Crossposted from Flopping Aces

58 year old disabled Vietnam vet, Frank Larison, is under fire from the Dallas Home Owner’s Association. The president of the HOA sent him a letter asking him to remove 7 Marine Corps decals from his vehicle, stating that advertisement is not allowed. The reporter, James Rose, points out that if this is the case, just about every car in the neighborhood is in violation as the news camera captures examples of other cars making a multitude of statements, including an Obama ’08 bumpersticker. Yet it’s the patriotic Marine decals that have drawn fire from the HOA.

Yup…supporting the Armed Forces and expressing patriotism is a “no-no” advertisement that violates HOA rules…but sporting a political Obama ’08 bumpersticker gets the free pass.

Also:

What Is It That Former Russian Communists Understand That American Liberals Do Not?

Is it that American libs are still bitten by the red bug?

This commentary in Pravda, the former official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party has the leftward slide in the U.S. nailed!

American capitalism gone with a whimper
By Stanislav Mishin
Pravda.Ru
4-27-2009

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.

Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?… This only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Finally:

EJ Reports Black Panther Represented Dem Party
(more…)

By Brujo Blanco

The next time you drive by such locations as Broadway and Lombard in Baltimore or some Home Depot in the surrounding suburbs looking for work think about their names. A name is important from a law enforcement point of view because it is the primary identifier for citizens. It is also a piece of information you have to give up when approached by the police. When you are stopped by an officer one thing that officer asks is your name.

The problem with these Hispanic men is that they are likely illegal aliens and our authorities in general do not know who they are or what they have done in the past. Can you really discern if they are just a bunch of guys looking for work or predators? Since they come into our country illegally that is a clue that something is wrong. They have to break the law to get in and they have to break the law to stay. They generally work off the books and a significant number of employers cannot tell you who they are.

The state of Maryland has assumed the role of sanctuary state and as such they provide protection for these criminals from the federal authorities and they provide support through driver’s licenses and CASA de Maryland. From my perspective this CASA group is involved in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to violate the immigration laws. In fact this particular group has received $1.5 million in foreign aid from Hugo Chavez who is the communist dictator of Venezuela. Chavez is a sworn enemy of the USA.

Let’s talk about names. In the USA we have all types of names from different countries and cultures. We find such names as John Smith, Jorge Gonzalez, Mike Hrabowenski, and Nick Papadopoulus. You think of a foreign sounding name and that name can be found in this country.

Recently I was reading an article by Peter Hermann of the Baltimore Sun concerning the fatal beating of Lucio Solorzano who was described as an 84 year old landscaper and businessman who originally came from Peru to work and raise a family in Baltimore. It is apparent that Mr. Solorzano was tragically beaten to death by a man identified as Hector Jose Posada. Note the name of the alleged killer in this paragraph and keep it in mind when reading on. (more…)

From Red Maryland

– Richard E. Vatz

As one often involved in discussion of politics and public policy, I have some familiarity with the claim that a quote is taken out of context.

Sometimes a quote is strategically taken so dishonestly out of context that it bears no genuine relationship to the criticism of it. If I say in a speech that “Towson University has the most impressive population of administrators, faculty, students and staff I have ever seen” (true, by the way), but that “there are 4 or 5 terribly incompetent staff members,” it is quoting me out of context and inaccurately to say that “Vatz says there are many ‘terribly incompetent staff members’ at Towson University.”

The charge has been made that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court nominee, made a racist comment in a racist speech at the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal’s Twelfth Annual Symposium on October 26, 2001.

The American Heritage Dictionary is one of the best places to go if one wants a non-majoritarian definition of a term. That dictionary defines “racist” as “[T]he belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others…Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” Both concepts are relevant here, particularly the second definition which leads to the question, does she support in judicial decisions “discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

What I would find in Judge Sotomayor’s speech is a lack of care of language. She says, for example, that “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.” Although the use of “prejudices” may be used because it supposedly answers the claim by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum “that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law,” it does not appear that Judge Sotomayor believes that generally utilizing “prejudices” based on race is specifically reconcilable with “integrity.”

More telling, when she made her now-infamous 32-word (possible) gaffe, saying “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” it was to support correctives to situations not experienced by men, such as when “…three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child” and when “wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.” (more…)

It’s a dire situation when Congress becomes so corrupt that it has the exclusive power to overlook its own crimes and ethical violations. Recently, Representative Jeff Flake from Arizona called for ethics investigations of senior members of Congress based on sound evidence of misappropriation. Instead of doing the right thing and policing itself, Congress will sweep such matters under the rug, just like they will ignore the lies told by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding her prior knowledge of waterboarding.

So how did Assistant to the Speaker, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, respond to Representative Flake’s resolution? He sent out an email to the Democratic Caucus entitled:

“Don’t be a Flake.”

The message said that Democrats would once again be “voting to table another Flake resolution” and the message threatened any Democrat who was thinking about defecting.

I have a message for Mr. Van Hollen, who represents my District. Your use of Rep. Flake’s family name in such a derogatory and disrespectful manner was an insult to his wife, his children, the rest of his family who bear his name, and to the entire institute of Congress. One would think that a senior Congressman would conduct himself as a leader and not as a adolescent bully on the playground. I still believe there is honor in having the privilege of representing others, but Mr. Van Hollen does not. His office seems to be a joke to him. Shame on you Congressman Van Hollen.

I believe that any member of Congress, Speakers of the House, Democrats, Republicans, or otherwise, who lie, cheat, or steal, or violate ethical rules as set forth in the House Ethics Guidelines should be investigated and disposed of accordingly.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Jeffrey Rosen has written a few times about Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and her “compelling” life story. Compelling? Whatever….so is Justice Thomas’ story. That didn’t help him a whole lot during confirmation tho.

What’s even more interesting is the view of her from those who have worked with her:

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

~~~

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details.

The ones he did find who had a favorable opinion of her almost all brought up the fact that she doesn’t wilt like a flower under heavy pressure.

Yeah….much better to have a Supreme Court justice who is domineering rather than intelligent.

As you can imagine the lefties went a little nuts over his article and demanded to know who these sources were so a few days later he put out another post:

Readers have asked for more information about my sources. A few weeks ago, I received phone calls from eminent liberal scholars I know and trust. These scholars closely follow Sotomayor’s work and expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grind or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation–mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her–and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece.

~~~

I was satisfied that my sources’s concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That’s what makes the discussion of Sotomayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is:

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”

Another quote from that almanac is telling:

Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. “Her opinions are O.K, by and large.” “She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions.” “Her writing is good.” “Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued.” “She writes well.” “She is a very good writer.” “Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent.”

“Competent”. Not steller, but just ok.

Awesome

Also:

No Media Bias? Compare Editorial Treatment of Sotomayor to that of Clarence Thomas

Apparently being dirt poor is only a virtue if you are a Democrat!

Shortly after President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayer to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice Souter the “news” media chirped in cheerful chorus the line about Sotomayor’s “compelling life story.” With all the gushing going on in the liberal media over Sotomayor’s modest upbringing it’s no wonder they didn’t find the time to explore her background and inform readers and viewers about Sotomayor’s controversial views and decisions.

Conservatives may recall how the “news” media ignored the dirt poor story of Clarence Thomas or the immigrant to greatness rise of Miguel Estrada, whom President Bush nominated to the Federal Bench and Democrats filibustered.

Slublog writing at Hot Air contrasts the treatment Sotomayor received from the NY Times editorial board to that given Clarence Thomas:

NYT: Political considerations, life experience only good if we like the results
by Slublog
Hot Air
May 27, 2009

The New York Times editorial board has nothing but praise for Judge Sonia Sotomayor today, plus a frank acknowledgment of the politics at play:

If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land. It will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two. And as Democratic Party strategists have no doubt calculated, the selection could give Mr. Obama and his party a boost with a key voting group.

In October of 1991, the editorial board had a much different opinion of such political considerations:
(more…)

From Red Maryland

Note: Almost all Maryland Republicans joined Prince George’s County Democrats in the action mentioned below–there were only two Republican nays. I can’t help wondering why our Republicans joined the Democrats to micro-manage a Prince George’s County school decision, but did not interfere with a similar decision made in Frederick.

Boondoggle in Prince George’s; The cost of abandoning a school offices plan.
Post, 25 May 2009 (Editorial).

COMING UP WITH enough money to properly fund education has long been a struggle in Prince George’s County, where a tax cap limits revenue. So it’s all the more maddening that $11 million was frittered away on a planned school headquarters. This colossal waste of public money should cause school officials and state lawmakers — all of whom are to blame — to undertake some serious soul searching.

The Board of Education voted last week to back out of a $36 million lease-purchase agreement for the Washington Plaza office complex in Upper Marlboro. Reneging on the deal will incur a penalty of $4.8 million, bringing the system’s total cost in rent and other expenses to $11 million with, as one board member observed, “nothing to show” for it.

The board had no choice: The Maryland General Assembly, prodded by local senators and delegates, passed legislation that would have withheld millions of dollars in state education aid if the board proceeded with the project. Lawmakers argued that the money couldn’t be justified because of the hard economic times that were causing layoffs of county workers and other cutbacks.

Perhaps they have a point about the wisdom of undertaking the project at this time, but it’s hard to see what they accomplished by their second-guessing. Considering that $11 million is a little less than one-third of the estimated total cost, wouldn’t it have been smarter to proceed with the project? No one disputes that the current administrative offices are in poor condition or that there are merit and cost savings in consolidating facilities spread across the county. Will officials look back in 10 years and wish they had acted differently? It’s interesting to note that plans by Frederick school officials for a similar project to house administrative offices did not cause the legislature to intervene. (more…)

By Dick Morris

From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.

More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”

She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.” She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel’s doing, not Iran’s.

In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.

Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.

All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone. (more…)

By Barry Rubin

April, wrote T.S. Elliott, is the cruelest month of all. But for hopes of peace, freedom, and moderation in the Middle East, June will play that role this year.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad backed by the spiritual guide is about to be reelected. In Lebanon, a regime backed by Iran and Syria is about to be installed.

It shouldn’t be that way. Remember the famous sign in the Clinton for President Headquarters back in 1992, which said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” as the main issue? Well, in the Middle East the equivalent sign would say, “It’s the Islamist revolutions, stupid.”

And yet instead we see strategies based on a desire to believe or do anything to avoid confronting this great challenge, this uninvited battle that is sure to take up the rest of our lifetimes and very possibly much of this century’s first half.
The head are very deep in the sand. For to fit into the mainstream of Western analysis and strategy about the Middle East, you must:

Pretend that a two-state solution is possible with a mostly radical Palestinian Authority and a far more extreme Hamas running Gaza, neither having done any preparation for real compromise and a lasting peace.

Pretend that this solution-which isn’t going to happen–will solve all other problems, as if personal and state ambition, ethnic conflict, ideological battles, and all sorts of disputes didn’t exist in the region which have nothing to do with this. Not to mention that fact that any compromise peace would actually enrage large elements of opinion and galvanize the Islamists into even more violence.

Pretend that Iran’s regime will be talked out of having nuclear weapons by either the charm of Western leaders or relatively limited sanctions when Tehran already knows everything is a big bluff.

Pretend that Islamists can be moderated when they think they’re winning, believe themselves to be following the will of the deity, and see daily proof that their rivals are eager to make concessions.

Pretend that Syria can be wooed into changing course when it is so dependent on its alliance with the Iranian regime, thinks that it’s on the winning side, and tightening its control over Lebanon. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

And a lesson to other GOP leaders to not be so easily cowed by Obama and the Dems!

Well worth two minutes and thirty two seconds of your time:

Also:

North Korea Threatening to Attack US Ships

‘Don’t Tread on Me’ puts driver in ‘watch’ category in DHS report

By Bob Unruh: WorldNetDaily

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the “subversive” message it sent, according to the driver’s relative.

The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the “suspect” was investigated for “extremist” activities, the relative said.

A man identifying himself as a police officer from Ball called WND later to report that the town’s records of traffic stops did not include this situation. He suggested it might have involved one of several other agencies that work in the area.

It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The report, which cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.

WND is withholding the driver’s name and the relative’s name at their request.

However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town, which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him “he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car.”

“They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes,” she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

The company that sells the bumper sticker is The Patriot Depot, where Chief Operating Officer Jay Taylor told WND the woman had told his staff about the situation while ordering more bumper stickers.

“It’s rather shocking,” he said. “We supposedly have freedom of speech in our country. (more…)

By Dick Morris

President Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.

Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.

But when it comes to federal judges, we can’t be so sure.

The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto US soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.

That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.

Some detainees will be tried in US courts on US soil. The first will be tried in New York.

This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he’ll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?

Trying a terrorist in the Big Apple serves to paint a bull’s-eye on the courthouse. The recently foiled plan to attack New York City synagogues demonstrates that terrorists have the city in their sights, as they have since the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Could Obama find a worse place to conduct a trial? (more…)

By Barry Rubin

In his letter to Congress announcing the renewal of US sanctions on Syria, President Barack Obama was specific regarding the reasons for his decision.
Syria, the President said, was “supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining US and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.”

These three accusations are related to verifiable activity currently being undertaken by the Damascus regime. Syria’s activity in turn reflects the firmness of the regime’s strategic choice to align itself with the regional alliance led by Iran.

Syria’s actions should be observed well by all those currently promoting the feasibility of a “grand bargain” between Israel and the Arab world. They are evidence of the reality of a Middle East Cold War, in which the fault lines are growing ever clearer.

First, let’s recall the details. With regard to supporting terrorism, it is well known that the leaderships of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are domiciled in Damascus. Syria has over the last decade built a close, mutually beneficial strategic relationship with Hizbullah. Damascus also serves as a large care home for various superannuated leftist Palestinian groups.

On weapons of mass destruction, reports have surfaced in recent days suggesting that the Syrians have constructed a biological weapons facility, on the site of the al-Kibar plutonium reactor destroyed by Israel in 2007. Certainly, Damascus’s interest in both biological and chemical weapons is long-standing.

Syria possesses one of the largest and most advanced chemical warfare programs in the Arab world – including chemical warheads for all its major missile systems. It is known to possess a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, and is in the process of attempting to develop the more powerful VX nerve agent, according to the CIA’s bi-annual report on WMD proliferation. Damascus is also thought by western governments to possess a biological warfare development program.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Will Republicans be able to oppose the first Hispanic woman for the court?

Obama played the race card, followed by the sex card and the liberal card today when he picked federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday.

Was his choice a person to serve ALL Americans on the court or one specifically selected to advance the rights and agenda of specific groups and ideology? You decided:

• Curt posted the video of Judge Sotomayer declaring that courts are where “policy is made.” That will be news to the Senators who review her qualifications.
• Sotomayer believes women are better judges. She said that women, particularly Hispanic women “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
• Carrying that theme further she insisted that “gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” She went on to add that “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” So much for equality before the law!

This is only the start of what we know about her and there will certainly be more to come, both good and bad, in the days to come. For Republicans in the Senate the question will be: does she have the judicial temperament and qualifications to serve on the court? If so, most will likely vote for her. If not, they must oppose her vigorously.

Also:

While Obama Foreign Policies Fail, Major Wars Creeping Closer

President Obama’s foreign policy is a complete failure. There’s no white-washing it, and his administration would do better to admit it than to spin the reality. That reality is:

• Iran is still closing in on starting its nuclear bomb factories (if it hasn’t already).
• Pakistan is still on verge of collapse, and
• North Korea is 100% unstoppable

(more…)

From Red Maryland

Adam Pagnucco has spent this week trying to bury the State Republican Party due to changes in the voter registration numbers. The basic premise is that because the total number of registered Democrats in Maryland is increasing at a faster rate than the number of registered Republicans that the Republican Party is doomed.

However, the total number of registered party members in the state or in any particularly jurisdiction is relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Take a look, for example, at my home district of District 31. In that district, there are 1.6 Democratic registrants for every Republican registrant. Election results speak to any an entirely different set of circumstances. Last year, John McCain and Andy Harris both carried 58% of the vote in this district during the Presidential Election. And in 2006:

* Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele both won about 60% of the vote in the District.
* AG Candidate Scott Rolle and Comptroller Candidate Anne McCarthy both carried 31.
* Bryan Simonaire became the first Republican State Senator in the District;
* Don Dwyer, Nic Kipke, and Steve Schuh were elected as Delegates; the first GOP sweep of Distirct 31
* County Councilman Ron Dillon was re-elected without Democratic Opposition.

The point of this exercise is to prove that while voter registration numbers are a cute way to try and say a party is or is not dying, they are in no way the be all and end all of the situation. Maryland has had an overwhelming majority of voters registered as Democrats for a long time in a number of districts. But that has not stopped a lot of those districts from elecitng Republicans to serve in the General Assembly, and it hasn’t stopped these voters from supporting Republican candidates over Democrats at the statewide level. You talk to a lot of these voters in districts like the 31st, and you find out that these voters are always voting Republican, they just choose not to change their registration for whatever reason.

Bottom line: a lot of these Democrats that Pagnucco likes to use to prove that the Republican Party is dead are actually supporting Republican candidates. With the continued incompetence of Governor O’Malley and Democratic Leadership, I have a feeling that the number of D’s voting R is going to increase substantially in 2010….

by Frederick Meekins

One might say the future is here — and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely’s fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one’s navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today’s philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system’s most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, “For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not ‘post’ anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174).” In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook’s Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data. (more…)

By Dick Morris

The widely heralded credit card reform legislation making its way through Congress is a sellout to the credit card companies. Obama has proposed and Congress has passed a series of minor reforms that deal with the fringes of the problem – late billings, retroactive interest rate hikes, misapplication of payments and such – but fail to reform the most basic offense of the companies: their usury.

Congress explicitly rejected any limitation on the interest rate credit card companies can charge. It remains perfectly legal for them to charge rates that would make a loan shark blush.

In our book Fleeced, we explain how, until 1979, credit card interest was subject to usury limits of the various states. But the Supreme Court emasculated these limits by ruling that the state of the lender, not of the borrower, had the sole power to legislate interest rate limits. South Dakota swiftly jumped into the void the Court created, eliminating any usury limits. All the credit card companies moved there and took advantage of the regulatory vacuum to hike up their rates to unconscionable levels.

Competition can do nothing to force down rates since 90% of the credit cards are issued by a handful of companies. And states are paralyzed when it comes to regulating rates.

It is up to Congress to act. Yet the credit card companies’ massive campaign donations succeeded in buying off enough Democrats and virtually all the Republicans to kill any limits on interest rates. So companies can continue to charge basic rates of 18 percent and then up to 30 percent as punishment for minor offenses like being a few days late in making payments.

But Obama and his Democratic allies are loudly proclaiming their success in fighting for the consumer despite their failure to use their majorities to afford any real protection form usurious interest rates.

Congress should have legislated a ceiling on regular interest rates limiting them to five points above prime and on punitive rates requiring them to be no more than ten points above prime. But Obama and the Democrats (and, of course, the Republicans) caved into the special interests and left out any interest rate controls.

The high rates charged by credit card companies obviously do a great deal to impede consumer spending and drive families into bankruptcy. The average credit card balance for those who have such debt is over $13,000. A 30 percent interest rate means more than $300 per month in interest payments alone!

It is cruel to see Obama offering the illusion of hope for credit card victims while denying them real relief.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

The Daniel Chester French Victory atop the Memorial to the First Division of the Army, the Big Red One, outside the White House (monument details here). Photo by Mike’s America

Memorial Day first started as Decoration Day when citizens of the reunited Northern and Southern states began an annual observance of the 600,000 lives lost during the American Civil War. (history of the holiday here)

So it is perhaps fitting that we take Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863 as the text for today. The battle at Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War and 7,500 lives were lost.

The invitation for Lincoln to speak was an afterthought to the organizers. They had already invited the famed orator Edward Everett to speak. Lincoln was invited to give just a few words after Everett spoke.

Everett’s speech went on for two hours. (Remind you of anyone?) Afterwards Lincoln delivered these 272 words which history has remembered while Everett’s speech is forgotten:

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate… we can not consecrate… we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

–Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

A few days later, Lincoln received a letter from Everett (original) which said:

“I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.”

Gettysburg Address read by Actor Sam Waterston:

Help Bugles Across America Honor Veterans

While you are enjoying the holiday, why not take a moment to honor veterans this Memorial Day with a contribution to Bugles Across America.

It’s a group dedicated to making sure that veterans have an actual bugler at their funeral, and not a recording. They have volunteers in all 50 states ready to provide this service but they need help. Many of the expenses have been covered out of the bugler’s own pockets. A donation will make it easier for them to continue providing this service now and in the future. (CNN interview here).

Also:

Obama “Concerned” Over N.Korea Nuke Test…..Will Send A Stern Letter Soon

I’m sure many of you remember this ad Obama put out in response to the 3am Clinton ad:

Well, as Mike wrote about earlier we can see how well that “good” judgment has worked out so far:

North Korea announced Monday that it successfully carried out a second underground nuclear test, less than two months after launching a rocket widely believed to be a test of its long-range missile technology.

John Bolton predicted this a few days ago:

The curtain is about to rise again on the long-running nuclear tragicomedy, “North Korea Outwits the United States.” Despite Kim Jong Il’s explicit threats of another nuclear test, U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth said last week that the Obama administration is “relatively relaxed” and that “there is not a sense of crisis.” They’re certainly smiling in Pyongyang.

And what does Obama do? (more…)

From Red Maryland

–Richard E. Vatz

I continue to be fascinated by WASHINGTON POST scribe Howard Kurtz and his CNN show, “Reliable Sources” (RS).

The show is about media criticism, and I have taught a course entitled “Media Criticism” for over 15 years at Towson University.

The show deals with ideological bias and evaluation of print and electronic media excellence, including blogs as a prominent medium as well, but other media are not emphasized nearly as much, including books, films and podcasts. I gave Kurtz a “Vatzian Media Excellence Award” a couple of years ago on WBAL Radio.

I like the show so much that it is a frequent object of analysis in my course. The show is an hour long and includes 6-8 segments, more or less. Much of RS shows deals with ideological bias.

As one might imagine, the segment have a range of value, but when there are strong liberal and conservative points of view well-represented, the show crackles. Some excellent conservative media spokespeople on RS have included Amy Holmes, Amanda Carpenter, Michael Medved, Tucker Carlson and Bill Bennett.

Now, in regard to bi-partisan representation, as I have indicated in this blog previously, RS and Kurtz often have both liberal and conservative points of view well-represented, but not always. In addition when there are 3 guests, as there are often, the divide is usually 2-1 liberal, and I simply do not recall seeing a 3-0 conservative advantage.

As just one example of imbalance, I have written about an RS show on media coverage of Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, whose nomination, parenthetically, I vigorously opposed on these pages and on electronic media from the start. RS sported the predictably liberal Anne Kornblut (THE WASHINGTON POST), Julie Mason (THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE) and Frank Sesno (CNN). None of them had the professional discipline to seriously consider conservative complaints concerning her (Palin’s) coverage by the mainstream media.

Ironically, today’s RS (May 24, 2009) had a segment on “Prime Time Partisans,” starting with the eminently debatable premise that CNN is balanced, whereas other networks are openly partisan. Let me say that a case could be made for the relative even-handedness of CNN, but on an absolute scale, CNN trends and has always trended liberal. When in news analysis segments they have a preponderance of liberal commentators and one or two conservatives, they flatter themselves that they are, again, “balanced.”

Also on the show today, historically liberal David Zurawik of his BALTIMORE SUN’s “Z on TV” blog was right down the middle but strong, clear, interesting and provocative on the danger of MSNBC and others’ empty, partisan, and overwrought political diatribes. His captivating contribution was, however, diluted by mostly bland and unfocused inanities of Lauren Ashburn, managing editor of “USA Today Live” and Matt Frie, anchor of BBC World News, especially the latter, who included a dose of psychobabble to support his muddled arguments. (more…)

by Regina Sztajer

What is a gang? Named for gangsters it is as group of people who band together to fight others for power and glory. Gangs have a bad reputation for being people who at times are criminals with an evil intent. There are gangs in politics who are in it for power and ego. It is sort of like the old saying “the gang’s all here.”

Washington is chummy with each other when they cross party lines to solve issues. But that is rare!! A good example of a gang in politics was when George W. Bush’s judicial nominees brought together a “gang of 14″ who threatened a filibuster and were considered heroes. Was Arlen Spector who crossed the line to become a Democrat a ” gang of one? ” Gangs in Washington are not a mere factions but rather in it for power and glory. While just a handful they control our destiny in history away from public eyes secretly and the media loves it.

We should call the Congress of the United States a gang because they can manipulate the news media in their favor while seeming to be prim and proper. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the perfect example of the prim, proper and power hungry ego chaser who appears may be a liar at that. If you let power get to your head in Washington it can become a dangerous game that can damage your ego. Last week Pelosi was embarrassed by Dana Bash of CNN, taken to task by Gerald Serb of the Wall Street Journal and took a teasing from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Finally after her disastrous press conference called a liar by CIA director Leon Panetta (D Cal.)

Dick Cheney started it off when he said he thought America was less safe under Obama that it was when George W. Bush was in power. President Barack Obama, who does have a rather childish temper rebelled, by releasing memos concerning the interrogation methods of the Bush administration which doubted the legal authority of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Suddenly Pelosi and other Democrats began to lick their chops demanding a truth commission hoping those arrested would be indicted, tried and thrown in Jail. This nonsense fell under the law of unintended consequences. Pelosi was caught up in a backlash because she was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee during the Bush Administration. She claimed she knew nothing about enhanced interrogation but in fact the CIA briefed the committee members in September of 2002 and she was there. (more…)

By Dick Morris

When will the economy stop dropping because of the recession and start dropping because of the harm Obama’s cure to the recession is inflicting? There will likely be a seam that will run through the polling and recession statistics in the next few months when the symptoms of the disease abate and those triggered by Obama’s program begin to kick in. In short, when will the Bush recession become the Obama recession? In fact, it may already have happened.

Obama’s popularity and the economic statistics fell, pretty much in tandem from his inauguration until early April. During this period, unemployment rose by two points, consumer confidence fell, and over 2 million jobs were destroyed. Over the same term, the president’s approval ratings (as measured daily by Scott Rasmussen – www.rasmussenreports.com) fell from a post-inaugural level of 65% to 55%.

Then both the economy and the president’s approval ratings started to climb. The former was fueled by pre-mature claims that consumer spending was rising (it turned out to be only a January post-Christmas blip) and that jobless claims were falling (they resumed their upward march in May). The stock market, impelled more by wishful thinking than by mature analysis, had its first positive month in April and optimism spread.

This good economic news combined with media hype about Obama’s first hundred days and helped push his ratings back up over 60%.

But now both the economy and Obama are back on a downward trend. Could it be that the false dawn of late April was the seam we are awaiting? Could it have been the moment when the economy did what it would always naturally do and begin its recovery only to have the momentum squashed by Obama’s policies?

Perhaps it was. But whether it was or not, the moment is likely to come when the after-effects of the cure overcome the recovery from the economic disease.

The signs of a negative economic reaction to Obama’s program are already quite visible. Interest rates on ten year Treasury bills have risen by 50% since January in anticipation of the coming bout with inflation. Capital has been diverted wholesale from new businesses into channels that do the economy no good. The treasury’s debt is soaking up funds. So is the sale of toxic assets from banks. The demands for capital set in motion by Obama’s spending spree and his bank bailout plans are already blocking investment in economic growth.

Then, last week, in a breath-taking demonstration of presidential chutzpah, the president warned that the deficit (which he caused) is growing too large and that inflation (as a result of his policies) might be looming ahead. His peroration was likely to prepare the way for tax increases. Just as Reagan drove down taxes while increasing military spending and then used the resulting deficit to stymie liberal spending plans, Obama is increasing spending and the deficit to force tax increases.

But the president’s belated recognition of the damage of his policies is scant compensation for the havoc they will increasingly cause. (more…)