McCartney on Bush: ‘It’s Great To Have A President Who Knows What A Library Is’…
'It's Great To Have A President Who Knows What A Library Is'... Paul McCartney
This coming from the super-well-educated Paul McCartney who was born in 1942 and left school in 1960. That's right, Paul McCartney, who has the United Kingdom equivalent of a United States High School education, critcizing President George W. Bush who graduated with an undergraduate degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
I like the Beatles, but Paul needs to get a clue.
(see for example, Wikipedia)
A No Win Situation for Isreal
The point of the blockade crashers was exactly this - a no win situation for Israel.
1. If Israel keeps them offshore, the press is bad because the "peace activists" (who video shows had stun grenades and other weapons and used them to attack) will be described by the press as just want to help the terrorist organization who has as its charter the destruction of Israel.
2. Let them in, weapons get to the terrorists and the terrorists are emboldened.
3. Try to board and be attacked (update: see video below) and see how it escalates.
No matter what, Israel lost - which was the point of the challenges to the blockade - and the world press will only look superficially at the situation and buy the BS that is being sold them without looking at the reasons and ramifications. And even if 99% of the idiots on the boats were innocent they were being used by the 1%. Nukes and other WMDs surround Israel and Israel is supposed to let the terrorist supporters in or get closer?
The world will eventually pay for lack of stability and vision. Neville Chamberlain should have taught us the folly of appeasement.
Holder should appoint Special Prosecutor for Sestak Job Offer
CNN’s John King said to Axelrod that a job offer for Rep. Seststak “marches up into the gray area, perhaps into the red area of a felony. It is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job.” Sestak has alleged on multiple occasions this year that he was offered a job to refrain from running. Gibbs has acknowledged that such conversations have taken place ("Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened." and"Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic." On CBS' "Face the Nation" Gibbs said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way.").
The offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.” Likewise 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office and Section 18 USC 211 says that you can't accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody in the Federal government.
Either the Democrat candidate for the Senate has lied multiple times or a felony has taken place. One would think that the media would care to investigate and a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.
Axelrod replied to CNN's King that “If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law, and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing." And when Ted Bundy was asked to look in the killings of which he was accused, he found that there was no evidence that he had been involved. Thankfully other people investigated Bundy. We don't give the people accused of a crime the responsibility and authority to investigate the allegations themselves. Hence the Special Prosecutor.
For reference:
Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $10,000".
1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum
allowable fine.
1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",
inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of
Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office" for "in any election".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty
days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later,
see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Obama: “I Do Think At A Certain Point You’ve Made Enough Money”
Obama: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
Attention Big Democrat supporters, stop being hypocrites, "at a certain point you've made enough money," so give it away now:
Elena Kagan not gay says White House, but is there something wrong with it if she is?
The headline:
"White House complains about CBS News [Washington Post] blog post saying that possible Supreme Court nominee is gay."
So, my question is, what is wrong with being gay? Does the White House have a problem if she is gay? Is there anyone except the White House who cares?
[May 10, 2010 Update:] Elena Kagan's friends: She's not gay [Politico]. Again, is there something wrong with being gay that everyone is having a spasm about it? Who cares if she is or isn't?
“Liberty or Death? No thanks! Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!”
On the 235th anniversary of one of the greatest calls for liberty - "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" - the President of the United States signed one of the biggest curtailments of human freedom in United States history. The irony may have been lost on Washington leadership today, and perhaps the quotation from Washington, DC, today would have been "Liberty or death? Why so extreme? Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!"
Remember this quotation, it is all the more relevant today:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
…public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk-Obama
On the campaign trail President Obama said the "public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk" before signing it into law.
And with the Health Insurance bill, we had 36 hours. The days are growing shorter.
Throw out the old flag along with the Constitution…
With the "Health Insurance" vote, it has become clear of the two major parties, there is one party of freedom and one party of totalitarianism. Anyone intellectually honest knows the Constitution prohibits government actions such as this (or the Patriot Act for that matter). To see a document of enumerated, limited powers twisted into the opposite by power-hungry politicians sworn to protect and defend it is disgusting. The Founders are not just spinning in their graves, they have spun so fast they have completely disintegrated. Just like the protections in the Constitution.
So, the United States can now throw out the old flag while Congress throws out the last vestiges of the Constitution. As such, a more modern flag is needed. Several contenders to replace the old "Stars and Stripes" with a more timely flag are shown below.
Which do you prefer? Let us know in the comments!
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter the motives. Whether or not he arises "for a good cause" or not, does not make the result any better. A slave with a benevolent master is still a slave. A slave for a "good cause" is still a slave.
No one would argue that the slaves were "extreme" demanding freedom, but even if they were, as Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is ...
Democrats adopt the Jim Crow “one drop rule” to attack critics of President Obama as ‘racists’!
The "one drop rule" was one of the most odious and infamous rules of the Jim Crow era. Now it being given new life by the Democrat Party in order to silence criticism of President Obama. The Democrat machine uses it to impugn the "race" of President Obama. Instead of accepting the fact that critics of the President are attacking his policies, the Democrat establishment attacks those who disagree with the President as "racists."
Ignoring for now the stupidity of believing skin color or eye color or hair color is an indication of "race" - we're all part of the human race - what the Democrat defenders are saying is that "since the President is 'black' anyone who attacks him is a racist."
Now why is that relevant? Simple. President Obama's father was "black" from Kenya. President Obama's mother was "white" from Kansas. Now to be labeled a "racist" for attacking the President's policies, one has to accept that President Obama is "black." Given that one parent was "white" and the other "black," one must accept the most repulsive, vile, and repugnant "one drop rule" from the Jim Crow era - which meant that "one drop of 'black blood'" essentially made one "non-white." In fact, it was much worse than that. In 1911, Arkansas pass Act 320, a.k.a. the "one-drop rule," making "interracial cohabitation" a felony and defining as "Negro" anyone "who has...any negro blood whatever." The Supreme Court remedied this stupidity in 1967 when it over-turned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but now the racists in the Democrat Party want to bring it back. (For an authoritative discussion, see the book "Who is Black" by F. James Davis, excerpts of which are available on the internet).
Are the people who say that attacks on the President's policies are racist really advocating adoption of the "one drop rule"? Are the racist Democrats really espousing the "one drop rule" for the President? They are making the argument that the most infamous racists in history were making: that one drop of "black" blood makes you black. The "one drop" rule, infamous in the Jim Crow era. Talk about the critics embracing the worst of the racist past and using it to call others racist!
Skin color is irrelevant, freedom and policies are the only concerns. The true racists are those who think that one's skin color is relevant and that the "one drop" rule should apply to the President. The President would get the same criticism whomever his parents were, just as President Bush did for some of his idiotic policies. Under the Jim Crow system employed regarding criticism of President Obama, a black mother can never have a white baby, while a white mother can have a black baby. Is that rational? Is it even relevant? No, dividing people by skin color is a technique used to gather power by the divide and conquer mentality. People have the right to be free no matter their eye color, hair color or skin color. This policy means so much for Thurgood Marshall's insistence that "classifications and distinctions based upon race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society" and Martin Luther King's wish that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Family history and genealogy is a wonderful treasure, but it has no place in government policy. "Race" is a bad concept who's time has long gone. Everyone in the United States is "American" without any hyphens. It is time that people started to behave that way.


