POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

29Dec/112

Of Owls and Black Babies

I keep threatening to write a book about what I have referred to as "Luxury Politics". These would be the politics of a leisurely society whose comfort and lack of immediacy enable it to call "Sacred" things that are profane.

Perhaps no situation causes me so much frustration as the treatment of animals as if they were akin to children. Often times better. Each of us has a friend or relation who claims without reservation that their dog or cat is no different in import to them as a child is to a parent. Each of us can probably point to pet owners who shower their possessions with better medical care - including prescriptions and operations, pathology and preventative care - than is defensible for a lower creature whose value is arguably more than a snail, but less than a goat.

It is common for me to come across stories wherein we are reminded of how morally bankrupt we have become. Few instances demonstrate this better than a couple which come immediately to mind.

A more helpful post here.

Let us mention here a situation near to me involving a wonderful friend, James Shore, whose life was cut short by a certain James Arthur Ray. Ray, convicted of 3 counts of negligent homicide, received 3 concurrent 2 year sentences in Arizona for his crimes.

In contrast,

"On December 10, Vick appeared in U.S. District Court in Richmond for sentencing. Judge Hudson said he was "convinced that it was not a momentary lack of judgment" on Vick's part, and that Vick was a "full partner" in the dog fighting ring, and he was sentenced to serve 23 months in federal prison."

For...

"being involved in the destruction of 6–8 dogs, by hanging or drowning. The "victimization and killing of pit bulls" was considered as aggravating circumstances that led prosecutors to exceed the federal sentencing guidelines for the charge."

But a far more disturbing pattern has emerged over the past couple decades in respect to Human Life and Society's valuation thereof.

I could cite a newborn human baby being drown at a high school dance.
I could cite a certain mother driving her car into the drink, getting out, and watching her 3 children drown.
I could cite all of the "missing" toddlers and related cases.

But why cite National stories when I could cite the happenings in Milwaukee, Wisconsin?

Oddly, a new, heretofore, unknown cultural by-product has become a regional rage: namely, what has been euphemistically-coined "co-sleeping death". In a nutshell, it appears to be a sort of condition whereby inner-city Black Human Babies go to bed alive only to be smothered by the mother or aunt, father or sibling.

There have been some 10 of these "accidents" in Milwaukee, WI, over the course of the 2011 calendar year. Oddly, no such occurrences were reported in 2011 for Madison, WI or Green Bay, WI. Or, for that matter, anywhere else in WI. My search was not exhaustive. But, at least anecdotal-ly speaking, this trend seems to be isolated to inner-city Black Milwaukeean Families.

So, what gives?

The death is at least the 10th this year of a baby who was either co-sleeping with someone or who was in an unsafe sleeping environment. The girl's mother, who is 22 and unemployed, has two other children who live with their father.

No worries... the City of Milwaukee is on it!

Let me take you to November the 9th of this year,

Minutes before city officials unveiled a new safe-sleep advertising campaign Wednesday, the medical examiner's office announced that a 7-week-old baby was found dead on Milwaukee's south side after co-sleeping with his or her mother.

The best part of this campaign is that it speaks directly to the highest risk families, doesn't kowtow to Political Correctness by say showing a White Baby in its ads, even though there is zero evidence this trend has been picked up by the milk toast denizens of this city everyone in Milwaukee feels much better now knowing that:

1) Milwaukee is all over this!
2) Some Ad Agency is employing a couple more White Agency Rookies to get the message out!

Granted, babies are kind of boring. Especially expendable are Black inner-city babies. An Owl stolen from its cage and let loose to fend for itself? Now that's newsworthy shit. Something any compassionate Homosapien can sink his energy and emotion into. Thankfully he (Dakota the Owl) took a crap today and is now eating solid foods.

Let's put this spike in co-sleeping deaths in Milwaukee in a statistical perspective:

According to the CPSC, at least 515 deaths were linked to infants and toddlers under 2 years of age sleeping in adult beds from January 1990 to December 1997:

121 of the deaths were attributed to a parent, caregiver, or sibling rolling on top of or against a baby while sleeping

WTF is happening in Milwaukee?

Really, really sick and twisted priorities. And what's worse? I am not sure there isn't a much more nefarious motive behind these snuffications. Head. Sand. Nothing to see here.

Manimals: I am talking to you. Viva Dakota! Olvide Los Sin Nombres!

DOUBLE-EFFECT WARNING: Enoch_Root (a White guy) is drawing attention to deaths of Black Babies in Milwaukee. And further, he is suggesting that statistically-speaking, all of these cannot be "accidents". Further, Enoch_Root is accused of butting in to the affairs of a certain minority community. Clearly, his not-so-subtle conjecture is that this is some sort of cultural phenomenon occurring in said minority community. This is clearly a racist piece. He has been denounced in advance.

a more helpful post, here

UPDATE: 1/3/2012 - Another Dead Black Baby.Where's the outrage?

"At approximately 9:47 a.m...the 22-year-old aunt came out to the living room to check on the children and noticed that [Gilmore] was lying supine next to the 10-year-old aunt and was unresponsive."

Enoch_Root

AKA. Bobby Donn Brubaker (the most popular man in Mesa, AZ), the Umbrella of Terror, Jack Ketch.

Website - More Posts

Share
26Jul/112

Spokestool Jay Carney: Asking To See Obama’s Plan is a GOP Talking Point

Or alternatively, he doesn't want to put it out there because it will become "politically charged"; so says the man who's boss has threatened to veto the Boehner plan, draped himself in the mantle of Reagan by misappropriating one of the Gipper's quotes out of context, and demanded that Congressional leaders "compromise"-by accepting the Democrats debt ceiling increase plan-all within the last 24 hours.

From Greg Hengler at Townhall:

Chip Reid is the first to ask Carney about Obama's plan: "Why not put it out there?" Reid also asks: "What was the point of giving a prime time address to the nation without an Obama plan?"

Next, Chuck Todd doubles down on Reid's challenge and causes Carney to stutter a bit. After Todd's feisty challenges, a reporter named Carol triples down on the press's "show us the plan" challenge to Carney and Obama. The scene is ugly and unpleasant--if you're on Team Obama.

After all the hemming and hawing from Carney over Obama's so-called plan, we learn that he really doesn't have one "because we want a result." Go figure.

He has a plan but not really. Truly Orwellian...

And ACE calls a spade, a spade :

It's pretty interesting-- the press room jeers in protest when Carney suggests they skipped out of town early on Friday, when he claims the President clearly outlined his "principles."

His "principles." Still not his "plan."

As the CBO said, "We can't score speeches."

Really worth viewing. It's interesting that media is finally starting to chafe under Obama's arrogant reign. Really, really worth watching. The press (particularly Todd and Jake Tapper) will not ease up on Carney over the administration's utter failure to produce a plan.

Hmmm... Obama insists that the debt deal must carry him to January 2013, and here Carney repeats that the President also insists that no tax hikes will go into effect before January 2013.

Is there some economic importance of this January 2013 date?

And AllahP recounts the musing of Steve Hayes:

Steve Hayes notes that it wasn’t so long ago that Obama’s press secretary was mocking the GOP at the podium as “the party of no ideas” for producing a brief budget framework instead of a detailed plan. Fast forward two years and, with the alleged economic apocalypse nearly upon us, we’ve got a different press secretary insisting that O doesn’t need to float a plan because he once gave a speech or something. Good times, good times.

What's black, is white; Up is down; etc.  Check out video at any of the links, at savor the squirming of O!'s minion in service to The Won.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
26Jul/110

Senior Banking Officials Confirm That O!ministration’s Talk of Default is Blatant Fearmongering

Because through back channels the administration is going out of their way to assure banks that a default just isn't happening. From Charles Gasparino at Fox Business:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."

This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven't imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.

The banking official said the administration understands that if there were to be a default, it would likely spark another financial crisis.

"They also know they can pay the debt with cash on hand," this official told FOX Business. The Treasury collects around $2 trillion in tax revenues, and is scheduled to pay out $200 billion in interest to bond holders. In order to meet its obligations to contractors, social security recipients and others, the administration would have to raise another $1 trillion either through cuts, higher tax revenues, the issuance of debt or a combination of all three.

So if this is the case, how much credibility can be put into the Treasury Secretary's words?  And what of the President himself?  Are we to assume it's merely a white lie, to help move the debt ceiling negotiations along at the pace he prefers? Or as some have suggested it is part of a much larger, more cynical plan to pin the blame for the bad economy on the GOP; that next year he'll counter assertions that he has been a poor steward of the economy by counter-asserting that everything was fine until the Wingnut Tea-Baggerz wrecked it with their irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling increase debate.

What this does seem to indicate is that there is more breathing room for negotiations that Mr. Obama or the Democrats want to admit, and that they're more than willing to frighten the public in order to advance their political agenda.  Which, if you recall, was one of Obama's major, damning, criticisms of the GOP during the campaign of 2008; their willingness to engage in fear-mongering to divide the American people.   Not to mention their most recent mediscare demagoguery...

But is any of this really shocking, coming from the crew that subscribes to the maxim, "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!"

What do you think, kind reader?

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
25Jul/110

Is The President a Pathalogical Liar?

Uncle O! wants YOU! to believe whatever he says

To which I respond all of the usual and customary replies to any uber obvious question; is the Pope Catholic?  Does a bear, well, you know...

The Washington Times' James Curl:

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.

Curl goes on to provide a first-class "fisking" of Mr. Obama's Friday afternoon press conference foot-stamping temper tantrum. As we often say, read the whole thing...

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
25Jul/110

Did Obama Just Take Ownership of the Debt Ceiling Debacle?

If WaPo's ersatz "conservative" Jen Rubin's reportage is correct then it would appear he indeed has:

A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
[emphasis-ed]

I personally am not as surprised as Ms. Rubin by the President's behavior, because for all his palavering on about a willingness to be satisfied with being a good one-termer who accomplished some of what he wanted than with playing politics in the interest of being re-elected, in my humble opinion every act he's made, decision he's taken, and word he's spoken has always been about holding on to power as long as possible.

Now as this is the only place I've seen this so far, it's hard to tell if it has legs, will be buried by other developments later today, or will simply be embargoed by Obama's campaign arm in the fourth estate.  We'll have to see.

But if it does get more widespread circulation, then it will pose a serious problem, politically, for the self-professed MOST POST-PARTISAN PRESIDENT, EVAR!, since it will at once put the lie to that grand meme as well as some other longstanding facets of the narrative construct that is Barack Obama, such as his Brilliance!, Judgment, and Superior Temperament!

Additionally it may drive a wedge between Congressional Democrats and The Won on this particular issue.  Many of them have run for years on platforms promising fiscal responsibility and balancing our national budget, and they can read the polls showing that the American people prefer to do something about the budget at this juncture; and by "doing something" don't mean raise taxes.

Congressional Democrats have a decision to make.  Do they essentially tie their 2012 electoral fortunes to Mr. Obama by backing his play on this issue, and allow GOP challengers to continually point out their disingenuousness on this matter as being indicative of their candor as a whole and specifically seriousness to rein in DC spending, or do they live up to their promises, pass the bill, and send it to the President for signature or veto.  I say call his bluff, because he doesn't dare throw all of Congress under the bus on this, and overtly take ownership of the issue.

Of course, those of us who pay attention have been aware of his ownership of the debt for sometime; it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see the slope on this graph and understand who's exploded the US national debt faster that any other President in history.

What do you think, kind reader?

[UPDATE]: Byron York at The Washington Examiner corroborates Rubin's source's story.

And Juice-Box Mafiosi Ezra Klein laments that, "The Republicans have won!", and searches for a silver lining for the Democrats while presenting a time line that will convince the "Fightin' Nutroots" that their pols didn't go down without a fight.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
21Jul/114

Just a reminder: None of the Senate Democrats Voted to Raise the Debt Ceiling in 2006

Not a single one; many of whom are still in the Senate...  It was a strict party line vote...From the Senate's website:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —52
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Now I don't know about you, kind reader, but I don't recall any of the current hyperventilating that we're hearing these days, now that the shoe is on the other foot-so to speak.  Senate Democrats weren't being characterized as RAAAAACIST! h8terz; heartless politicians who wanted to see old people die-and be forced on to a cat food diet until that happened; who were abandoning our troops in the field without bullets or butter; who were denying our college kids the loans and grants they needed; who callously chose to deny poor children school means and the homeless a place to sleep; who were choosing Wall Street over Main Street-doing all these things to benefit "Big Oil" and corporate jet owners...

Help me out here if I'm wrong, but none of this comes to mind.  In fact, I remember a very passionate speech by a junior Senator at that time:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Who said those stirring words? Why, none other than then-Senator, now-President, Obama.  And he was right, we do deserve better...

So next time you hear about how all of this is UNPRECEDENTED!, HYPERPARTISAN! HOSTAGE TAKING! on the part of the TALIBAN RETHUGS!, feel free to remind the speaker of the events of 2006.

In fact, if you live in a deep blue state, it might be handy to have this information at hand when you contact your Senator and ask them to vote FOR cloture on Saturday when the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is brought up.  Because if nothing else, CC&B deserves a fair vote in the Senate.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
20Jul/110

Paul Ryan brings Obama’s spending history up to date

Alternate headlines: "Timelines of a spending spree", or, "$4 trillion later; how we got here from there".  But Paul Ryan calls it what it is, "A Brief History of President Obama's Fiscal Record"; though in my opinion he left out the word "dismal" between "Fiscal" and "Record", most likely in the name of politeness. It can be found at this page on the House Budget Committee's website.

It really is a definitive timeline of not only each major spending bill signed by the O!ministration, but also of each major pronouncement made by the President that was related to, or was meant to influence, fiscal issues; complete through his latest attempts to duck his responsibility to lead the debt ceiling increase debate.  Each entry is has links that pertain to that episode, as well as a running tally on the amount of debt held by the American public listed as a sort-of footnote (the amount of debt held by the public is the portion of the total national debt the public owns in the form of securities and bonds, and does not include foreign holdings, individual or sovereign, or Federal Reserve bank holdings-so don't be confused because it is less than the $14+ trillion cited in the press).

With the debt ceiling negotiations reaching a critical phase, and ramping up to a frantic pace, their will be mud slinging and finger pointing a plenty; indeed, I've already had my fill of hearing how all our problems are due to the "Bush tax cuts", medicare part D, and two "unfunded wars of conquest" (the characterization of the war on terror most popular among the far-left)-when the most these things could have added over the last 10 years is on the order of 2.5 trillion on the outside.  But I've expected the "I blame BOOOOSH!" brigade to go into action for a while now.

So do what I do; arm yourself with stubborn facts and inconvenient truths, so you can refute this hyperbole with the sober fact that Mr. Obama has increased the national debt by nearly the same amount as Mr. Bush, but sadly has done so in 1/4 of the time.  As we often say, read the whole thing. And in this case, bookmark it for future use.

What are your impressions of this recounting?  Do you think it a helpful debating tool?

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
15Jul/116

Congress is making it difficult to raise debt limit because they’re racists

Oh no, she di'int...Oh yes, she did; she's playing the Race Card™ :

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

Really Ms. Jackson-Lee?  What planet were you living on between 2001 and 2008?

Why is Obama different? Let me try to answer in terms a progressive would understand. To begin I'd ask her to recall the heady days following the 2008 election, when President-elect Obama promised the American people he'd enact real entitlement reform.  In fact, as our old pal Karl reminds us, at the 2009 "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" Obama  said:

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.

We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt: One in every 10 taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spend on education that year; more than seven times what we spent on V.A. health care.

So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road. As our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because their saddled with our debts.

That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taken responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.

So get that?  Obama promised to be a red-ink-eradicating, Deficit Hawk!; It was just one of the many hats our BRILLIANT!, POLYMATH! PRESIDENT with SUPERIOR TEMPERMENT! pledged to wear so that we could all be the ones we were waiting for.  I mean, really, that wasn't the only time he was morally offended by the notion of raising the debt ceiling.  So you see Ms. Jackson-Lee, it's fundamentally because of the HYPOCRISY !

But no, the Congresswoman would have us believe that there has never been seditious speech in the manner of McConnell's comment about his job being to make sure Mr. Obama was not re-elected; NEVER! Because truthful, open, talk about political intent is much, much worse than the Democrat's, and Obama himself as he postured for his upcoming Presidential run, attempts to undermine our troops in the field during the surge in Iraq by continually proclaiming before any MBM outlet that had a camera running that "THE WAR IS LOST!" and "THE SURGE HAS FAILED!"; even though, in reality, "The Surge" had barely gotten underway.  Sure Sheila, it's far worse to hope your political opponent, and his agenda, is defeated than for national level politicians to make reckless assertions that bolster the very enemies our warriors were engaging in the field by signaling that one US political party was willing to engineer losing a war in order to win an election.

Sure, they're only doing it because Obama's a black man...In fact they made the decision to do so, and hatched their eeeeeevolllll plan at a KKK meeting 2 weeks ago...Including the black Republicans...At that same Klan meeting...

It doesn't have a thing to do with our national debt within 10 points of current GDP? Or the voters overwhelmingly desiring a significant reduction of spending, as reflected in both polls and last November's elections. Nope, nothing to do with reality, Ms. Lee, but everything to do with the "reality based" narrative folks like you choose to read into any political opposition you face...

Krauthammer was right when he said that the Race Card™ is the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel...

[Cross posted at The Conservative Commune]

Share
24Jun/113

Hillary Clinton questions the patriotism of Libya war critics

Respect mah authoritye!

No really, she goes there ;

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.

She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"

Which prompts AllahP to ask, "What’s next, MoveOn.org running ads needling Boehner for being a hippie?".

Now I'm sure the MBM will just be all over this, since, as they so often declare, they are driven by a quest to expose "Hypocrisy".  But I wouldn't hold my breath...

If you're wondering how Secretary Clinton is being hypocritical in her remarks, well, let's all just take a trip down memory lane, back to 2006 to revisit some of her past pronouncements on similar matters:

"Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?" - Hillary Clinton 2006

"Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism" - Hillary Clinton 2006

And one of my all time faves:

"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" - Hillary Clinton 2006

So just as I often call on the President to revisit his professed criticisms of "The Imperial Presidency" from the 2008 campaign, so too would I remind Mrs. Clinton to heed some of her own advice from the recent past.  Or, you know, read the myriad bumper stickers affixed to the back of countless Volvos and Subarus in the DC area or the tony NY suburbs where she lives.

But I'll give Hillz her props; at least she didn't call the Congressional critics a bunch of RAAAAAAAACISTS!

[Cross Posted at The Conservative Commune]

Share
3Jun/111

How Not To Shore Up A Budget

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that NYC schools are suffering from budget issues.  If not, they might find themselves doing so soon. 

I have to admit, I'm generally inclined to think they should be able to make their own decisions as a school board regarding who gets to rent their facilities.  But the reasoning given for this decision is just idiotic.

My favorite bit of idiocy (but only a portion):

“Jews and Muslims generally cannot use school facilities for their services because the facilities are often unavailable on the days that their religions principally prescribe for services,” Judge Pierre Leval declared. “At least one request(ed) to hold Jewish services (in a school building used for Christian services on Sundays) was denied because the building was unavailable on Saturdays. This contributes to a perception of public schools as Christian churches, but not synagogues or mosques.” 

Uhm, Pierre, I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but the only reason schools are free on Sundays is because of Christian tradition in this country.  An even easier solution would be to start scheduling school events on Sundays, thus tying up the school.

Now, back to the point of my headline: 

Thomas said churches are not given any favors. They pay thousands of dollars in rent – and must abide by the same rules as any other organization. 

In other words, the schools are going to be losing out on thousands of dollars in revenue.  Gotta love school boards....

Alt headline:  When Morons Get Robes

Adam Wells

Living life at 84 mph and 7000 feet. All I ask is that you don't block traffic, act like a professional, and don't act all surprised when your actions have consequences. Oh, and don't complain about the refs; trust me, they don't care if your team wins or not.

Share

Switch to our mobile site