine. On his own plane. I kid you not (H/t to my friend, Nunly, for providing this link).

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported in the local paper there:

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. [snip]

Wait - are we being punked? Does Ashton Kutcher own this newspaper or something? How else to explain flying a dog on his OWN jet with a few staffers, including Obama's personal aide, Reggie Love? Why were they not both with the Obamas?? That just doesn't make any sense to me. As an animal lover, if I am taking my animals somewhere with me, then they are WITH me. I know these jets had to be smaller than AF 1, but for heavens sake, it isn't like Bo is some Bull Mastiff or something. Sheesh.

And that makes the following product all the more timely. This video has been cropping up all over the internet this weekend, and for good reason. I consider this a PSA, though the disclaimer is I/we do not endorse or promote any sales of this item. This is purely for entertainment value. And entertaining it is:



I love that it will also remove Obama Bumper Stickers from a Prius. Too funny. And I have to say, I have noticed a lot fewer Obama stickers over the past few months, so clearly there is a market (again, not promoting the product or sales thereof).

After this most recent display of the complete and utter out of touch mentality of the Obamas - both of them - I am guessing I will see fewer Bumper Stickers still. At least, I hope I will. Just another indicator that people are finally coming to their senses in this country, and not a minute too late.

Come on, November...

Update: A friend let me know that there were some other staffers on the jet beside just Bo and his "handler." Apparently, they had to use smaller jets to fly into the area of Maine they were visiting. But, STILL, why wasn't Bo on the plane with his people???

DOJ Says It's Okay To Flaunt Federal Law For "Sancutary Cities"

Is it just me, or does the Department of Justice seem to be playing favorites? They are pursuing Arizona as if they are threatening to secede from the Union, not protecting their borders from illegal immigrants with laws that duplicate federal laws. But, sue them the Department of Justice is.

But guess after whom the DOJ refuses to go? Sanctuary cities. You know, places like San Francisco, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Seattle, to name a few, which willingly flaunt federal immigration law by ignoring immigration law as it applies to illegal immigrants. Tacoma Park, MD, flat out refuses to enforce federal immigration laws:

2. All City officials and employees continue--in keeping with our City's Sanctuary status, and with our long and distinguished history of protecting the human rights of our residents--to preserve all Takoma Park residents' freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy; and that all Local law enforcement personnel refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

And that doesn't merit a closer look by the Department of Justice? Evidently not. Takoma Park, and other cities like it, are just A-Okay as far as the DOJ is concerned.

I kid you not. Take a look:



If you prefer to read about it, this article has all of the highlights, or lowlights, depending on your perspective, "Justice: Sanctuary Cities Safe From Law." That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Wow.

Well, while our US Department of Justice is all busy suing the bejesus out of one of our states, essentially for doing a job the federal government refuses to do, but doesn't think anyone else should either, all is not lost. It turns out there are a number of states who are aligning themselves with Arizona, as this article indicates, Brief For 9 States Backs Arizona Immigration Law:

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally. [snip]

Oh, Cox didn't stop there. He had plenty more to say:

[snip] “Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents “a lot of states,” considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

“By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government,” the brief states. [snip] Click here to read the rest.

Clearly, a number of states, along with Arizona itself, are not willing to take the actions of the DOJ lying down. And good on them, I say. Especially when there is such an egregious double standard. It is just fine and dandy, apparently, for a number of cities to flat out claim they refuse to abide by federal immigration law. But let a state claim they intend to enforce said laws, and all hell breaks lose.

Am I missing something here?

Now Argentina Has The Tango And More

Though the Argentine Tango is smokin' all by itself.

But now, Argentina also has legalized same sex marriage. All that is needed to make it official is the signature of their (woman) president, Christina Fernandez.

Do I even have to say what a big deal this is? I didn't think so. This article provides the highlights:

Argentine Senate Backs Bill Legalising Gay MarriageThe Argentine Senate Debate continued until the early hours of Thursday

Argentina has become the first country in Latin America to legalise gay marriage after the Senate voted in favour.

The country's Chamber of Deputies had already approved the legislation.

The vote in the Senate, which backed the bill by just six votes, came after 14 hours of at times heated debate.

Now, don't think that everyone was all happy about this legislation, though. Not everyone is:

The law, which also allows same-sex couples to adopt, had met with fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

[Snip]

Outside Congress, as the debate continued into the early hours of Thursday, supporters and opponents of the bill held rival demonstrations.

"Nearly every political and social figure has spoken out in favour of marriage equality," said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals.

"And we hope that the Senate reflects this and that Argentina, from today forward, is a more just country for all families," she told the Associated Press.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

What a great day for the people of Argentina, affirming the inherent worth of all of their citizens, and affording all their citizens the same rights. What a concept. My hat's off to them.

In case you are wondering, they also dropped their ban against openly gay people serving in their military in 2009. To me, it just begs the question: If Argentina can do it, why can't we?

And now for that tango:



Right? Wow...

US Commission On Civil Rights Not Amused By The Quotas In Financial Reform Bill

Well, this came as a bit of a surprise, a pleasant one at that. You will recall that Rep. Maxine Waters had inserted a provision into the Financial Reform Bill creating quotas for women and minorities for financial institutions.

But not so fast says the US Commission on Civil Rights, as this article by Caroline May makes clear, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Demands Changes to Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill. That pretty much says it all, but wait until you see what some of the members actually said about this issue:

[snip] Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano affixed their names to the letter, which charges the Senate with either “consciously or unconsciously” promoting discrimination.

“All too often, when bureaucrats are charged with the worthy task of preventing race or gender discrimination, they in fact do precisely the opposite,” the letter reads. “They require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating in favor of the groups the goals are supposed to benefit.”

The letter continues, “In this case, the bureaucrats are not even being asked to prevent discrimination, but to ensure ‘fair inclusion.’ The likelihood that it will in fact promote discrimination is overwhelming.”

Holy moley - they are not mincing any words here. And good for them for that. But they did not stop there:

[snip] “Some legislators have evidently come to think of women and minorities as just another constituency whose leaders must be brought on board with incentives when major legislation is being considered,” the letter says. “The notion that legislation should include ‘a little something’ for everyone is troubling in any context, but it is especially troubling in the context of race and gender, given the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”

Commissioner Todd Gaziano told The Daily Caller that Section 342, whether it intends to or not, could have dire implications for the financial markets.

“The likely end of creating offices that require these types of racial and gender goals is that it will result in quotas and discrimination,” he said. “There are many existing laws and enforcement mechanisms that already prohibit discrimination. This provision, by contrast, takes affirmative steps to guarantee discrimination.”

That sounds like a fairly damning assessment to me. Clearly, there are so many problems with inserting these quotas on so many different levels. That the Civil Rights Commission is coming out against it, and so strongly, is telling. Previously, the former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, also came out strongly against this provision:

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned.

And an excellent question it is. Disturbing question, too, I might add.

So what will become of this letter by some of the members of the US Civil Rights Commission on this issue? Well, I wish I could tell you it was going to make all the difference:

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow was more blunt.

“I don’t think it is going to have a substantial effect,” he said. “I think they will ignore it as they have other letters we have sent. Just recently, they ignored our concerns with the health care bill, which contains a number of highly suspect racial provisions embedded deep within the text. They will emerge at some point and we will have to deal with them.” (Emphasis mine.)

Kirsanow added that in addition to the constitutional problems associated with mandating quotas, the political implications are also troubling.

“There is considerable evidence over the years that these types of quota provisions dissolve into a political spoils system—we see it at the federal, state and local level—with certain positions being reserved for certain people,” he said.

Uh, yeah. Again, I urge you to read the full article here. It is well worth your time.

I just have to wonder why this was even put into this bill in the first place, especially if there is evidence showing it is so counter productive. Perhaps the excuse, um, I mean, explanation, will come to light at some point (though I am not holding my breath). At the very least, I hope this provision is removed.

I'm not holding my breath for that, either.

NAACP Resolves: You Tea Partiers Are A Bunch Of Racists! UPDATED

Especially if you consider yourself a Tea Party member. Yep, the day after Michelle Obama went and hung out with the NAACP leadership, the NAACP declared the Tea Party one big bunch of racists. All right, they said maybe it wasn't ALL Tea Party members, just the ones who want to return to "the pre-civil rights era." Oh, you know I am not making this up.

Michelle Obama did a little more than hang out with the NAACP, though. She gave the keynote address at their convention. Oh, and she knew the resolution charging the Tea Party with racism was being planned. Raise your hand if you are surprised she went ahead with the keynote speech anyway. * Crickets * Yeah, that's what I thought.

Back to the NAACP. Apparently, they think people are racist if they dare to not acquiesce to everything Obama says, wants, does, and that he, unlike every other president we have ever had, must be free of any kind of disagreement or discord. If anyone dare oppose a massively expensive healthcare law, or oppose the rapid expansion of government under Obama, then, of course, they are racists.

Okay, okay, the NAACP did walk it back just a tiny bit when they acknowledged maybe ALL Tea Partiers are not racists, but not by much:

The NAACP passed a resolution Tuesday night condemning Tea Party activists, or at least some Tea Party activists, as racists who want “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Tea Party groups across the country have vehemently denied that charge, calling Tuesday’s resolution a hypocritical act on the part of the NAACP — which has traditionally fought against stereotypes.

In a session that was closed to the media, the resolution that ultimately passed was toned down, according to the NAACP, to just “ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party.” An original draft appeared to suggest — and many Tea Party leaders inferred — that the resolution accused the entire movement of being motivated by racial concerns.

“We take no issue with the Tea Party movement,” NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released late Tuesday night, after the vote. “We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.”

Nonetheless, the St. Louis Tea Party is calling for the civil rights group to lose its tax-exempt status. “The NAACP is closely aligning with a partisan political campaign strategy,” said Bill Hennessy, a leader of the St. Louis Tea Party. [snip]

Interestingly, though, it isn't just Tea Party members who are making this claim about the NAACP's being a political tool for a partisan ideology. Some black activists are also making that claim as this press release highlights:

[snip] "As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement's concerns are about President Obama's policies and not his race," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. "I'm deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election." (Emphasis mine.)

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, the NAACP, which is conducting its 101st annual convention in that city, will take up a resolution as early as Tuesday to urge "all people of good will to repudiate the racism of Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

[snip]

Project 21's Borelli added: "I urge the delegates to read the Contract from America – a list of policy objectives for Congress that was developed by tea party members nationwide. These objectives are clearly about limited government and liberty. In fact, the NAACP should be very concerned Obama's cap-and-trade energy policy will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment – particularly among poor and minority households." [snip]

Evidently, the NAACP failed to investigate these "racist" signs. Had they, they would have known that these were infiltrators into the party to discredit them. A simple Google search brings up a host of articles. It isn't like the infiltrators were exactly clandestine in their actions, either.

I am just weary of the charge that everyone who does not buy what Obama is selling lock, stock, and barrel, who does not give him their utmost devotion, and sworn allegiance, is a racist. And now the NAACP is painting an entire group with a broad brush while ignoring the racist behavior of groups like the New Black Panther Party. Telling. Very telling indeed.

I guess we're getting our "Change" after all, don't you think?

UPDATE: NQ regular, Teakwood Kite, asked me about a video from a previous post that showed a number of African Americans present at a Tea Party. I don't know if this is the one he meant, but the people speaking out here are pretty freakin' awesome:

Quotas In Financial Overhaul Bill Courtesy of Rep. Waters?

Oh, you remember Rep. Waters, don't you? Who could forget her comments regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Just in case, here's a reminder:



Uh, um, hell yes, there was a big problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Waters.

But wait, there's more. Here is Rep. Waters revealing her true position on the government's role in terms of Big Oil:



Okay, okay - I couldn't resist that version. Too funny. Here is the real version:



Yes, all of that stuttering trying to cover up what she had just said is real. Yowzer.

Now, personally, I think Rep. Waters has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of integrity when it comes to financial issues, judging by her comments on Fannie and Freddie. So have Dodd and Frank, for that matter. That the latter two are the authors of a financial regulatory bill should give great pause to everyone.

So, it really should come as no surprise that now she wants to legislate quotas into the new Dood-Frank Financial Regulatory bill. Oh, how I wish I was kidding. According to this Daily Caller piece, that is exactly what Rep. Waters has done,
Racial Quotas in Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Bill:

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, ostensibly aimed at reforming Wall Street and preventing a future financial crisis, will impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions if passed, according to economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

Section 342 of the bill will establish Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in at least 20 federal financial services agencies. These offices will be tasked with implementing “standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.”

So called “fair inclusion” will apply to “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.” [snip]

Good grief. Quotas? Where does that leave "anti-discrimination" regulations, then? That question is answered here:

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, spotlighted the controversial section in an article at Real Clear Markets on June 8th. She told The Daily Caller that the law amounts to a quota system.

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned. [snip]


Click HERE to read the rest.

Yes, I would say this is a huge departure from anti-discrimination regulations. That a quota system is being buried in this financial regulation shouldn't really come as a surprise, I guess. But still, it does.

Wow. Has it really been less than two years since the Democrats controlled all three houses? Sure seems longer, especially considering all they have shoved down our throats. Er, I mean, "accomplished."

And I guess if Rep. Waters gets her way, we'll have another one shoved down our throats. Yep, pretty soon, quotas for everyone, coming to a business near you soon!! Good grief...

At Long Last, Intimidation Of Hillary Voters Coming To Light

It is amazing what comes out from under the rug once it has been pulled back. Recently, DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams exposed the DOJ's dismissal of blatant voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. It has been a staggering expose of what is going on inside the Justice Department, especially in terms of voter intimidation and the lackadaisical approach the DOJ is taking to protect our right to vote free of fear or threat of intimidation. The short answer is, they are not, certainly in terms of the New Black Panther Party.

My favorite part of the dismissal against the NBPP in Philadelphia? The guy carrying the nightstick outside a Philly polling place has been banned from carrying "deadly" weapons near polling places. Until 2012. You read that right. He can't carry deadly weapons around a polling place in 2010, but he can when it's time for Obama to run again. WHAT a surprise.

The Obama Justice Department has become the "Get Out of Jail Free" Department for the New Black Panther Party.

But another piece of dirt coming out from under this rug of DOJ whistle blowing is something about which a number of us knew for some time. The threats of intimidation and violence toward Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 Primaries. The constant refrain that Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton is absurd, unless you think threatening people, lying, and cheating is "running a better campaign." Personally, I do not, especially from the party to which I gave my loyalty for decades. I dunno, I kinda have a thing against liars, cheats, and thugs - maybe it comes from my vocation. Ahem.

At long, long, last, some in the media are finally paying attention. The documentary filmmaker, Gigi Gaston, was on Fox and Friends recently, speaking out about the corruption associated with the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Her film, "We Will Not Be Silenced 2008" is a critical piece of history regarding how Obama and the DNC colluded against Hillary Clinton and the 18 million of us who voted for her. Below is Ms. Gaston speaking out about what she found:



I was like Gaston, too. A lifelong Democrat, who believed in the Party and for what it stood. I believed that we really did care about one person, one vote, that we cared about the will of the people. I could not have been more wrong, which I now acknowledge, though it was a painful - check that - excruciatingly painful realization.

The worst part was seeing the level of organization behind Obama's cheating and voter intimidation. And yes, it most definitely came from the top. There is no way on this green earth that what happened in Texas COULD happen without an organized, concerted effort. Others in states like Washington also spoke of the caucus fraud that occurred there, the busloads of people from out of state coming in to vote. There is zero way this could have happened without Obama's knowledge or acquiescence. No way. That speaks volumes about him, though not news to many of us, I am sure.

And it speaks volumes about the DNC, which received plenty of evidence that this was going on. The Hillary Clinton Campaign also notified the DNC of irregularities occurring to benefit Obama. And what did the DNC do about it? Absolutely nothing. Well, actually, they did do something - they violated the will of the people, acted in the most unethical, immoral way, dismissing the votes of Americans, and stole votes from Clinton to give to Obama.

Many of you know I have recommended Ms. Gaston's documentary before. It is staggering, maddening, and downright heartbreaking. I recommend this video to you again. It is well worth watching, so that we will be aware, forewarned is forearmed, and clearly, with this president, with this "Justice Department," prepared is what we must be.

To get you started, here is Part 1:



One last thing: if you or someone you know, experienced caucus fraud during the 2008 Primary, please, please let the good folks at "We Will Not Be Silenced 2008" know about it. They are still working to get this information out there, to expose the massive level of fraud perpetrated to get Barack Obama into the White House.

How have we come to this place in this country so fast?

Alvin Greene, SC's Thinker "Outside The Box"

You may recall that there was quite the upset in SC during the recent primaries in which an unemployed man who did no campaigning, had no real policy platform, had no campaign website, and had no campaign funds, beat out his competitor, an elected official. By a lot, I might add. Greene won with 60% of the vote. Oh, yes.

My representative, Jim Clyburn, pitched a hissy fit, insisting that the Republicans were behind Mr. Greene's candidacy and filing fee. He claimed voter fraud was responsible for the vote through faulty voting machines. The SC State Democrats tried to throw out the election results (who cares about those pesky votes anyway? We already know the Dems don't after 2008.). They failed in their attempts, and now it seems Mr. Greene's funds came from the US Government and the State of South Carolina:

[snip] State law enforcement officials wrapped up an investigation of Greene’s finances after questions were raised about how he could qualify for indigent defense and afford to pay more than $10,000 to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Greene’s surprise June 8 upset victory over former circuit judge Vic Rawl initially caused many to speculate Republican operatives had secretly bankrolled Greene’s primary entry fee to sabotage the primary. Rawl’s defeat left Greene the Democratic challenger to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

The source of Greene’s money is none other than the U.S. government and the S.C. state government, said SLED director Reggie Lloyd.

“That’s who bankrolled Greene’s entry fee for the primary,” said Lloyd, whose agency worked with 5th Circuit Solicitor Barney Giese in the investigation. “The U.S. government and the state of South Carolina funded his filing fee.” [snip]

Yes, all of the funds have been accounted for after a thorough investigation:

[snip] Last October, Greene received a $5,843 check from the U.S. Department of Defense in connection with his discharge from the military last year.

“That brought him up to more than $8,200,” Lloyd said.

Greene continued having a checking account balance of about that amount into March, when Greene received a federal income tax refund of $2,173 and a state tax refund of $932, Lloyd said.

“At that point, he had more than $11,400 in his account,” Lloyd said.

Greene was also getting a $1,100 monthly unemployment check, Lloyd said. Since Greene lived with his father and had few expenses other than “haircuts and groceries,” his unemployment check was another source of government income for the discharged veteran, Lloyd said.[snip]

In other words, you and I bankrolled Alvin Green's filing fee. Hooray for us! Ahem.

I am so sure that a sincere apology to the State Republicans is forthcoming from Rep. Clyburn immediately. Ahahahahahaha. Just kidding.

Now that the funding from Greene's filing fee has been identified, with no malfeasance on his part, I can now turn to one of his brilliant ideas for job creation. Since Obama has been so busy suing one of the 50 states instead of, oh, working to create jobs, for instance, perhaps Obama could use this idea from Alvin Greene.

And that idea for job creation is - are you sitting down? Crafting action figures of Greene. I am not kidding you. Seriously. He said this. Out loud:

[snip] "Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays," Greene said in the article. "Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an Army uniform, Air Force uniform, and me in my suit."

"That's something that would create jobs," Greene continued. "So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up." [snip]

Well, I have to give Greene that - this is NOT something a "typical" person would consider. Creating jobs by having action figures made of themselves. Yikes. Though I have to say, I am pretty surprised that Obama has not considered this as a "Works Project." I mean, the man has already written two autobiographies, so clearly, he thinks pretty highly of himself (my recently departed mother said she couldn't get through his first one - she thought it was incredibly boring. That from a woman who was a voracious reader and who always finished any book she was reading. Except Obama's. Telling, that.) Having an "action figure" seems right up Obama's alley. Just saying. I can't believe Alvin Greene beat him to it.

That, friends, is the kind of "thinkificating" of the newest Democratic candidate for US Senate from the Palmetto State. Never mind that no one would BUY the damn things, so how the workers making them would be paid is still a mystery. But Mr. Greene has not exactly come off as a Mensa candidate in his interviews anyway (or on his new website). No matter how hard the State Democrats worked, no matter how many (false) allegations they levied, and no matter how much they tried to overturn the will of the people, even if they had no idea for whom they were voting (his name was listed first), Alvin Greene IS the Democratic candidate for US Senator from SC.

You just can't make this stuff up.

What Is Going On At The DOJ?

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams' initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP's actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:



But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:



This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

"We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens," he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered "indications" that the Black Panther Party was doing the "same thing" to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won't be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama's DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

"Square Coins, " "Trees Bent In One Direction..."

You may remember those phrases from an old commercial for Aruba. But if you don't, here is a more current one starring Lewis Black:



Nice work if you can get, it right? Oh, yeah.

So why am I going on about Aruba? Because that is where I am for the next seven days. Yes, I know, my life is so hard! Honestly, it's the only way to really get my partner, Suzy, to take a break from her demanding job. So, off we will go, with our godson in tow to celebrate his high school graduation. We will be spending a lot of time snorkeling, relaxing, eating great seafood, and sightseeing around the island.

This will be my third trip there, though you may recall the second one was right after my mom died, a difficult, painful time indeed. This time will give me the opportunity to revisit the Remembrance Rock piles my partner and I erected in Mom's memory, as well as the above-mentioned fun activities. No doubt, it will bring those memories and feelings flooding back, but will also give me the opportunity to make new memories with our 18 year old godson. No telling how many more of these week-long vacations we will have with him now that he is older (he has come to stay with us since he was 8), so we will be cherishing every moment we have with him.

Here are some photos from a previous trip so you can see just how difficult - ahem - it is to be there. Aruba is quite arid, like being in a desert out in the middle of the most amazing water. This is a pretty typical landscape of cacti, rocks, and water:



This was taken at the Natural Bridge, which, sadly, has fallen in after a hurricane came their way:



And this is a great place we found for snorkeling, just a short drive from where we will be staying (again):



Okay, one last one. Burros are wild in Aruba, and wander around the undeveloped areas:



Aren't they cute? I am looking forward to being back on that beautiful island again.

Anyway, I will be back and blogging July 9th. Hope you have a good week, and weekend. *See* you soon!