The National Education Association's Top Priority Is Not Education

Michelle Malkin brings news from the education front:

Last week, I showed you how the SEIU and other union thugs have routinely engaged in brass-knuckle tactics to intimidate volunteers who threaten their power.

Here’s another example to add to the Big Labor Bully file — straight outta Chicago:

We watched an interesting YouTube video the other day. It was brought to our attention by state Sen. James Meeks, the Chicago Democrat who is also pastor of Salem Baptist Church on the South Side. We think our readers should check out the video. It’ll open your eyes.

Meeks, who chairs the Illinois Senate Education Committee, has been in a war with the Chicago Teachers Union since he had some tough things to say about public education in a Tribune essay and in a speech at Rainbow Push.

The CTU responded with a vow not to give him another dime in campaign money until he apologized. Meeks promptly wrote a check for $4,000, giving back every dime the union had already given him.

No apology.

Good for him. Meeks, who has engaged in some rather unsavory racial demagoguery in the past, made headlines recently by likening the Chicago teachers’ union to a street gang and openly embracing private vouchers to help poor minority students escape from the city’s violence-plagued government school system. I hope it’s a sincere change of heart and that he is re-thinking the entire Democrat culture of dependency on government and public-sector unions.

Michelle also has the video of the National Education Association’s retiring top lawyer, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA’s annual meeting in July in which he openly admits that educating our children is not the top priority for the teacher's union:

This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay. (The emphasis is mine.)

Plainly put, it is more important to the teacher's union to keep an incompetent teacher on the job then to ensure that a proper education for our children.

The rest of the story.

Executing Nidal Hassan

Jeralyn at TalkLeft thinks that executing Nidal Hasan would be "barbaric":

Major Nidal Hasan had his first hearing in the Ft. Hood murder case. The hearing was held in the hospital. His lawyer says he is paralyzed from the chest down, incontinent and in severe pain.

He will be tried in a military court, and additional charges may be pending. Military prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty.

How barbaric that the military will seek to kill a man with no sensation in his body from the chest down. He might prefer it (I certainly would) but it's inexusable behavior for a civilized society and way beyond the pale of decency.

Of course Jeralyn left a little something out of that screed. Hasan was paralyzed while he was murdering 14 people and wounding another 28. His actions were barbaric and beyond the pale but we don't hear one word about Hasan's actions from TalkLeft. If anything is inexcusable, it is the misplaced sympathy for Hasan.

h/t Legal Insurrection

Maybe There Was Nothing There To Begin With

I came across the following at Instapundit:

MAUREEN DOWD: If only Obama were more like Sarah Palin. “The animating spirit that electrified his political movement has sputtered out. . . . Like Reagan, Obama is a detached loner with a strong, savvy wife. But unlike Reagan, he doesn’t have the acting skills to project concern about what’s happening to people.”

I think Obama’s “charisma” was based on voter narcissism — people excited not just about electing a black President, but about themselves, voting for a black President. Now that’s over, and they’re stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there’s not much there to fill out the suit. As Ann Althouse says, “I think what Obama seems to have become, he always was.”

Obama is a perfect example of the Peter Principal in that he is an incompetent man who has risen to his level of his incompetence, or, my favorite version, cream rises to the top and clabbers. He simply had done nothing in his life to prepare him to lead the United States.

We've all known someone who has managed to BS and charm themselves in to undeserved promotions. Once they have the desired position they immediately set their aim at the next position. They never stay in one place long enough to actually accomplish anything and sooner or later they fail, and usually fail miserably.

There is nothing wrong with ambition but a little substance would be nice. In Obama's case there simply is nothing there. Worse, he has surrounded himself with advisers who are either idiots (Joe Biden) or thugs (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod) and Obama doesn't have the experience or intellectual heft to keep them in check.

I agree with Instapundit that for many, voting for Obama was an exercise in narcissism, It made people feel good about themselves that they voted for a black guy with a funny name. I just wonder how good they are feeling now.

Andrew Sullivan: Jew Hater?

Stacy McCain weighs in on the accusation that Andrew Sullivan is a Jew hater:

I certainly don't think so, and consider it terribly unfortunate that Sullivan has exposed himself to this damaging accusation through his reflexive enthusiasm for all things Obama -- just as he once was denounced as a "neocon" because of his reflexive enthusiasm for all things Bush.

Sullivan got over his unrequited Dubya man-crush, and maybe his current see-no-evil attitude toward Israel's enemies will fade if Sullivan discovers that his new presidential idol also has feet of clay. So while I have called Sullivan a menace to society and advocated his deportation, he's probably not a Holocaust denier or a peddler of blood libel.

My friend Dan Riehl called attention to this accusation against Sullivan, by way of firing a shot at Conor Friedersdorf. I've fired my share of shots at Conor, but I certainly would never accuse him of Jew-hating. The extremely toxic nature of the "anti-Semite" label is such that I am extremely hesitant to apply it.

I've got to tell you, I think Sullivan is just plain nuts. Really, this whole obsession that Sully has with Palin's uterus has driven him off a very short cliff. Beyond that he is just a very nasty little man. And to be honest, I prefer crazy people to be way less predictable. Sullivan is a bandwagon jumper and the Left certainly has it in for Israel and all things Jewish so I would rule out that he has decided that the anti-Semite crowd are his new best friends. It is nothing personal with Sully, he is just desperate to be thought of as an intellectual (in that narrow Lefty sense). Which of course is just further proof of Sully's craziness.

Surprise, Surprise! It Will be a Show Trial

Via Memeorandum:

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for their views:

NEW YORK (AP) - A lawyer for one of five men facing trial for the Sept. 11 attacks says the men plan to plead not guilty and use the trial to express their political views.
Attorney Scott Fenstermaker says his client Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and the others will not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but will tell the jury "why they did it."

He says the men will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy."

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He says the men, including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have discussed the trial among themselves.

The Justice Department announced earlier this month that the men would face a civilian federal trial in New York City. The department did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment Sunday.

Gee, who could have imagined that trying KSM and company in a civilian court would result in a show trial? I am sure that Attorney General Holder is shocked by this turn of events.

Illegal Immigrants and Conservatives

Via Memeorandum:

In the Boston Globe Jeff Jacoby writes:

YOU’RE A sensible, principled conservative. You want America to be a land of boundless opportunity and freedom, where people are treated as individuals and judged on their merits. You reject the divisive identity politics of the left - what matters most about any of us, you would insist, is not race or class or ethnic origins: it is personal character and achievement. There are few things about contemporary politics you deplore more than the demonizing or scapegoating of entire groups (“white males,’’ “the rich,’’ “the Christian right,’’ “gun owners’’), as though every member of the group is interchangeable and indistinguishable, wholly defined by a single disparaging label.

But let someone mention “illegal immigrants,’’ and your principles fly out the window.

So why is Jacoby accusing Conservatives of being unprincipled on illegal immigration?

So when Governor Deval Patrick recommends allowing young illegal immigrants - residents of Massachusetts who have graduated from high school - to attend a public college and pay in-state tuition, you flip out. This is outrageous, you protest. It rewards people who broke the rules. It’s unfair to the taxpayers who subsidize public higher education. Why should an illegal immigrant get a valuable tuition break that Massachusetts wouldn’t give to a kid from Maine or New Hampshire?

You vigorously agree with Charlie Baker, a Republican candidate for governor. “If you’re illegally here, you’re illegally here,’’ Baker said last week. “The notion that we should treat illegal immigrants with the same benefits and opportunities that legal immigrants and legal citizens have doesn’t make any sense to me.’’

It is dispiriting to see Baker, a man of considerable intellectual heft, stoop to such shallow sloganeering. It is even more dispiriting to see conservatives assail immigrants instead of the insane immigration system that gave most of them no legal way to enter the United States. On the whole, illegal immigrants are just the sort of newcomers Americans should embrace: self-motivated risk-takers, strivers determined to improve themselves, hard-working men and women willing to take the meanest jobs if it will give them a shot at building their own American dream. Why would we want to punish them? Why would we want to punish their kids?

It is true, as Jacoby sates, that most immigrants have no way to enter the country legally. However, I reject Jacoby's suggestion that living in the United States is just another entitlement program.

As citizens we have a right to say who can and cannot enter our borders. Granted, we have done a piss poor job of keeping people from coming in illegally but that does not mean that once here, we are obligated to let them stay. And we certainly aren't obligated to give them the privileges we afford to our citizens and those in the country legally.

Jacoby knows that his argument doesn't hold salt so he tries to pull at the heart strings:

A couple from Brazil, seeking a better life for themselves and their 2-month-old daughter, enter the United States unlawfully. They settle in Massachusetts, where 18 years later the girl graduates from a public high school, as assimilated and acculturated an American as her classmates in every respect - except that they are US citizens, and she, by virtue of a decision made when she was a baby, is not. Her classmates can attend the University of Massachusetts, paying $9,704 a year in tuition, the price tag for Massachusetts residents. She can attend only if she pays the out-of-state rate of $22,157; if that’s more than she can afford, she’s out of luck.

Breaking the law often has consequences that don't show themselves until long after the fact. The Brazilian girl's parents are responsible for her situation, not the citizens of Massachusetts. It may not seem "fair" but alot of things aren't fair.

My daughter saved every penny she had so that when she turned sixteen she could buy a car and afford the minimum insurance to put it on the road. Was it "fair" that an illegal immigrant blew through a stop sign at a high rate of speed because he was drunk at nine o'clock in the morning, totally my daughter's car, injuring her and just missing another car that had three small children in it? Note: he came up missing from the hospital and is presumably living just fine somewhere in the United States-illegally. Is it fair that last year two women were locking up a local watering hole when they were kidnapped at gun point by three illegals who spent the next several hours raping them?

Illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. The majority will never break another law while living here but Jacoby should reserve his sympathy for his fellow citizens not those who should not be here.

My Afternoon at the Glenn Beck Rally

I arrived about hour and a half before the scheduled three o'clock starting time for Glenn Beck's rally at The Villages in Central Florida. I should have arrived hours earlier.

Beck announced that he has a plan, aptly named The Plan. While Beck brought the crowd to its feet repeatedly, he was somewhat short on details as to what The Plan entails.

He said that he has gathered a panel of experts in education, finance, national security and health care and that they will be forming specific policy positions that will be unveiled over time.

Beck will be holding a series of seven "conventions" between March and August of 2010. The first convention will be held in Orlando on March 27th. His website, GlennBeck.Com, has details on the remaining six conventions. All of this will culminate with a rally at the Lincoln Monument in Washington, DC on August 28th.

There was a lot of speculation that Beck would announcing the formation of a national third party. Not exactly. He is trying to build a coalition of fiscally conservative citizens who, regardless of party affiliation, will join together and speak in one voice in opposition to the runaway spending in Washington. Republicans, blue dog Democrats, Independents and Libertarians have all expressed dismay at the reckless spending from Washington as well as the overreaching entitlement programs that are not only driving the country towards financial ruin but also permitting greater government interference and control over individuals lives. Beck envisions these diverse groups joining together and acting as a single group on those issues that we all hold in common.

Here in Florida we are already seeing from Charlie Crist that politicians will alter their positions if they believe that they are losing ground. Fiscal conservatives of all political stripes have turned on Crist because of his embrace of the Stimulus Bill. Beck envisions the Florida model taking off and becoming a national movement.

Time will tell exactly what Beck's "plan" involves but I will say, judging from the enthusiasm I saw at The Villages today, people are ready for a change from the "business as usual" out of Washington that has mortgaged their children's children's future.

More on the rally can be found at Memeorandum.

Going on the Road

I just heard last night that Glenn Beck is going to be at the Villages of Florida, a little over a hundred miles north of here, this afternoon. My motto is "have Netbook, will travel" so I am going on the road. Beck is slated to unveil his "big plan for 2010" at the rally so I'll be posting more later.

Junk Science Exposed

Via Memeorandum:

I readily admit that after years of rolling my eyes at the Global Warming I found it delicious when news broke that computers had been hacked at Hadley CRU and that the information obtained seems to back the theory that Global Warming is a crock. James Delingpole:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Al Gore, the chief snake oil salesman of AGW, has long used fantastic hyperbole to stifle any debate on Global Warming, comparing those who question Climate Change to Holocaust deniers. Of course Gore has a vested interest in shutting down debate-he’s made MILLIONS peddling his clap trap all the while expanding his “carbon footprint” to truly monumental levels. To his credit, he’s not the only hypocrite on the block.

Aside from the hypocrisy and fear mongering, dedicated scientists have seen their careers jeopardized by daring to disagree with the “the science is settled” shtick. Stacy McCain writes:

With the assistance of a pliant media establishment, the global-warming crowd has created the impression that all qualified experts agree with their theory, and that all skeptics are either biased or unqualified. The consensus-mongers have arrogated to themselves the authority to decide who is or is not an expert, and what does and does not qualify as evidence. Once this was Jedi mind-trick was accomplished, it was predictable that any data contradicting the "consensus" would be ignored or suppressed.

While some have perfectly good reasons for withholding judgment on the AGW revelations, I can’t wait to see how this all plays out.

More at:

Tim Blair
Sister Toldja
JammieWearingFool
Michelle Malkin
American Power

UPDATE:

From Gateway Pundit:

One of the junk science perpetrators speaks out:

Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”

Professor Mann is sounding a bit testy. De-lish-ous!

UPDATE II:

Andrew C. Revkin writing in the New York Times:

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science undergirding the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said, after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected a concerted effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said that some e-mails mused about a way to discredit him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong.

“This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

UPDATE III:

A man after my own heart:

The people involved have defiled Reason in the name of fraudulent politics, fat budgets, and international fame. I’d like to see every one of them shamed so thoroughly that they’d be lucky to get jobs flipping burgers.

On the good side, these temple prostitutes for the Church of Global Warming just might have done something that the diligent work of skeptics and plain evidence could not — drive an ash stake through the heart of Anthropogenic Global Warming. A guy can dream.

Another Day, Another Thunderstorm

Via Memeorandum:

My favorite saying is the golden oldie-don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. Under the current administration, every day is monsoon season.

Today was Attorney General Eric Holder's turn to go singing in the rain. I am no fan of Sen. Lindsey Graham , he managed to stay dry today despite Holder's best efforts.

Allahpundit:

Per the last post, here’s how “carefully” Holder consulted the law before pulling the trigger on KSM. Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it.

Andy McCarthy goes through Holder's testimony point by point. Suffice to say, Holder doesn't fare well. Oddly, the Left, long known for its wussiness, is using the decision to try KSM in a civilian court as a show of bravery, a theme that Holder, tried, and failed to advance:

In a civilian trial, America will see KSM for the coward that he is — Holder: "I am not scared of KSM." Submitting a war criminal to a military commission is not an exercise in fear; it is an exercise in justice. We already know all about what kind of animal KSM is, thanks to the exrtraordinary information that has come out in the military proceedings and the CIA interrogations. You could fill a book a book with it, which the 9/11 Commission did. We don't need to bear the risks of a civilian trial either to learn more about KSM or so Mr. Holder can show how brave he is.

This trial will take years to run through. For the next three years this administration will be spinning away. Keep an umbrella handy.

Smitty gets the "Title of the Day Award" Graham goes jackass hunting, finds Holder, flogging ensues.

The World Loves Us, Really

Via Memeorandum:

I for one have stayed up nights worried about "The World's" opinion of the United States so you can imagine my relief when I read that Obama has restored our reputation:

A little more than a year after his election, President Obama said his administration has laid the groundwork for success on global and domestic matters.

"I think that we've restored America's standing in the world, and that's confirmed by polls," he told CNN's Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.

"I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people -- maybe less than 40 percent of the people -- thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it's up to 75 percent."

Unfortunately, the Iranians, Hondurans and Czechs and Poles were unable to participate in the polls.

Obama has spent the better part of his young administration prostrating and apologizing for the United States to the rest of the world. He's sucked up to tyrants and screwed over allies. Generally speaking Obama's message has been that American has been a screwup but now that he's in charge he'll put us on the right path. No doubt it is a message that the Eurocrats approve. For all of Obama's scraping and bowing, we've gotten next to nothing in return.

Dan Riehl reacts:

What an ignorant, naive doofus this guy is. He seems to put a lot more stock in world polls than he does domestic ones. He dismisses those when it conflicts with his policy goals. This arrogant basturd cares more about what the world thinks of him, than what Americans do. And if he honestly believes the nation's that are important to us in the world, especially potential threats, are going to treat us any differently because of his image obsessed presidency, the guy is as dangerous, as he is clueless about world politics.

The man's a superficial fool, a fraud and a Leftist tool.

Sounds about right.

Andrew Sullivan: Delusional Fantasist

I’d been storming around in a snit for three days and frankly, it had ceased to be fun. I needed something to giggle about and God bless him, Andrew Sullivan came through:

… And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin's unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it's vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

Who but Sully could be so earnest and so silly all in a single breath? But there he is saving the Republic from the greatest threat it has faced since Yoko Ono married John Lennon and destroyed the Beatles. Were it not for Sullivan, the Wild Woman of Wasilla would not doubt march on Washington unimpeded. But fear not, he’ll focus on nothing else ‘til the pretender to the presidency is sent packing back to the tundra.

Cassandra speaks for all of us when she says:

Once he's done deconstructing Sarah Palin's 5th pregnancy, hopefully he'll have time to catch us up on the Britney Spears/Kevin Federline divorce. I think we're all feeling a bit safer today, knowing Sully is on the case.

More at:

Memeorandum
Villainous Company
Pundit & Pundette
Riehl World View

A Preview of Things to Come

Forty thousand women die of breast cancer in the United States every year. This number has steadily declined since 1990 and that decline can be summed up in two words-early detection. Consider this from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

What a difference six months — and a health-care overhaul proposal — can make! Just six months ago, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force, which works within the Department of Health and Human Services as a “best practice” panel on prevention, sounded a warning signal over a slight decline in annual mammograms among women in their 40s. In fact, they warned women of this age bracket that they could be risking their lives if they didn’t get the annual preventive exam (via HA reader Devil’s Advocate):

The downward trend, however slight, has breast cancer experts worried. Mammograms can enable physicians to diagnose the disease at early stages, often before a lump can be felt. “When breast cancer is detected early, it often can be treated before it has a chance to spread in the body and increase the risk of dying from the disease,” says Katherine Alley, medical director of the breast health program at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda.

The U.S Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts working under the Department of Health and Human Services, recommends that women older than 40 get a mammogram every one to two years. The task force finds the test most helpful for women between ages 50 and 69, for whom it says the evidence is strongest that screening lowers death rates from breast cancer. Other groups, including the American Medical Association, suggest a more rigorous schedule, saying the test should be done every year; insurers often pay for annual tests.

But today, that same panel says … never mind:

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does saves lives,” said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday’s Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.”

What changed? ObamaCare. Government run health care programs universally cut funding for preventative tests in order to hold costs down. What is the government panel’s reasoning? Consider this:

While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded. (emphasis mine)

The panel admits that screenings save lives but not enough to justify the cost. Welcome to nationalize health care ladies, your life has just been reduced to dollars and cents. But wait, it gets even better-the panel is also recommending against women performing self examines!

Think you’ll just ignore the new recommendations? You are free to do that and your doctor is free to order a mammogram, but any tests outside of the panels recommendations will be paid by the patient and not covered under the government program. Your covered by a private program? Guess how private companies decide what procedures to cover-yep, the decision is based on the panel’s recommendation.

I’ll leave you with these words from Wizbang:

ObamaCare hasn't even passed the Senate yet, and already this task force seems to be implementing cost cutting measures in anticipation of the government's increased financial stake in the health care of millions of Americans. And if this doesn't concern you, keep in mind that Pelosi's health care bill that just passed the House is chock full of new government health care task forces that will issue all manner of new recommendations, the vast majority of which will probably be that citizens should postpone screenings for various cancers, illnesses, and disorders.

And President Obama said no one should come between you and your doctor. What he meant is that no one should come between you and your doctor - except a government health care task force.

h/t Memeorandum

Can We Cut the Racist Crap?

What is with the Left and this racist crap? Honestly, I'm over it. It seems that no matter what any Conservative does or says everything boils down to race as far as the Moonbats are concerned.

Well here we go again. Sarah Palin is a racist because her co-author Lynn Vincent is a racist because she co-wrote a book with Stacy McCain who everybody knows is a racist. Thursday night I hugged Stacy McCain so I'm a racist. Done deal.

Not so much. Ben Smith concludes that, well actually, Lynn Vincent isn't a racist but he left the accusation against Stacy hang out there. Why? Is it too difficult for a reporter of Smith's stature to investigate accusations prior to printing them?

Stacy had this to say about this tripe:

One of the things I have sought to avoid over the years is the "some of my best friends" defense. If my friends are aware of these attacks, they will defend me. If they are unaware of the attacks, it would be wrong to involve them in a dispute that is not of their concern. My enemies are my enemies, and I would do my friends no favors by siccing my enemies on them, so as to expose my friends to these guilt-by-association attacks.

Stacy treated me like a friend long before we met Thursday night so I'm going to put this in real simple terms: jump off.

Anybody who has a problem with Conservative values man up and debate those values. I defy anyone to show anything about our values that are racist in anyway. But I'll tell you this, there is plenty that is racist about "progressive" values. So stop the projecting.

Incidentally, Smith wrote this:

*UPDATE: Edited for clarity. And McCain disputes his critics' characterization of his views on race.

Mighty white of him.

h/t Memeorandum

They're Baaaack!

Via Memeorandum:

"They" are death panels and it isn't Sarah Palin bring them up, it is the Wall Street Journal. Granted, they are not called "death panels", but as they say, "the devil is in the the details. From The Rationing Commission:

As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."

On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."

Nothing personal, Granny.

The Left's line from day one has been that we already have rationing because insurance companies make care decisions every day. That is absolutely true. However, I haven't heard from the Left why it is okay for a government panel to make life and death decisions and wrong for an insurance company to do the same. Perhaps the difference is because the insurance companies represent the free market which is open and rollicking and frankly, undisciplined whereas the government represents the comforting nanny who imposes order and makes the tough choices on behalf of unruly children.

Some may think that they are too young to be affected by the panels. More or less true. Older people will be represent the largest group that will be denied health care. First, the baby boomers are a huge segment of the population and they (we) are aging. Second, they (we) develop more health problems with age. The WSJ uses the example of the state of Washington's medical board to let us know what we have to look forward to:

The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.

So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.

Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."

In the Washington state model it isn't just Granny who is in deep doo.

Let's be honest about what health care reform entails. More importantly, our politicians need to be honest with us about the true effects of health care reform. But, they won't be unless we insist on honesty and accountability from them.

On a personal note, my eighty-one year old, severely disabled father underwent surgery this afternoon. He's doing well. Under ObamaCare, he'd be dead.

Chistopher Hitchens Misses the Mark on "Populism"

Via Memeorandum:

Christopher Hitchens doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Hitchens has a penchant for unmasking charlatans and in the Newsweek article Palin’s Base Appeal, he appears to be unmasking Palin but it is those that he perceives as “her base” that he has taken aim at.

Populism is a political ideology based on the perceived interests of ordinary people. Reading the article, it struck me that Hitchens considers “ordinary people” to be nasty little uneducated beings whose interests don’t interest him nor in his estimation should they interest anyone else of substance. In Hitchen’s view, if Palin has had any measure of success it lies in her ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the way too gullible unwashed masses.

They say a good writer writes about what he knows and Hitchens is altogether unacquainted with ordinary people. He does not have a clue why people are angry and if truth were told, he probably believes the anger is caused by the mundane nature of their small lives. But such people are too far below his station to grant any consideration or thought.

Should Hitchens care to actually research the subject of ordinary people before he opines on them again I would be happy to clue him in. But that would most likely bore him.

Us Yokels R Two Dumb Too Know Good Manners

Turns out us redneck yokels blue it agin. We is stupid and ain't got good manners. Obama's bow is good manners. I apologized fer my being dumb.

Other dumb people:

Thank you to the moderate person at The Moderate Voice

We will work hard two learn our manners soes we didn't make same mistake again.

Other peoples who is yokels two:

Don Surber

Sister Toldja

Fausta's Blog

Troglopundit

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy

Via Memeorandum

Gee, it can't be a good thing when a picture of a tipped tank is used to illustrate a politician's career, but hey, in this case, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

According to FitNews.Com Sen. Lindsey Graham's popularity is tanking in South Carolina. He's not only losing the confidence of Republican voters, he's also in a freefall with the all important Independent voters. Pardon me for a moment while I snicker.

Graham served in the House from 1995 to 2003 when he moved on to the Senate. At some point during the last fourteen years he decided as an incumbent he was a) in like Flynn and as a result b) his constituents could go to Hell. Apparently, his constituents disagree.

FitNews:

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s public support is collapsing in South Carolina – driven by a wholesale revolt among the GOP electorate and a steady erosion of his support amongst independents.

Already consistently loathed by a solid third of GOP voters, Graham’s recent leftward bent – including his co-authoring of a controversial “Cap & Tax” proposal supported by President Barack Obama and liberal Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) – has him locked in a “terminal free fall,” according one prominent Republican consultant.

“A chunk of the GOP has always detested him, but in the last month a damn has broken,” said the consultant, who was granted anonymity to discuss the impact of two recent polls that were conducted in South Carolina (one allegedly by Graham’s own advisors). “More Republicans now oppose Sen. Graham than support him. Independents are also deserting him in huge numbers.”

So who is backing Graham? According to FITS, he's being back by the Truman National Security Project a liberal front group aimed at training “progressives” in their efforts to co-opt the debate over national security, which is typically one of the GOP’s bread-and-butter issues.

What a coincidence. Charlie Crist, who Graham endorsed, also has "progressive" donors. Usually, people donate to a candidate because the donor and the candidate share an ideology. Sometimes the donor expects something from the candidate in return. And, of course, sometimes the donor and the candidate share an ideology AND the donor believes that they will receive something in return. I smell RINO.

Just recently I've taken to including a small picture of pink flip flops to symbolize Crist on my posts relating to him. My bet is that Graham will be doing a flip flop of his own soon. Maybe I can find a green pair for Graham to symbolize his support for Cap & Trade.

Perfect!



Cross posted at Not One Red Cent

Defining "Real American

It is very rare that I see the Glenn Beck Show. I am either at work when the show comes on or driving home from work. But when I read at The Daley Gator that Clifford B. of Another Black Conservative would be at Glenn's Friday the 13th show I knew I would have to watch. I had taken Thursday and Friday off from work to attend the Orlando Tea Party so it was "all systems go."

The show was both enjoyable and informative. I love Charles Payne on "Cashin' In" and "Bears and Bulls" so I was thrilled to see that the show began with him. Prior to the show I had never heard of Lisa Fritsch, a radio talk show host, but I was so impressed by her that after the show I googled her to learn more. All and all, watching the show was a very worthwhile experience.

Today I came across a post at No Sheeples Here titled The Dumb White Guy at Crooks and Liars . Much to my surprise (yeah, why would I still be surprised by anything lefties write anymore) David Neiwert took exception to the show. Sigh. Among Neiwart's tidbits:

Glenn asked the audience why they call themselves African Americans!

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I don't call myself an Irish American (except on St. Paddy's Day) but I also don't sit around worrying about what other people call themselves. We are all Americans. On the other hand, if I were describing someone to a person who was unfamiliar with the person I was describing, I would be more likely to say, "he's the black guy that sings the Tea Party Anthem" than I would be to say "he's the African American...". I'm not sure why Glenn asked the question but I also don't see a problem with asking either.

When white people say "real Americans" they are excluding black people.

How so? What is Neiwert basing this on-his own prejudices? Does Neiwert think that white people have a pecking order or how exactly does the whole thing work. For instance, are Anglo-saxon Americans more American than Mediterranean Americans who are more American than Asian Americans and so on until we reach African Americans, who we, the real Americans, don't include? I've got news for Mr. Neiwert, it is the Left who labels and pigeon holes everyone. On my side of the fence, if you love this country, you are an American.

Glenn Beck, as well as all white people, are idiots for quoting Martin Luther King.

Dr. King's own words lay waste to that argument. The next time Neiwert reads Dr. King's words I suggest that he take a moment to actual think about the words.

The MSM treats Conservative Blacks (and Conservative Women) like sideshow freaks. I applaud any effort to show that the Conservative movement isn't white, black, brown, or as my uncle would say, "sky blue pink". Sadly, people like Neiwert are too entrenched in their own narrow vision to realize how broad the Conservative Coalition is. His loss.

Reaction:

No Sheeples Here
Another Black Conservative
Left Coast Rebel
Memeorandum

In 2006 Sen. Obama Backed Trying KSM in the Military Court

Via Memeorandum

In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama defended KSM being tried before a military tribunal. He makes it clear that as an enemy combatant, a military trial is the right and proper way to go. So what has changed? Now that he is President Obama, he has a base to satisfy. His base, the farthest of the far left, are not happy with Obama on several counts so he’s going to throw them a bone, jeopardizing the security of the United States, by putting George Bush on trial. Sure, KSM will be the defendant, but make no mistake, this is a show trial highlighting the policies of the Bush administration.

I am not a lawyer but I am assuming that in a civilian trial Miranda will come in to play. Was KSM given his Miranda rights? No. How will that affect the statements he made? Will they be admissible? No search warrants were executed. Will the property seized, and the evidence gathered be admissible?

I believe that the government will get a conviction. An acquittal would carry too high of a political cost and Obama is all about Obama. But every step of the way, the focus will be on the Bush Administration and giving the Left something to chew on.

Not everything should be political. As President of the United States, Obama should put the country’s security first. The 9/11 Families for America are gathering signatures on a petition to tell the President that he needs to stand by his remarks of 2006 and try KSM before a Military Tribunal. Show your outrage by signing the petition.

Video via Breitbart.tv

Other commentary:

Legal Insurrection
Atlas Shrugs

Update:

Pat at And so it goes in Shreveport writes:

Bloomberg is concerned, and rightly so, with the security issue. While it's true that New York has been increasing their terrorist detection threats over the past eight years, why on earth should the citizens of New York have to deal with such a threat at all? Haven't they been through enough? The city was outraged at the insensitivity of the Air Force One flyover for a photo op in April of this year. What in the world will come out of Pandora's box with KSM in town?

With regard to the issue of classified information, KSM will certainly request and be entitled to receive documents and information about the government's case against him. He and his attorneys will have access to hundreds of classified documents which will be a bonanza to the jihadists waiting in the wings. To assume that the information won't get leaked or transmitted is naive.

More here.