We were warned that this sort of a thing was going to happen, Glenn Beck said it long ago…:
NEW YORK — Clothing prices have dropped for a decade as tame inflation and cheap overseas labor helped hold down costs. Retailers and clothing makers cut frills and experimented with fabric blends to cut prices during the recession.
But as the world economy recovers and demand for goods rises, a surge in labor and raw materials costs is squeezing retailers and manufacturers who have run out of ways to pare costs.
Cotton has more than doubled in price over the last year, hitting all-time highs. The price of synthetic fabrics has jumped roughly 50% as demand for alternatives and blends has risen.
Clothing prices are expected to rise about 10% in coming months, with the biggest increases coming in the second half of the year, said Burt Flickinger III, president of Strategic Resource Group.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has chosen a new special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, after months of delay and disagreements between the White House and the State Department over the parameters of the job that became vacant with the December death of Richard C. Holbrooke, senior officials said.
Retired diplomat Marc Grossman is expected to take over as the administration is facing a crucial year for its war strategy in Afghanistan, where it plans to begin U.S. troop withdrawals this summer and to move toward a political settlement including negotiations with the Taliban before the end of 2011.
In Pakistan, a key partner in the strategy, the situation has become even more fraught with peril, as U.S.-Pakistani relations have plummeted to their lowest point in years over Pakistan’s rejection of U.S. demands to grant diplomatic immunity to a U.S. official accused of murder there.
The administration has suspended high-level official contacts with the Pakistanis, and senior members of Congress have warned Islamabad that it risks a cutoff of U.S. aid.
Wow, I was not aware of all these problems. Looks like Hillary Clinton has her work cut out for her. Two things that stand out here:
Why do we keep sending over retired people to handle these situations? Cannot Hillary Clinton or President Obama find anyone who is not at retirement age to handle this problem? Just a thought there, not trying to criticize it; because I doubt John McCain would be able to handle this any better.
This situation with the murder charge just looks bad all around and will most likely hamper our efforts to combat the war on terror and will hinder us from capturing or killing Osama Bin Ladin. Because you cannot capture the bad guys; if you cannot get along with the people where they are hiding.
Again, I have said this a million times here, and I will say it again. Bush handled this whole thing wrong after 9/11. Bush should have went after the Countries that financed the attacks on 9/11. Instead he went after their training grounds, with the assumption that it would be a cakewalk to catch them; and then he went into Iraq, on what we now now to be bad intelligence and also assumed that would be cake walk too — and Afghanistan was left to neglect. As of a result that poor leadership, we now have this mess to contend with. I pity Hillary and even President Obama to a point, they inherited this awful mess and now, they have to make gold, out of a steaming bag of crap. What a mess! I would not want to be in their shoes at all. 🙁
But, that is what happens, when you elect Neo-Conservatives who are on a so-called “Mission from God.” Let this be a lesson to America and to the Republican Party and all who supported and voted for the man. Say what you want, but between the bailouts and his poorly planned war on terror — we find ourselves in a awful mess; both with debt and with foriegn diplomacy.
Devout Muslims do not believe all religions are equal. They believe there is one God, Allah, and submission to his law is the path to paradise. They do not believe in freedom of speech and the press if it means mocking the Prophet. They do not believe in Western dress codes or mixing men and women in schools and sports. They do not believe all lifestyles are equal. Some think adulterers should be stoned and honor killings are justified for girls who disgrace the family.
They wish to live their faith and their culture in our countries, to live alongside us but to dwell apart.
“If you come to France,” said Sarkozy last week, “you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.”
A little late for that. Some 5 million to 8 million Arabs and Muslims are in France, their birth rate is higher, and more are on the way.
The real questions: Whose idea was it to bring these people in? And what do France, Britain and Germany do if they say: This is a democracy, we will live as we wish to live, according to our beliefs, not yours.
How does a liberal, permissive society that celebrates diversity impose its values on a militant immigrant minority that rejects them?
Answer: It doesn’t. All the rest is chatter.
This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.
Amen to that; if we do not wake up and realize that radical Muslims and some cases Muslims in general do not wish to intermingle with we Christians, but rather wish to destroy we Christians and our free capitalist system; it will one day be the death of us. Liberal Progressives and radical Muslims have one thing in common. They want to destroy America and it’s Christian values and it’s capitalistic system.
However, if says such things, he is reviled among the Blogosphere and called a bigot and a racist. These things comes with the territory. Also, something else I feel the need to say; because there are actually people stupid enough to say this; and believe me, blogging for six years brings experience with dealing with idiots, such as thesehere — these people will say, “Well, I thought you said this?:
Not only that but as that little cartoon on my “About This Blog” page says; whenever someone tries to preach disunity, through class warfare, race hatred or Religious intolerance — they seek to rob us of the one founding thing that this Country was founded upon — Freedom
To those people I say, I did say that and I totally stand behind it. However, I will point out to the unwashed masses of liberalism, that just happen to pass by the little blog of mine; that pointing out that fact that Muslims, especially of the radical sort, want to take away our religious freedoms and put all Americans under Sharia Law; that is not racist to mention that, that is simply stating the truth about Islamofacists. Now there are some, like th author quoted above, that believe that ALL Muslims are this way. I personally have not seen that here in America just yet. It is one thing to want that; it is another to be actually able to do such a thing.
So far, when Muslims have tried treading on American values, such as in our schools and so forth; they have been met with much resistance. Hopefully this continues.
But, I am not going to allow people from that forum, that I will not link to here in a blog entry; to come to my site and leave sock puppet comments — especially when the IP addresses on the comments are the same as the man who came and tried to argue with me.
I swear, those people are just straight up vermin and those actions prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt with me. 😡
Well, isn’t this just a lovely story to pick up on a Sunday Morning?
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s Justice Department has asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the United States without any formal legal process or court oversight, according to a document obtained by McClatchy.
That assertion was revealed by the department – perhaps inadvertently – in its response to a McClatchy request for a copy of a secret Justice Department memo.
Critics say the legal position is flawed and creates a potential loophole that could lead to a repeat of FBI abuses that were supposed to have been stopped in 2006.
The controversy is a legacy of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Critics say the Obama administration appears to be continuing many of the most controversial tactics of that strategy, including the assertion of sweeping executive powers.
For years after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI sought and obtained thousands of telephone records for international calls in an attempt to thwart potential terrorists. The bureau devised an informal system of requesting the records from three telecommunications firms to create what one agent called a “phone database on steroids” that included names, addresses, length of service and billing information.
Which proves to this old school, Paleoconservative, Fundamentalist Christian one thing and one thing alone. That the only difference between a Neo-Liberal; like President Obama and a Neoconservative like President Bush is this —- One loves big Government and the other loves big Government as long as they are the one’s controlling it.
I remember how doing the Bush era, people like Keith Olbermann,were wailing to the top of their lungs about how darned horrible of the Bush Administration to allow such stuff to happen; and now that the Obama Administration is in power, what do you hear?
(click to play)
That is right, absolutely nothing about it at all. That is because the socialist liberals do not give a damn about personal liberty, all they care about is winning elections. All of the attacks against the Bush administration about everything; Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, Iraq —- everything —was just partisan politics. It never was about the people; because socialists do not give a darn about the people! All they care about is power – governmental power — everything else to them is just second nature.
Which pretty much sums up why I stopped voted for the Democratic Party. I am pretty much on to their game anymore. They try to come off as the party of the people; but anymore, they are all about the party of the state.
NineEight House Republican freshmen and three inaugural members of the Tea Party Caucus voted against a proposed extension of three Patriot Act provisions Tuesday night, blocking the measure from passage under fast-track rules.
The House clearly backed the measure, voting 277 to 148 to extend the provisions, and most Republicans stuck by their leadership and supported the extension. But enough defected, joined by most Democrats, to keep the measure seven votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the fast-track procedure.
The House is likely to bring the extensions back up before the end of the month under regular procedures, when a simple majority would suffice to send it to the Senate.
Attention immediately swung to whether House members sympathetic to the tea party had decided the matter, especially after Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Monday that the vote would be “the tea party’s first test.”
******
The vote was a blow to President Obama, who had asked Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act’s surveillance authorities — which are due to expire February 28 — for three years.
House Republican leaders weren’t willing to go that far in removing meaningful congressional checks and balances on the surveillance authorities that both the Bush and Obama administrations have used to conduct “roving surveillance” of communications, to collect and examine business records, and to target individuals who are not tied to terrorist groups for surveillance. But they did propose a one-year extension of the authorities.
Most House Republicans — including supposed defenders of the Constitution such as Michigan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann — went along with their leadership. In so doing, they failed to address fundamental concerns, raised by conservatives and liberals, about Patriot Act abuses of the very Constitution that theyread aloud at the opening of the current Congress.
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, led the vast majority of House Democrats in opposing any extension. In all, 122 Democrats — roughly two-thirds of the party’s House caucus — voted “no” to extending surveillance authorities that the American Civil Liberties Union warns “give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach.”
*****
Today, Dennis Kucinich and the Tea Partiers were on the same side. If Obama wants to be on the wrong side of this issue (as he seems to be on the wrong side in nearly every aspect of the ‘War on Terror’), then so be it. But the House of Representatives has shot down (perhaps only temporarily) a measure to extend the three most grievous portions of the Patriot Act from 2001 (the ‘lone wolf’ provision, the roving wiretaps, and the unchecked powers to seize records with little-to-no probable cause). It has been beyond disheartening to watch Barack Obama more or less carry the mantle of unchecked police powers and indefinite detention that highlighted George W. Bush’s reckless and counterproductive ‘War on Terror’ strategy. More importantly, the apparent approval and continuation of such policies by the Obama administration has turned what was once a bitterly divided series of issues into something resembling bi-partisan consensus. Quite frankly, there is much that the likes of Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich can indeed agree on. Perhaps this may be the start of the genuine liberals in Congress joining with the genuine conservatives in order to attempt to stop much of the genuinely un-American activities that have occurred post-9/11 on our watch and in our name. It is a pipe dream, but it is a goal worth advocating none-the-less.
*****
As Members of Congress, we are obligated to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution and to exercise our oversight powers fully. Despite years of documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, they may extended without any meaningful debate or opportunity to implement common-sense reforms to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected. Our failure to do so makes Congress complicit in these violations of basic constitutional rights.
****
The three provisions, incidentally, were for surveillance of non-citizens, roving wiretaps of multiple phones owned by a suspect, and the “library records” provision giving the FBI access to, among other things, medical and business records, which apparently was the sticking point for many Republicans voting no. Those three will lapse at the end of the month unless they’re extended; as with the Bush tax cuts, because the issue is contentious, Congress is in perpetual “temporary” extension mode instead of reaching a permanent resolution on any of them. Frankly, if there’s any tea party angle to all this, it’s that there wasn’t more opposition among the GOP freshmen: After months of rhetoric about government intrusion and hand-wringing on both sides about Obama’s expansion of Bush’s counterterror powers — to the point where U.S. citizens like Awlaki are now marked for death by presidential decree — they had some political cover to draw the line on extending parts of the Patriot Act further if they wanted to. (Ron Paul was among the 26 no’s, of course.) Nope.
More than four years after leaving public life, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to believe the war in Iraq was worth the effort, and has no apologies for his decision-making in leading the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Rumsfeld concedes that “it’s possible” that decisions on how many troops to send into Iraq marked the biggest mistake of the war.
“In a war, many things cost lives,” Rumsfeld told Sawyer.
Pressed on the fact that President Bush has written that cutting troop levels in Iraq was “the most important failure in the execution of the war,” Rumsfeld called that “interesting.”
I do not much care for the man. He is, in my humble opinion, an ignoramus. But he does have his opinions and he is a human being.
Get the Book:
I also highly recommend George W. Bush’s book as well:
As you know, this is the 100’th birthday of our Nation’s 40’th President.
But I believe it is important to know, what he really did, while he was in office. The Progressive Blog, Think Progress, lists the things that Reagan did while he was in office. These are the ones that I, as a Paleo-Con care about — :
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Now these here, are things that Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter, and were, of course, by the progressives, blamed on Reagan:
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980?s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
Which of course, is a liberal talking point. This was actually caused by the raising of taxes under Carter and because of the slump in the economy, caused by inflation; which again, was caused by Democrat’s spending.
Another talking point:
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
Well, that might have to do with the fact that President Reagan thought Abortion was murder; however, he knew that it was not the role of the Federal Government to stop abortion — but rather the State’s role. This is because he was a Federalist. Not only that — but — do the liberals know the concept of a campaign promise or saying stuff to get elected? Funny, Obama did the very same things, when he was running. But that’s okay — because he is a liberal! 🙄
When America began to tear herself apart over morality, race, and Vietnam in the 1960s, the old certitudes he articulated and the old virtues he personified held a magnetic attraction for a people bewildered by what was happening to their country. When he spoke, he took us to a higher ground, above petty and partisan squabbles and divisions, where we could dream and be one people again.
Reagan passionately believed in the importance of ideas and husbanded rather than squandered America’s credibility. When Ronald Reagan left office the U.S. truly did stand tall, a far cry from its status today as an isolated, distrusted giant. President Reagan likely would have been horrified: the U.S. initiating war on a lie and then finding itself caught in an unnecessary guerrilla war that has made the West less secure and America more hated by more people than at any point in its history.
Daniel McCarthy — “Getting Reagan Right” The Reagan I Knew could just as fairly have been called The Reagan I Didn’t Know, for after a 40-year friendship, Buckley suddenly realized he had misjudged the man. At National Review’s 30th-anniversay gala in 1985, he toasted the then-president as the consummate cold warrior: “What I said in as many words, dressed up for the party, was that Reagan would, if he had to, pull the nuclear trigger,” writes Buckley. “Twenty years after saying that, in the most exalted circumstance, in the presence of the man I was talking about, I changed my mind.”
Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative. He aligned the Republican crusader more closely with America’s expansive liberal temperament. In particular, his brand of evangelical Christianity, combined with fragments of Puritanism, enlightenment optimism, and romantic liberalism, set Reagan apart in key ways from historic conservatism.
A great actor in his greatest role. On balance,during his tenure, taxes increased,inflation increased,government employment increased,the debt increased,the power of government increased yet he made you feel good about it. He “talked the talk” but didn’t “walk the walk.” As to the last few years of his 2nd Administration,I think he was in a different world. Yet, all in all,you couldn’t help like the guy and the way he made you feel proud to be an American.
However, for the record; I think it is important to note, what really causedthe collapse of the Soviet Empire — It sure was not Ronald Reagan. I mean, the man gave a speech in free Germany and automatically, Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Which, of course, is foolishness. Reagan no more brought down that Soviet Empire, than George W. Bush defeated Al-Qaeda.
While I did admire Ron Reagan for his speaking ability and his ability to lead; as a Paleo-Conservative or as I like call it — a real Conservative — I will say, Reagan was by no means perfect.
—
Post updated to reflect differences between legit complaints with Reagan and liberal talking points.
Update: As Always Ed Morrissey offers a “Rose Colored Glasses” version of the history of Reagan. ....and as usual the commenters over there are stupidly comparing that feckless train wreak of a media whore to President Reagan; which is sick, if you ask me. 🙄
I have been meaning to write about this for a few days; but there were other things to write about and this one got cast aside.
I was going to put this one under the whole “Living Proof that liberals are classless assholes” banner. But this one just was just too great, too awful, too nasty.
It appears that Keith Olbermann has some sort of inbred hatred of our United States Military. Now why would I make such a wild accusation as that? For this reason:
I AM very happy that Keith Olbermann is no longer on MSNBC. I participated in more than 10 combat missions in Vietnam, so I know a mission is not a war. Someone should have told that to Olbermann, as he demonstrated his ignorance by equating the two for years on his show.
He would end by saying it has been so many days since President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished’’ in Iraq. Bush never said that. Olbermann was referring to a sign on an aircraft carrier that said “Mission Accomplished.’’ The president declared an end to major combat operations, and therefore the aircraft carrier was headed home.
In Bush’s speech, he said that much work has yet to be done. The sign was for the brave people who had completed their mission.
Olbermann can take the money and run. I don’t care where.
A gentle ribbing towards someone who, if anyone, had the right to say that; after all he was a military officer. Well, not to Keith, who hates anything remotely Military — this was his response: (H/T Nice Deb)
How Keith REALLY feels about our Military
That’s right, Keith believes that people that serve in our Military are dumb. This goes along with the whole mentality that whole idea, by the so-called enlightened liberals that most Military people are simple minded Conservatives who are too stupid to think for themselves. You see, Keith does not have his network bosses to answer to any longer, so, now he can spew his far leftist hatred of all things American; including our Military.
As some of you know and you can know this by searching this blog; I used to hold Keith Olbermann in very high regard. I was, at one point, a regular watcher of Keith’s show. That is, until he started with the intellectual dishonesty and straight up lying about everything under the sun. Well, writing about something is not enough, one must put their money where their mouth is.
So, as of this morning. I have removed the one book that Keith Olbermann wrote off of my Blog’s Bookstore. Unfortunately, I could not remove the one book itself. I had to remove the sections about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Most of it was filled with Anti-Bush and Anti-Cheney books anyhow. I realize that it might not be that big of a deal, not many people buy anything from my Bookstore anyhow. However, with me. It is a personal decision; that I just will not support someone, who is taken to insulting our Military. This is a personal issue with me; it always has been, as I have had family members who served. This is why I have “Lost my shit”, so to speak, in the past, when people have insulted the Military in the Paleo-Conservative circles.
So, Keith, if you happened to even read this; You sir, are history in my book. You just do not insult Military officers, whether active or inactive. Not around me at least. You sir, are no better than the anti-war protesters in the 1960’s who spat upon and mocked the soldiers coming out of Vietnam. In fact, your little smart-assed tweet was, as far as this writer is concerned; was in fact, a virtual spit in the face of a Solider who served proudly in our Military.
For this sir, you are remanded to dustbin of history, as far as I am concerned. You sir are just another Anti-American socialist, who happened to get rich by spewing your lies and bigotry — all the while railing against the very capitalist system that made you rich. Which is a picture perfect example of the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal left. I do hope that you enjoy that money, that in all honesty, you do not deserve to own; and if you just happen to get lucky enough to land another job as a talking head somewhere else. I will be here to blog against your idiotic nonsense. Because as a former “Left of Center,” I am appalled to where you and your communist-lite friends have taken the party that my grandparents and parents voted and still do vote for.
Further more, I find your attacks against our Military sickening and I will be one of many, who will continue to attack you, for your idiotic political viewpoints; until you finally retire and eventually die relieving this Nation of your moronic bombast and empty headed pontifications.
I may be only a small cog in this machine that we call America; but I am a damned good one!
RACISTS like this, are begging for war. Let’s give them one. It is 220,000,000 white people, against 37,000,000 blacks. You know what a genocide looks like? You don’t, because there is no one left, to remember it. Be? smart, though. Let them, make the first violent moves. Let the people, see their violence. Let them give us a reason. Be patient. Do not move, as an individual. Wait. Keep giving them rope, they need, to hang themselves. LOL!!!
WASHINGTON — Nearly two-thirds of cars on the road could have more corn-based ethanol in their fuel tanks under an Environmental Protection Agency decision Friday.
The agency said that 15 percent ethanol blended with gasoline is safe for cars and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006, expanding an October decision that the higher blend is safe for cars built since 2007.The maximum gasoline blend has been 10 percent ethanol.
This decision was made despite repeated warnings from industry experts who have been pleading for more time to perform exhaustive testing. Were they being overly cautious? That’s a difficult argument to make, particularly since we told you last month that one delay in testing came from the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.
The laundry list of potential problems from this decision is extensive. Asking distributors to carry yet another fuel (even if it doesn’t melt their pumps) will require logistical juggling, equipment changes, new signs and other expenses which are inevitably passed on down to the consumer. Ethanol burns hotter than conventional fuel, leading to earlier failure of catalytic converters. (An expensive fix, as any of you who have been hit with it at the garage will attest.)
All of this is still being pushed under the cloak of a more environmentally friendly solution to energy challenges, a claim which current science has increasingly put in doubt. But would it at least produce any type of savings as we fight to get the budget under control?
Rather than furthering his goal to make America “the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” however, Obama’s focus on biofuels as the way “to break our dependence on oil” would have the opposite effect if it means sending billions more taxpayers dollars to corn country to finance ethanol infrastructure, Cox said. “Building an ethanol infrastructure at taxpayer’s expense will just lock us further into the past rather than lead us to tomorrow’s energy future,” added Cox, who heads EWG’s Ames, Iowa, office.
Jazz makes a very, very, very, very good point here:
This is clearly a victory for King Corn, but lies in stark contrast to the President’s stated goals of Winning the Future. Exit question: Even if gas stations manage to offer this for cars built in 2001 and after, how will they ensure drivers of older vehicles don’t wind up putting it in their vehicles without retooling the entire delivery system?
Good question. I can see the lawsuits coming now. The first idiot that accidentally puts the corn-laced fuel into an older vehicle and tears the snot out of his engine; and ends up suing the gas station, the fuel delivery company and the oil company that produced the product and comes away with a few million dollars — will cause this little program to be stopped in it’s tracks. Think it would not happen? Think again; there are tons and I do mean TONS of lawyers out there, that are chomping at the bit to take a lawsuit like this and make money off of it.
Updated to add: ….and there is a alternative scenario — What will happen is, some person, who is barely getting by and making minimum wage, and can barely afford a car. This person will accidentally fuel up with this Ethanol laced gas, it will gum up his motor and the poor man will end up having to junk the car and will have scrape around for another one. That is the part that really bothers me. The fact that liberals are so damned hell-bent on fulfilling an agenda that they do not think of all of the possibilities — and because of that, someone out there, not necessarily someone of means; gets screwed in the end. That my friends is the sad part.
Just another example of your feckless Government at work. 🙄
Please note: The posting on this video does NOT constitute support for all of the views therein. It is posted for your education and information.
—–
Synopsis: In the 78th edition of the Reality Report, Gary Franchi draws the direct parallels America shares with Hitler’s Germany and provides the solution to avoiding their terrible fate. We take a look at Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk where he discusses what a new found interest in the Constitution could mean for America. CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Peter Schiff tells us why the Chinese modeled their currency after the U.S. dollar. We also hear from the former U.S. military analyst who is responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. He explains the recent war on whistle-blowers. Chris Mathews latest hypocrisy is revealed and Angie breaks down the news. As always we take a dip into the mailbag, reveal the results from last weeks viewer poll and brand a new Enemy of the State.
Actually, I wanted to call this one Exhibit IC for incessant whining, but I did not want to sound like a total jerk. However, this is exactly what this little piece is here.
It appears that some liberal wife of some hard working person feels that her man is not getting his fair share of the pot. She writes over at the liberal Blog FireDogLake:
This morning my husband got up at 5:00 a.m. to work outside in 7 degree F temperatures. He sat on the end of the couch, head in his hands sipping his coffee telling me how much he hates his job. How much it’s wearing him out. He makes $29.00 dollars an hour. Roughly $60,000 a year. He’s a union electrician. His health care premiums come out of his pay check; it is NOT subsidized by his “company.” His disability comes out of his pay check. It is NOT subsidized by his company.
I don’t think most people understand this about the unions. These men get paid what they do because they are subsidizing their own care. Men in suits thinks he makes too much money. Men in suits think he doesn’t deserve health care or disability, that he’s just a body to use and abuse.
They tell the men to talk about safety on their own time, not to take up time they could be “producing” to discuss “safety issues”. They don’t want to spend money on his safety or breaks for his aching back or freezing fingers. My husband worries if he takes too much time to warm up that they might lay him off. The men in suits know he is afraid, they even tease him about lay offs from warm offices when he walks through to take his 15-minute break. The high cost of labor, entitlement. The men in suits make you focus on the unions with their high paying jobs while they sit in offices pushing pencils making eight times the amount that my husband makes. Risking far less in stress and safety than my husband. And complaining about the high cost of labor.
First, before I rip this poor woman to shreds here, let me say something. Please note that I am very sympathetic to the working person’s cause — really, I am. I am one of those working man types myself. What troubles me about this entire piece is this; it sounds like this woman is whining about her husband actually having a job. Furthermore, this piece is your a-typical mentality of the liberals in this Country — and that is that the little person is being jacked around by the big, evil, corporate America. What these mentally depraved people do not seems to realize is this; if it were not for businesspersons, who decide to take risks and employ people like her husband, to build projects, like the one that he is working on, those hardworking people — would be unemployed.
Secondly, I find this piece to be offensive for another reason. This is where I might just run afoul of Conservatives who read this blog. I have been unemployed since 2005. This partially could be considered my fault and partially it could be blamed on the piss poor economy here in Michigan. The unemployment rate here in Michigan is I believe 30% or so. I believe I could find you a group of men here in Michigan, which would just love to have this man’s job that he has grown to hate. I know that I personally live very well at $60.000 per year and not complain one bit. The point I am trying to make is this, this man took this job knowing what it entailed and knows what is required of him. If he cannot handle that job, perhaps he should try finding something else, possibly even trying another career.
I hate to sound like some heartless jerk, which sits in some ivory tower somewhere and writes dismissively of some person who is really struggling to make it. Because that is not what I am — I am simply someone who has had my own share of problems in the past, when it comes to unemployment and when I see someone moaning and complaining about actually having job — I just really have to speak up and say trying living in my shoes for a while. I could really understand if this would have been written pre-stock market flash crash and economic recession, but it was not. There are some people out there that have it a hell of a lot worse that this person and his whining wife. I happen to be one of them and I think that this man and his wife both ought to be a bit more appreciative of what they do have, instead of whining about what they have to so-called “Suffer” through.
Just my thoughts on that one, and believe me, this comes from someone who is not even being counted among the 9% in America unemployed. They only count those who are collecting benefits. I collect none. I will not bother to even comment on the part where it says that the man was breaking the law, by giving free electricity to people that he knows. I mean, if that is not self explanatory, I do not know what is. 🙄
It has been a long while since I have done this; the reason mainly is because; one, I have sort of grown bored with politics and two, because there has not been any overly asshole’sih stuff to write about —- But, finally, some liberal idiots have done some very tasteless stuff as of recent and the need to mock them for it has arrived, finally.
So, off we go!
Tonight is twofer, seems that this idiotic classless crap comes in waves anymore.
First up Good ol’ Bill Maher, the demented Liberal Jew, the gift that just keeps on giving.
Here is Bill Maher speaking about the founding fathers and how they would feel about the Tea Party: (via HotAir)
Quote:
Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.
I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion. They didn’t want to force others to believe as they did – certainly – but they respected religion, and the Bible, nonetheless. Even those more critical, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed the Bible contained important lessons – lessons wise men should take to heart. There may have been a few, like Thomas Paine, who held religion in less high esteem, but they were the minority, not the majority.
Furthermore, unlike what Maher seems to believe, the Founding Fathers weren’t big fans of a welfare state. At all. In fact, they considered the government the greatest potential threat to freedom. They understood that an intrusive, activist state always limits a people’s freedom. That’s why they wrote the Constitution in the first place: they wanted to guarantee Americans specific rights, the government could not take away.
The Tea Party continues this tradition. They too stand for individual liberty, over collectivism and social engineering. They want the government to get out of the people’s business – out of their health care and out of their pockets. If there’s one thing they demand, it’s to be left alone to live their lives as they please. Not as it pleases Maher and other cocky liberals who mess up their own lives in virtually every respect, but who nonetheless believe it’s up to them to tell others how to live.
I have had some disagreements with Mr. Galien in the past; however he nails this one very well. Bill Maher is a classless asshole liberal who should be deported out of our Country. This is the same moron who said this little statement:
So, as you see, this man is not a freedom living American. Bill Maher is a anti-American socialist. However, because he is a supposed evolved liberal — he gets a free pass to say this sort of a thing. It also helps too, if you are Jewish — they always seem to get away with this sort of a thing in the media. Sorry if this offends, but it is the truth.
Update: I have gotten some feedback from those objecting to my calling Maher a Jew; and even some accusing me of lying… From Wikipedia:
Now, you say you object to my broadsiding of this man for his Jewish linage? Well, I personally object to this man’s constant broadsiding of Christianity. In other words: Two can play this game. 😡 If Maher’s fans do not like me slamming the hook nosed fool; then maybe they should write him and tell him to stop singling out Christians.
Besides playing amateur doctor, Ron Reagan reveals, if true, brain surgery on his dad never before reported. He accurately reports that Reagan, after leaving the presidency, was bucked from a horse on July 4, 1989, while in Mexico. Ron tells of how his dad, after initially refusing medical help, was transported to a San Diego hospital. “Surgeons opening his skull to relieve pressure on the brain emerged from the operating room with the news that they had detected what they took to be probable signs of Alzheimer’s disease.” Several Reagan associates, however, say there was no surgery in San Diego.
What’s more there is no reporting about any San Diego operation on Reagan. News reports at the time of his fall say Reagan was flown to a hospital in Arizona, where he was treated for scrapes and bruises and released after five hours…
Ron Reagan doesn’t mention this, but says that Reagan visited the Mayo Clinic in 1990 for tests that “confirmed the initial suspicion of Alzheimer’s.” Reagan’s post-presidency history, documented in several archives like University of Texas, reveal no such visit. And Dr. John E. Hutton Jr. his doctor from 1984 through Reagan’s retirement, told the New York Times that Reagan didn’t show the tell-tale symptoms until 1993.
AllahPundit, smacks this liberal asshole down really good:
Follow the link and you’ll see that another big piece of “evidence” is Ron feeling his heart sink as he watched his pop stumble through a bad, “bewildered” performance in his first debate with Mondale in 1984. Quote: “Some voters were beginning to imagine grandpa—who can never find his reading glasses—in charge of a bristling nuclear arsenal, and it was making them nervous. Worse, my father now seemed to be giving them legitimate reason for concern.” That was October 7, 1984; a month later, the “concern” had turned into a 49-state landslide.
I think by now you are beginning to understand as to why I could never vote for these idiots ever, ever again. I mean, it is much, much more than just Barack Obama. It is the entire movement as a whole. What they cannot control, they seek to white wash and rewrite. The Progressive liberals have been doing this for years and they are not getting any better. So, I am done with them, period. While I might not be a “perfect” idea of what some might think a Conservative should be; I could never vote for that party and for that movement and that mindset….ever again. Sorry guys, you blew it for me.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, was sentenced on Monday to three years in prison for conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The sentence came after Delay was convicted in November of trying to illegally influence elections in the Lone Star State.
In a 10 minute speech to Senior Judge Pat Priest, Delay insisted he did nothing wrong.
“I can’t be remorseful for something I don’t think I did,” Delay said, adding that accountants and lawyers checked everything he did.
“This criminalization of politics is very dangerous. It’s dangerous to our system. Just because somebody disagrees with you they got to put you in jail, bankrupt you, destroy your family,” he told Priest.
However, the prosecutor in the case saw the matter differently.
“I think Tom Delay said it best. He said that he was arrogant,” Assistant District Attorney Gary Cobb said.
“His statement was an extremely arrogant statement where he refused to accept responsibility, refused to show any remorse for the offense of which he’s been convicted of,” Cobb added.
I happen to see this a little differently than Tom Delay. I believe there is another motivation factor here; and that factor is race. This is nothing more, than a political and racial watch hunt by a black liberal Democrat who wants to make a name for himself by going after and bringing down a White Conservative Republican. I have information in my possession from well-placed anonymous sources, e-mails from this man saying that he was going to bring down Tom Delay and some very nasty racist words were used to describe Mr. Delay.
It is a sad day in America when out of control liberal blacks can attack, smear and persecute White Americans for crimes that they did not commit.
One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.
McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”
I understand her husband getting killed and he kids hurt in a shooting. But is it really necessary to impose her idiotic will on the American people?
Of course, unless something major changes; this bill will never, ever make it to the President’s desk. The Democrats tried this whole thing back during the Clinton era and ended up paying for it dearly during the elections. They fought this battle —- and ultimately lost. So, I expect that this bill will be treated as such.
What will be interesting to note is whether the Conservative in Congress will stick to their principles ….or will they go the Neo-Conservative route and sell out their principles to the liberals, who want to strip our freedoms in the name of safety? Remember the only difference between a big Government liberal and a Big Government Conservative Neo-Con is the type and names of their special interest groups; there are others, but I do not want this article to be too long. 😉
What really needs to happen, is some freedom loving American needs to challenge Rep. Carolyn McCarthy at the ballot box, come election time. Because we just cannot allow these far-leftist loons to use a sad situation like this, to rob peace loving, and law abiding citizens of the United States of American of the freedoms that they hold dear.
It is a often used phrase among second amendment advocates, that “Gun Control is less about guns and more about Control.” This attempt by this far leftist loon proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
America is watching congress, act wisely; we voted you in — we can and will, vote you out.
This guy is not only a stalker, he is a bit of a jerk too.
Nothing new… I’m used to his type.
Par for the course.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
(Matthew 5:10-12 KJV) …
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. — (John 15:18-19 KJV)
Not to mention the fact that he has no reading comprehension skills. Go read his entry and see what he links to; but that is par for course, for his ilk.
Normally, I would not touch a story like this; but this one sticks out a bit:
WASHINGTON (AP) — First, fiery packages sent to top officials in Maryland were opened, revealing an angry message complaining of the state’s terrorism tip line. Then, a mailing addressed to the nation’s homeland security chief ignited with a similar flash of fire and smoke at a D.C. postal processing facility.
While authorities have not said if the latest parcel contained a note, they did say the three packages were alike. The targeting of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also seemed to echo anger expressed by the mailer of the first two.
Napolitano launched a nationwide “see something, say something” campaign in July, and her recorded voice can be heard in Washington-area subway stations, reminding commuters to report suspicious behavior. The program expanded last month to include more than 230 Walmarts across the country.
The Maryland packages had an explicit message, railing against highway signs urging motorists to report suspicious activity by calling a toll-free number. The message read: “Report suspicious activity! Total Bull—-! You have created a self fulfilling prophecy.”
This is one of those blog entries that I do not like having to write —- but because I am Christian and because I happen to believe that anarchy is wrong — I feel the need to write about it.
Contrary to what most radicals might want you to believe, sending package bombs to Governmental offices and targeting Governmental officials is NOT Patriotic! Nor is it cool or even remotely acceptable. In this great Country of ours, we have a perfect system of protest against existing Governments. It is called the Ballot box. We also have the first amendment, which allows us to peacefully assemble and protest against the actions of our Government. You saw that during the Tea Party protests this summer, and because of those protests and because of the media coverage of them, there was a landslide victory by the Republicans in the House and parts of the Senate as well.
Those who stoop to violence towards our Government have given up hope on the political system and on the process of elections. Violence solves nothing at all; it just causes the other side of the political fence to blame those of us, who are peace-loving Americans, who do not agree with the big Government polices of the liberals in Congress and in the White House — for this sort of ungodly nonsense. When in all honesty, it is not our fault.
I want it to be publicly known that this “right of center” political blog and it’s owner condemn this sort of terrorist actions in the highest terms possible and it is my personal hope and prayer that they catch the person or persons responsible for this and that they prosecute this godless vermin to the fullest extent of the law. Further more, I believe that if Fox News, and every other Conservative outlet out there has ANY sort of integrity at all; these organizations would come out and say the same exact thing.
Unfortunately, among the more Paleo-libertarian crowd, this sort of extremist action is seen as heroic and even justified — which is, of course, asinine. Acts of violence, in a civilized society, such as ours, to make a political point, is right on par with what Al-Qaeda and other such Jihad groups wish to do here in America. In other words, this is nothing more than straight up terrorism and should be treated as such.
Again, in closing, having a political stance and opinion is fine — even acceptable. However, when one decides to hurt other people to express that opinion — you stop being a patriot or even an American and you become a terrorist and a criminal. There is a difference and I believe that more Bloggers on the right ought to be saying this.
Update: Dan says I am renouncing myself. Which is idiotic at best. I simply am saying that those, like Lew Rockwell, that find this sort of a thing to be chick are not patriots. But, TERRORISTS…. Period, FULL STOP.
Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), a potential Republican presidential candidate, has an interesting perspective on the tumults of the civil rights era that swept through his Deep South state.
As Barbour recalls it in a new profile in The Weekly Standard, things weren’t so bad in his hometown of Yazoo City, which took until 1970 to integrate its schools (though the final event itself is said to have gone on peacefully). For example, Barbour says that there was no problem of Ku Klux Klan activity in the town — thanks to the Citizens Council movement, an organization that was founded on the basis of resistance to integration and the promotion of white supremacy.
“You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK,” said Barbour. “Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you’d lose it. If you had a store, they’d see nobody shopped there. We didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”
The White Citizens Council movement was founded in Mississippi in 1954, shortly after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregated public schools, and was dedicated to political activities opposing civil rights — notably boycotts of pro-civil rights individuals, as opposed to Barbour’s recollection of actions against the Klan. It was distinguished from the Klan by the public self-identification of its members, and its image of suits and ties as opposed to white robes and nooses
I do believe that Gov. Haley Barbour just killed any notion of him ever running for President. I knew he was from the south; but I really did not think he was this bad. 😯
I do believe that Gov. Haley Barbour just wandered off into Ron Paul territory.
The Senate on Saturday blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements, including passing a criminal background check.
The vote by 55-41 in favor of the bill, which is known as the Dream Act, effectively kills it for this year, and its fate is uncertain. The measure needed the support of 60 senators to cut off a filibuster and bring it to the floor.
Supporters said they were heartened that the measure won the backing of a majority of the Senate. They said they would continue to press for it, either on its own or as part of a wide immigration overhaul that some Democrats hope to undertake next year and believe could be an area of cooperation with Republicans, who will control a majority in the House.
Most immediately, the measure would have helped grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students and recent graduates whose lives are severely restricted, though many have lived in the United States for nearly their entire lives.
Young Hispanic men and women filled the spectator galleries of the Senate, many of them wearing graduation caps and tassels in a symbol of their support for the bill. They held hands in a prayerful gesture as the clerk called the roll and many looked stricken as its defeat was announced.
President Obama had personally lobbied lawmakers in support the bill. But Democrats were not able to hold ranks.
Five Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the bill. They were Senators Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana.
And three Republicans joined the balance of Democrats in favor of it: Robert Bennett of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Mr. Obama, in a statement, called the outcome “incredibly disappointing” and said that he would continue fighting to win approval of the bill.
Which should prove that America is a center-right Country and that most Americans oppose any sort of disruption of what is commonly known as “RULE OF LAW.”
