Printer Friendly
PDF
Read Comments
Post a CommentDigest
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Foundation
"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson
Government & Politics
'The People's Seat'
Hope floats in Boston Harbor"Here's my assessment of not just the mood in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office." So said Barack Obama when asked about Tuesday's special election to fill the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Ted Kennedy.
Naturally, to Obama, everything is about him; though, in a sense, Brown's shocking victory was about Obama -- but not in the way he thinks. In fact, we're hoping the president campaigns for more Democrats come fall. Voters have responded to his presence on behalf of fellow Democrats with resounding rejections in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and now in deepest-blue Massachusetts.
Then again, Obama says, it's Bush's fault. "People are angry and they're frustrated," he explained, "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
So Scott Brown became the first Republican senator elected in Massachusetts since 1972 because voters are still angry with George W. Bush?
In reality, Brown won for several reasons. First, he was a first-rate candidate. His regular-guy persona resonated with voters and he communicated the right message -- that we need less government, not more. He ran explicitly against ObamaCare, saying, "I can stop it." In his victory speech, he said, "People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt."
Best of all, in a debate with Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, Brown answered a challenge from moderator David Gergen about taking Ted Kennedy's seat only to derail health care: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
That's when the sea change in the polls began.
Second, Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. Briefly, for example (and there are many), in a state with a large percentage of Catholic voters, Coakley offered the advice that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic, then "you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room." She derided Red Sox hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankee fan" and scoffed at greeting people in the cold at Fenway Park, which is precisely what hungry candidates do in sports-crazy Boston. In addition, a member of her staff was caught on video knocking a conservative reporter to the ground. In short, her arrogance and inanity are out of touch.
Finally, health care became an albatross for Coakley, and the Leftmedia didn't help, continuing to refer to the seat as "Kennedy's seat" in order to play up that debate. Kennedy spent a lifetime fighting for socialized health care, and, when he died, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even suggested naming the health care bill after him. The irony is that the senator from Massachusetts was supposed to steer socialized medicine to passage; now it looks like the senator from Massachusetts could be the one to sink it. As PBS's Judy Woodruff sobbed, it would be "a tragedy of Greek proportions if Ted Kennedy's successor ... is the one who was responsible for the death of health care."
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Americans who want to see the current health care bills die owe a debt of gratitude to Republican Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he signed universal health care into law in 2006 (as a state legislator, we should note, Brown voted for it). The law is similar to the one being debated in Washington in that Massachusetts residents are required to buy health insurance. The program is currently 20 percent more expensive than projected, and premiums are rising at least 7 percent per year. The reason Bay State voters don't want to pay for socialized medicine is that they're already paying for it. They believe that Washington's bill is redundant, and they have serious questions about the affordability and sustainability of their own state's health care plan. That's federalism at its best.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't think so, however. "Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," she defiantly lectured. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."
Brown's win Tuesday may well end up being a victory for liberty. Many Democrats (finally) appear cautious about proceeding on health care. Even Pelosi admits she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate version in the House. Some, including Obama, are talking about a much smaller bill.
We won't hold our breath, but those metaphorical crates of tea floating in Boston harbor this week may just be a promising sign.
Quote of the Week
"Martha Coakley's resounding defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race is hardly the sort of anniversary gift President Barack Obama could have predicted. Yet there it was, wrapped in a bow and plopped on his doorstep like a flaming bag of dog poo to mark the end of his first year in office." --Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason magazine
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
Sen. John Kerry, in a fundraising appeal for Martha Coakley, continued Democrat ridicule of the Tea Party sentiment bubbling up in Massachusetts. He warned that Scott Brown's "allies in the right wing dream of holding a 'tea party' in Kennedy country."
Uh, John, the original Tea Party was in Boston.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton took the opposite tack, though at least he acknowledged the first Tea Party. "The Revolutionary War was first won here," Clinton told a Boston crowd. "It started with the Boston Tea Party, and the right-wing Republicans have appropriated that on the premise the Tea Party was against government. What they were against was abuse of power."
Try parsing that one in a way that favors Democrats.
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"That I do think is a mistake of mine -- I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it." --Barack Obama on his proposed health care takeover
Got that, folks? Even when he's admitting a "mistake of mine," he's throwing the blame onto others. His failures are your fault because you just don't get it. That's called pathological narcissism.
New & Notable Legislation
Senate Democrats want to raise the federal government's debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to a mind-boggling total of $14.3 trillion. The current debt limit was just established by an increase of $290 billion snuck in at the end of December 2009, but will be reached by mid-February. If the ceiling is not raised again, then the government will default on payments to millions of Social Security recipients, defense contractors and other beneficiaries of government disbursements. Just 10 years ago, an increase of this size would have covered government spending for an entire year. Now, they're sweating just getting through February.
The proposal is coupled with a new PAYGO proposal that would offset increased spending with tax hikes and cuts in other areas of the budget. Previous attempts at PAYGO fell by the wayside in recent years, as both Republicans and Democrats have given up on even the appearance of fiscal responsibility -- which is all PAYGO is.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) have indicated they will not support PAYGO or a debt increase unless they are accompanied by a bipartisan commission that would create fiscal reform measures. House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, are against the idea of a commission because it would take power away from their own budget committee leaders. The Obama administration attempted to bridge this logjam by announcing the creation of a similar commission at the executive level that would include Democrats and Republicans appointed by both Congress and the president. Any commission created by Obama, however, wouldn't release any recommendations until after the November elections. How convenient. The dodge around fiscal responsibility continues.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is considering the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which, in essence, would allow the Obama administration to nationalize the student loan industry. Currently, federally subsidized loans through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program make up approximately 80 percent of the industry. The government subsidizes or profits from a set interest rate and also guarantees loans for both student and lender. The bill under consideration would drop private lenders entirely and turn student lending over to the government. The proposal originated in Obama's 2010 budget, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would save the government $87 billion over 10 years. Forget the Constitution -- not that the status quo holds to it -- Obama's solution to every problem is nationalization.
Essential Liberty Project -- Conference Presentation
This coming Feb. 4-6, the Constitutional Coalition is presenting their Educational Policy Conference 21, "Lessons Children and Others Must Hear." The Thursday through Saturday event in St. Louis, Missouri, will feature Fox News host Glenn Beck, radio talk-show host Michael Medved, several stalwart conservative senators and representatives, and many principled authorities, including a presentation by our own Essential Liberty Project Executive Director, Jim Cuffia. Visit www.ConstitutionalCoalition.org for conference and registration details.
Hope 'n' Change: Obama Pens Haiti Story
The disaster in Haiti is a perfect example of Americans doing their best to help others in need, and it has once again brought out the finest qualities of the American character. Unfortunately, politics is at play. For example, Newsweek magazine, which years ago gave up its mission as an objective news source to become a propaganda organ of the Left, premiered its reporting on the crisis with a cover story by Barack Obama. His unremarkable piece offered the liberal rag an opportunity to boost its plummeting circulation. The latest Obama issue of the magazine hit the newsstands days before his first year as president comes to a close -- a year in which he has experienced an unprecedented drop in popularity and support.
To add further political twist to a natural disaster, Narcissist in Chief Obama asked Americans to donate for Haitian relief through the White House Web site, not directly to Red Cross. How this is beneficial, we don't know, but maybe he wants to first take the government's typical 30-70 percent cut.
The House unanimously passed a bill that will allow cash contributions to Haitian relief made through March 1 to count against 2009 taxes. Americans didn't need this incentive, though. In the week since the earthquake, we committed over $275 million to relief efforts, with a third of that amount coming from American companies. The $83 million that those evil corporations have contributed in just seven days has received little recognition by the media, however.
Meanwhile, America's attempts to help the wounded and keep order in the fragile nation have come under fire by the French, joined by Cuba and Venezuela. Alain Joyandet, the French minister in charge of humanitarian relief, called upon the UN to curb America's military role in Haiti, claiming that our military personnel resembled an occupying force, and he asked the UN to "clarify" our role. Of course, to the French, every foreign army is an occupying force.
Halls of Justice: SCOTUS Overturns Part of McCain-Feingold
The Supreme Court of the United States overturned two precedents and struck down limits on corporate political spending in a 5-4 ruling this week, with the usual suspects in dissent. The Court found that at least part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from funding political ads leading up to an election.
As The Wall Street Journal reports, "The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an 'electioneering communication' subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions." In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion, "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
Additionally, of requiring that money be funneled through political action committees -- those now-hated 527s -- Kennedy wrote, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."
Barack Obama called the decision a victory for Wall Street, Big Oil and other special interests hated by the Left, and he promised to work with Congress on a "forceful response." That's nothing but hypocrisy coming from the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public funds, opting instead to run solely on money from special interests.
The BIG Joke
"When you think about the First Amendment ... you think it's highly overrated." --White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, joking (or so he says) at the May 9, 2009, White House Correspondents Association Dinner
From the Left: Edwards Admits Paternity After Affair
Former Democrat presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards admitted this week to fathering a child with Rielle Hunter, a former campaign groupie, in an affair that he says ended in 2006. His campaign has been under investigation for illegal use of funds in connection with the affair. Edwards, a former trial lawyer who became John Kerry's running mate in 2004, initially confessed to the affair in August 2008, after the National Enquirer beat the Leftmedia to the story while they were busy slamming John McCain's choice of a running mate. Until now, however, Edwards had avoided acknowledging paternity, while another staffer took the fall. Edwards' wife, who has been battling breast cancer for years, was "relieved" that the truth is out, but family friends say the couple has now separated.
National Security
Department of Military Correctness: Hood-winked
The Pentagon just released its report on the Ft. Hood massacre, and having reviewed it, we have some questions: Has anyone been fired yet? If not, why not? And what's wrong with naming Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the terrorist who killed 14 people, including an unborn child, in the report? Or what's wrong with mentioning "radical Islam" -- the fuel fanning Hasan's fire -- and perhaps a discussion of its role in why this attack happened?
We can't understand how the deaths of the innocent could be so spackled over by 86 pages of politically correct twaddle that identified neither the terrorist nor the root cause of his action. While the report indicates that commanders must be provided suitable tools and guidance to differentiate between appropriate religious practices and those leading to "violence or self-radicalization," it offers little, if anything, to accomplish that task.
With this in mind, we suggest a starting point for commanders, supervisors and pretty much everyone else on the planet to help navigate these complex religious nuances. If someone under your command not only acts wacky but also professes a profound hatred for America -- the same America he or she, upon entering the military, swore an oath to support and defend -- rip up that person's security clearance. "Nutjob" and "hate-my-country" are excellent reasons to deny someone access to national secrets and secure sites. Next, relieve the individual of duty and bring administrative action toward a discharge. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Moreover, that privilege is not extended to those with an acknowledged hatred of their country, whatever their religious preference. Finally, have the courage to do the right thing, which is almost always diametrically opposed to the politically correct thing, for you too have sworn an oath to "support and defend."
Notwithstanding the red herring, armchair-quarterbacking communication between domestic law enforcement and military agencies, the real issue in this case isn't intelligence or intelligence sharing. It's naming the evil and doing something about it. Hasan's activities and mindset were known well before he became an active threat. These indicators were ignored for the sake of political correctness, so Hasan was passed like a bad penny from one assignment to another. However, the failure of any of Hasan's supervisors or commanders in his chain of command to stand up and act on information they had -- or at least should have had -- is not just "a failure of the system." It's personal and professional cowardice on the part of each individual in Hasan's supervisory and command chains.
TSA Nominee Withdraws
Barack Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, Erroll Southers, withdrew from the process Wednesday. Southers cited political opposition, saying, "I am not a politician. I'm a counterterrorism expert. They took an apolitical person and politicized my career."
Despite his virginal claim, Southers is the one who warned that the real terrorists are the Left's stereotypical view of right-wingers. "Most of the domestic groups that we pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion, they are usually survivalist type in nature, identity oriented," he explained in 2008. "Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian identity oriented."
His qualifications were in doubt, as well. Twenty years ago, Southers, then an FBI agent, improperly used law enforcement databases to access information about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend. He then lied to Congress about this blatant abuse of power.
The White House complained about Republican "obstruction," but nominating anyone for the post didn't seem to concern Obama until more than eight months into his term. The agency failed miserably on Christmas Day (and, notably, Department of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano's report to Congress, like the Ft. Hood report, avoided mention of terrorism or Islam) but TSA has managed to keep an 8-year-old boy on the "no fly" list.
ACOG Kerfuffle
ABC News has discovered that there are sinister "secret codes" stamped on many of our military's rifle sights. The shocking revelation has the Leftmedia searching for answers. To them, these secret codes are offensive and must be removed.
The codes in question are Scripture verses stamped on sights made by Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan. According to ABC News, "The biblical references appear in the same type font and size as the model numbers on the company's Advanced Combat Optical Guides, called the ACOG." References such as 2COR4:6 and JN8:12 point to Bible passages on light (the sights use available light to illuminate the reticle). The company says the inscriptions have been there for nearly three decades without complaint, and their Web site explains, "We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals."
Predictably, ABC and others screamed "separation of church and state!" Michael "Mikey" Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation declared that "it violates the Constitution." But we would remind leftists yet again that there is no mention of the term "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, we are unaware of any contract prohibition against serial numbers containing biblical references.
Certainly, this tempest in a teapot was yet another distraction we don't need. Unfortunately, Trijicon came to the same conclusion, announcing Thursday that they would remove the references from future sights ordered by the military, as well as provide modification kits for current ones.
Business & Economy
Regulatory Commissars: Obama Goes After Banks
Last week, we reported the White House's scheme to impose a so-called "financial crisis responsibility fee" (read: tax) which, according to the Treasury Department, "would require the largest and most highly leveraged Wall Street firms to pay back taxpayers for the extraordinary assistance provided so that the TARP program does not add to the deficit." (This proposal ignores the fact that nearly all the banks targeted by this tax have already repaid their bailout money.) Now Wall Street is fighting back, exploring a potential challenge to the tax on the grounds that its bank-specific, industry-specific bull's-eye makes it unconstitutional. The market responded with its worst two-day decline since August.
In classic "ignore the issue, attack the source" fashion, Barack Obama warned, "Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities." And the president might want to quit exceeding his.
Furthermore, as The Wall Street Journal reports, "responsibility" hardly seems the right term. "[T]he White House wants to tax more capital away from profit-making banks to offset the intentional losses that the politicians have ordered up at Fan and Fred. The bank tax revenue will flow directly into the Treasury to be spent on whatever immediate cause Congress favors. Come the next 'systemic risk' bailout, taxpayers will still be on the hook."
Also this week, the administration proposed adding insult to injury with further regulations on the industry with the goal of limiting the size and activities of the largest banks. The regulations would not allow commercial banks to own, invest in or advise hedge funds or private equity firms. Also, an existing cap would be strengthened so that banks would be prohibited from controlling more than 10 percent of not only the nation's insured deposits, but non-insured deposits and other assets, as well.
In other words, as The Journal so aptly explains, "Welcome to one more installment in Washington's year-long crusade to revive private business by assailing and soaking it."
On Cross-Examination
"I don't see any reason why [banks] should be paying a special tax. ... I don't see the rationale for it. ... Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress. Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don't think so." --billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren Buffet
Actually, that might solve a lot of our problems...
Nanny Statism and Consumer 'Protection'
Among the many bad ideas for the liberal Democrats' nanny state utopia was the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency bureaucracy. As a condition for Sen. Chris Dodd's dying initiative to revamp financial-sector regulations, the future former senator has broached abandoning his push for a new stand-alone agency during negotiations to secure a bipartisan deal on the legislation -- so long as Republicans agree to create an intrusive consumer-protection division within another federal bureaucracy. Some deal.
Although the Obama administration and congressional Democrats continue to champion a stand-alone agency, they have been unable to explain a clear need, mission or discernible expertise yet another new federal bureaucracy would bring to the table. Further muddying the waters, this new agency could subject financial institutions to onerous new regulations that conflict with regulations issued by current regulators, not to mention the realities of the financial industry.
Instead of creating ill-defined federal agencies, Congress should focus its energies on straightening out the regulators who failed to do their jobs and unleashed a horrible recession upon the nation. Of course, an even more effective mechanism to bottle the genie would be to retire inept congressmen who played a meaningful role in creating this calamity. After killing reforms when reform could have avoided the recession, and securing sweetheart mortgage deals for himself, Dodd's retirement is a good start. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the House version of Dodd whose district just voted for Scott Brown, should follow suit.
Culture & Policy
Climate Change This Week: Another UN Scandal
It wouldn't meet the research standards of a basic college science class, yet it was enough for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to rely on for claiming that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035. Well, as Investor's Business Daily put it, "The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It's their fraudulent claims that are melting away."
Actually, the alarm of imminent meltdown in the Nobel Peace Prize-winning report published by the IPCC in 2007 came from a 1999 article in the popular non-peer reviewed journal New Scientist -- an article which itself was based on a phone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, who has since described his views as "speculation." UN Report lead author Murari Lal was quick to shift blame, however. "We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature," he said. "The error, if any, lies with Dr. Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."
Hasnain countered, "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," and, he added, "It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers."
A Nobel Prize based on a fraud... Has that ever happened before?
Of course, propagating speculative "science" to prop up global warming alarmism is nothing new to the IPCC, whose founding principles assume "the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change." Perhaps it's fitting that the panel's chairman is not a climatologist at all but an economist and engineer. After all, engineering the facts seems to be a favorite IPCC pastime.
Faith and Family: Roe v. Wade Turns 37
Today marks the 37th anniversary of the most tragic Supreme Court decision in American history, Roe v. Wade. The primary issue, of course, remains the right to life affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.
About half of the people in the United States say they are pro-life and the other half say they are pro-"choice." How is this affiliation determined? For the most part, if you consider a fetus nothing but a blob of tissue within a woman's body, you become pro-choice. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and that life begins at conception, you are pro-life. Who is right?
It has always been evident to us, scientifically and morally, that life begins at conception. But for the last word on the matter, we consult our Creator's guidebook. The Psalmist wrote, "For You formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's womb." And then he noted, "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were written all the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." Imago Dei!
Tragically, nearly 50 million lives have been sacrificed on the alter of "choice" since 1973, and now, the most pro-abortion White House and Congress in history are in control of Washington, trying to pass a "health care" bill that funds abortions. May God grant us mercy.
Judicial Benchmarks: Federal Power and Predators
The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the federal government has the right to "civilly commit" sex offenders after they have served out their federal sentence. Specifically, U.S. v. Comstock concerns the validity of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, so named after the young boy whose 1981 murder by a pedophile led to a victims' rights movement.
As appealing as this law might look at first blush, we must remember that the issue here is not whether sex offenders should be locked up indefinitely, but whether the federal government has the right to usurp a power traditionally left to the states.
Graydon Comstock was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted of purchasing child pornography. After he had completed his sentence, the feds certified Comstock as a danger to the public and sought to extend his incarceration. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, landing the case squarely in front of the Supremes, where Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued that the federal government, which is responsible for the criminal justice system, should be allowed to commit Comstock under the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution.
This argument is a thinly veiled attempt to expand federal power. Twenty states have enacted civil commitment statutes for sex offenders, and the feds are seeking to remove that choice from the others. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out, the Framers intended the Necessary and Proper Clause to be used in conjunction with powers already bestowed upon the federal government, not take those reserved for the states. "The federal criminal proceeding is terminated," Scalia stated. "The individual is released. You could say it's necessary for the good of society, but that's not what the federal government is charged with. There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society from sexual predators."
Frontiers of Junk Science: Cape Wind May Yet Fly
As the first year of the Obama administration concludes, the list of its unfinished (and urgent) business continues to grow. One of these items is the fate of Cape Wind -- an offshore wind energy initiative -- which has been in dispute for 10 years. The tips of the 130 proposed wind turbines will, if completed, reach 440 feet above the waters more than 15 miles off Nantucket.
The opposition to the project recently lost one of its biggest (and certainly most famous) members when Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose family compound on Hyannis Port looks out on the proposed site, died last summer. Kennedy was among a group of politicians and Native American groups, who contend that the project would ruin their view of Nantucket Sound and disturb Indian burial grounds. Coincidentally, the project site is close to Kennedy's Hyannis Port and would marginally obstruct their million-dollar view -- but only on a clear, calm day.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has promised to reach a decision on the project by April, stating that renewable energy is a "top priority" of the Obama administration. The president has yet to come down on either side of the issue; perhaps he was torn between his promises to environmental groups and the significant support Kennedy had thrown behind him during his campaign.
And Last...
Can't get enough of Barack Obama? Longing for more than just the wall-t0-wall Leftmedia coverage of the Patron Saint of Big Government? Then there's a new iPhone app for you: "The White House." According to the White House blog, "The White House App delivers dynamic content from WhiteHouse.gov to the palm of your hand." Yes, now you can watch thrilling press briefings and riveting speeches like the State of the Union right on your phone or iPod touch. As columnist Michelle Malkin writes, "It's a revolution in open government! Watch the president yakking LIVE, right on your phone. He's mobile! He's streaming! Carry him around in your purse or pocket! iObama can now be with you 24/7." Unfortunately, though, there is one topic you won't be able to watch Mr. Transparency and his trusty congressional sidekicks tackle, and that's health care. Apparently, there just isn't good enough visibility for the video cameras in those smoke-filled cloakrooms.
Navigation
Subscribe
Harvard Political Review notes: "The Patriot Post is leading a surprisingly well-organized charge into the world of Internet politics." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
Patriot Headlines
- Wavering Dems in Obama's Sights on Health Vote
- House May Try to Pass Senate Health-Care Bill Without Voting on It
- With Medicaid Cuts, Doctors and Patients Drop Out
- Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes
- Gore Blames Global Warming for Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast
- Cocaine Users 'Making Global Warming Worse'
- U.S. Is Reining In Special Forces in Afghanistan
- Moody's Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating
- CNN: Coffee Party 'Says It Wants Smaller Government and Lower Taxes'
- Stevens Considers Retiring From Supreme Court
- This Just In: New HIV Infections Increasing Among Homosexuals, Drug Abusers and Prostitutes
- Immigration Reform: Terrorists Have Applied for Green Cards
Opinion
- William Murchison: Education 'Reform,' From the Top Down
- Mona Charen: Not Just One Terrible Idea, But Two!
- David Limbaugh: Without Firing a Shot?
- Cal Thomas: Private in New Jersey
- Dennis Prager: The Bigger the Government, the Less You Are Needed
- Ken Blackwell: Biden and Art of Doublespeak
- Thomas Sowell: Talking Points vs. Realty
- Debra Saunders: Obama Evokes Fear, Calls for Courage
- Jeff Jacoby: 100 Million 'Missing' Girls
- Michael Barone: Tea Party Brings Energy, Change and Tumult to GOP
- Burt Prelutsky: Straight Talk About Ron Paul and Glenn Beck
- Paul Greenberg: Things I Don't Believe
- George Will: Sis Boom Bah Humbug
- Lawrence Kudlow: Yellen Is Spellin' Future Inflation
- Ken Blackwell: Hail to the Chief Justice
The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
Seth Benson
I believe Mark Twain may have said it best, oh great and narcisstic leader, "A mediocre man is always at his best."
Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:40:45 AM
Fred
Regarding your Faith Vs. Family article in the 1/22/10 Patriot Post. I am always amazed at the liberals who support a woman's right to choose on the premise that it is her body. Where would those hypocrites stand if a woman chose, say, to auction her kidney on eBay or to sell herself on the street corner to supplement the family income? I'm sure they would be 'outraged' over such a thing. The hypocrites support her 'right to choose' only when it furthers their agenda.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:46:13 AM
Brian Ehni
I just want you to know that I regularly copy content from your digests to my Facebook account, making sure to attribute the to Patriot Post!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:02:04 PM
Terry Lee Moser
I love receiving the PatriotPosts; however, I have touble understanding why patriotism is "Rebublican" rather than "American." Does that mean that if I am not a Republican I am not a patriotic American?
That was not our Founding Fathers' intent.
Patriotism has to do with America and not with any single political party or religion or race.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:10:47 PM
Bob from Tucson
Thank God that Mr. Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are there to protect us from those Bible-thumping "Christianists" at Trijicon. Why, next thing you know, we'll be seeing explicit religious references on U.S. currency!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:26:05 PM
Keith
Since Mark spent considerable time on the impact of Scott Brown's victory, I thought it important for his readers to read what may be coming down the pike:
Friday 1/22/2010, approx 7:45 a.m.
WLS radio, AM 890, Chicago
Don Wade and Roma show with Andy Shaw, long-time ABC 7 TV political reporter, as substitute host.
Andy was interviewing Terry Moran, Nightline anchor. The discussion migrated over to what the Obama administration will do in the wake of the Massachusetts election results, when the People spoke loudly, rejecting Obama and the Democrats' agendae. Apparently, Terry's sources tell him that, fearing a decline in popularity for Obama, the president's top political advisor, David Axlerod, is planning to "repackage Obama".
"Repackage"? Repackage? As in... disguise? As in... painting stripes onto a horse to get a zebra, for example? As in... trying to hide something's true nature? Yes, that's it.
Relating to politics, does Axlerod plan to somehow repackage Obama by attaching an elephant's trunk to the face of that jackass? Would that make Obama's socialist "hee-haws" any less shrill? Or maybe Axlerod thinks that when his jackass boss, once again, stubbornly settles back onto his haunches into his socialist mudhole quagmire, Axlerod can yank on that trunk a bit and drag the pathetic jackass to the right?
Folks, this is smoke and mirrors. You can crop the ears of a jackass but it will still be a jackass.
Get prepared for some big political maneuvering ... some big ass-covering.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:27:36 PM
John Kirkpatrick
In response on the piece, Climate Change This Week: Another UN Scandal, our local paper reported that the major problem with the report was that the date was transposed, 2035 should have been 2350. The "global awarmists" were not happy....
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:28:50 PM
Keith
To TERRY LEE MOSER. Maybe I have an answer for you.
I think patriotism can be defined, from a political perspective, as behavior that supports the American way of life as outlined in our Constitution, regardless of the party affiliation of the patriot.
But if a political party's predominant ideology countermands individual liberty across a wide range of issues, patriotism cannot be found there, for if nothing else, the Founders were all about securing liberty.
Examine the entirety of the Obama and current Democrat legislative initiatives and I think you will see a common thread - forced compliance. Liberty demands freedom of choice. Forced compliance is the opposite of liberty.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:43:01 PM
Freeman Shell
I saw where the winds in CA last night were over 130 mph. I wonder about wind turbines in winds half that strong.
Red and Blue States. Going back to at least the maps from the Official Record of the War of the Rebellion (Civil War) Blue was always used for Union and Red enemy - Confederate. Captured German military maps from WWII showed Geramn forces in Blue & Allied in Red. All current US military maps use this color scheme, how did we let the MSM networks put the Blue as the good guys and the bad GOP in Red?
The Koran recognizes Christians and Jews as People of the Book (not pagans) & recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet. How could references from an approved book and a prophet of their own religion (on anything) be offensive to Muslims? Or is it just the anti-Christainity group that brought it up?
Anyone speaking of a crusade against Islam should immediately be answered with the hundreds of billions we have spent in DS I & II, post war Iraq, Afghanistan, & Somalia and Muslim receiptants in Africa. main streat Muslims still seem to regard most of Africa as a breeding ground for slaves.
There is nothing to buy in Haiti, why ship money there? (Google UN salaries) We should just send the money to Swiss banks directly.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:48:31 PM
diane
just who is paying you to write these comments??? you toot others as being bias, but your views could not be any more bias -- and reflect more toward the extreme far right agenda --- you say you are an advocate for individual liberty, but nothing you say backs that up. It's just more retoric clothed in...well political...lies and the rest of us Americans who truly understand not all issues fall into neat little packages of right or left can just go "*!?* according to your views. Sad day for freedom -- you are not "free" -- the American people are not "free " as long as you continue your perceptions and judgements from this perspective. The founding fathers understood it much more than you think - liberty and justice for "all" without prejudice!!!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:54:06 PM
Jim
So, there's a big fuss about separation of church and state concerning the scopes on those rifles.
What do they call Obama's talking about his Obamacare in church last Sunday? Is that not a violation of their spearation of church and state? If you recall, when he was on the campaign trail, both he and Hillary campaigned in separate churches in Selma, AL during the worship time. I didn't hear any complaints of separation of church and state. I also wrote a letter to the editor about them using worship time for campaigning. I guess it all depends on who is perceived doing it.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:05:19 PM
Gaylord Brown
This inept fool, Barack Obama, has wasted a year on Hillary Clinton's health program that should have never gotten out of the House of Rep's.
Now, after blaming Bush for Brown's victory, among other things, he is going to Ohio to talk about bringing jobs back to Americans.
It is my hope the people in the state of Ohio run this Marxist out of our country back to where he as born. Gaylord Brown, Klamath falls, OR
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:08:35 PM
Keith
To DIANE:
Yea, the liberty of socialist ObamaCare. The justice of cap and trade. The lack of prejudice as Obama criminalizes prosperity and punishes the generation of wealth. Is that what you think the Founding Fathers stood for?
Obama and his liberal court jesters in congress are attempting to countermand the fundamental freedoms embedded into our Constitution, and you have the temerity to call Mark Alexander biased?!
Please open your eyes and examine the Obama agendae. It is full of regulatory impositions. Tell us which Obama policy initiative(s) expands freedom of choice for all?
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:15:35 PM
Al Larrabee
The section regarding "National Security
Department of Military Correctness: Hood-winked" contains apt descriptions and remedies that apply not only to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, but just as easily apply, in toto, to the highest level, that is to the Usurper-in-Chief. The only item missing from the remedy portion is a method for removal.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:22:38 PM
Terry Lee Moser
Thanks for your response, Keith.
I agree with your statement and that's my point:"I think patriotism can be defined, from a political perspective, as behavior that supports the American way of life as outlined in our Constitution, regardless of the party affiliation of the patriot."
I wasn't a subscriber at the time of Nixon or Bush, so I don't know if this forum became politically Democratic or not, or has it been a Republican forum, regardless?
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:36:02 PM
jksisco
Americans do get it, at least those not addicted to the Obama kool-aid, the I/ME guy in the WH is a spin meister deluxe. Mr.I/ME we don't like your agenda that was spawned from the Commie/Marxist band of brothers you spent so much time with, we like Liberty and limited government, you can continue to deny that at your own political peril.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:42:31 PM
Barry
This quote
With this in mind, we suggest a starting point for commanders, supervisors and pretty much everyone else on the planet to help navigate these complex religious nuances. If someone under your command not only acts wacky but also professes a profound hatred for America -- the same America he or she, upon entering the military, swore an oath to support and defend -- rip up that person's security clearance. "Nutjob" and "hate-my-country" are excellent reasons to deny someone access to national secrets and secure sites. Next, relieve the individual of duty and bring administrative action toward a discharge. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Moreover, that privilege is not extended to those with an acknowledged hatred of their country, whatever their religious preference. Finally, have the courage to do the right thing, which is almost always diametrically opposed to the politically correct thing, for you too have sworn an oath to "support and defend."
is magnificant!
I wonder if you realize that it is an indictment of Obama and his whole coterie. While you wrote of the responsibility of the military chain of command, the truth is that it applies to those in the civilian chain of command in Washington, too.
Good work.
Cheers,
Barry
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:46:19 PM
Keith
To: FRED
I think your premise is wrong. Most liberals would probably NOT be outraged if a woman wanted to sell her kidney or sell herself on a street corner. This is because the issue of a woman's right to choose seems to be the only "liberty-based" ideology remnant they have.
The salient point here is that I believe most liberals would be outraged if the woman wanted to sell YOUR kidney and to force YOU into prostitution. It is for this reason that on this particular issue the "liberty" in liberal comes out because they are not only supporting the right of the woman to choose her own destiny but they are supporting your right to your own self-direction, without infringement by others.
But it seems to me that a dark cloud obscures that singular ray of sun in the liberal ideology. All other aspects of the liberal ideology, especially with this current crop of liberal democrats under Obama, are steeped in regulatory imposition. I know it doesn't make sense but neither do they.
If the Democrats continue to seek to run everyone's lives, and if we as a society fail to beat this back, them maybe you and I should start diets and exercise programs to become buff and therefore more attractive to the ladies. Obama might decide to force us into prostitution so we can work our tails off to pay off his debt!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:46:39 PM
Keith
To TERRY LEE MOSER
I personally don't link this forum with the Republican party. I think Mark Alexander seeks Constitutional justice and adherance as it pertains to seeking personal liberty and small, focused government duties.
If he finds what he seeks more from the ranks of the Republican party, then so be it.
I personally don't at all see it in the current makeup of the Obama administration nor in the vast majority of Democrats in congress.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:54:42 PM
David Roupe
I was glad to see your coverage of the SAFRA legislation pending in the Senate. I have been involved in the non-profit student loan industry for 24 years. It is a partnership that has worked for over 40 years. We provide superior customer service, put our profits (when there were some) back into loan forgiveness programs (especially our military)and have worked hard to have a default rate well below commercial lending. With that in mind, here's a couple of other points to consider:
This is not the time to consider nationalizing another "industry." Schools have started processing around 6 million student aid applications for the upcoming academic year -- they do not need to be forced to change policies and processes at a time when they are trying to help families pay for school.
The nation does not have to add another $800 billion to $1 trillion to add to the national debt to fund student loans.
35,000 additional individuals do not have to lose their jobs. These individuals contributed to averting $60 billion in default over the past year.
The nation does not need any reoccurrences of delays experienced in other Federal programs started in the past year:
9-11 veteran education benefits -- over 20,000 GI's are waiting for their benefits;
Cash for Clunkers -- there remains a substantial back log; and
New home buyer tax incentive -- is now being handled manually with delays of 2-4 months.
Students needing loans do not have to be added to the list of administrative mishaps.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:06:10 PM
Lawrence Loveless, RN
Let us assume that the "50 million lives offered on the alter of pro-choice" had been born. Whom would be paying for their upkeep? Tn alone has 400+ children up for adoption at any one time. Let all those who bleat for the "unborn" go out and DO something for those who have been born. When they are taken care of I'll be pro-life.
Lawrence Loveless,RN
931-510-9223
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:08:44 PM
Candace Miller
Thank you so much for your faithfulness to the Constitution and guiding us through the smoke screen of left wing guile. I especially appreciate you keeping before all the fact that there was an unborn patriot whose life was taken at Fort Hood. Keep up the good work.
Candace Miller Billings, MT
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:13:19 PM
Tina Thompson
Thank goodness "The Patriot" truthfully states that there were 14 people killed by the murdering Muslim at Ft. Hood. I have urged our Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to use his influence to make certain that Hasan (I REFUSE to refer to his rank!) is tried for killing 14 innocents. I will NOT refer to Hasan's rank, as I'm the mother of a soldier. I am frustrated that even Fox News Channel will not state that Hasan killed 14 people. Also, thanks for remembering Confederate Heroes Day. Gen. Lee and Gen. Jackson were God-fearing men, as were many other Union and Confederate troops.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:19:41 PM
Patrick Pierce
I found a line from Justice Scalia especially profound, and one that the members of Congress, the Left, and narcissist in chief Obama should take to heart:
"You could say it's necessary for the good of society, but that's not what the federal government is charged with."
Just because something would be good, or helpful, does not mean it is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Things like health care, which everyone agrees would be nice if everyone had health insurance and access to first rate health care, it is not the responsibility of the government to provide it or ensure it's availability.
Our government has far outgrown it's intended scope, and it is time to rein it in and reduce it's size greatly!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:29:31 PM
Beth Voggel
This came from a friend of mine:
THE PATRIOT MICRO CHIP is intended to be implanted in terrorists.
The implant is specifically designed to be installed in the forehead.
When properly installed, it will allow the one implanted, to speak to God.
It comes in various sizes:
<
Insert bullet pictures here
<
The exact size of the implant will be selected by a well-trained and highly skilled technician.
The implant may or may not be painless. Side effects, like headaches and nausea, are temporary.
Some bleeding or swelling may occur at the injection site.
Please enjoy the security we provide for you.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 2:36:37 PM
Cheri
In regards to Cape Wind, how exactly will these energy producing turbines disturb Indian burial grounds when they will be placed 15 MILES off the coast of Nantucket?
Are there Indians buried in the Atlantic Ocean floor?
Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:13:06 PM
Bill Sr.
When I saw that cartoon of Obama's truck at the bank the first thing that came to mind was that this was the administrations version of Waterboarding. And come to think of it it's really more evil.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:16:42 PM
billie
OBAMA -PROOF OF MUSLIM
Very interesting
Shep Smith, Fox News. If you check Obama's last trip over seas. His wife left just after their visit to France as stated below. She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. This was sent to me from a very good and reliable friend. The pieces of the puzzle just keep on coming together! Interesting.........
Travel for Obama
I was at a Blockbusters renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called "Obama". There were two men next to me. We talked about Obama. These guys were Arabs and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband..
They told me she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq .
I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia , Turkey and Dubai ."
They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his wife into countries that accept Sharia Law.
I just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at Blockbusters accept the idea that we're being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed.
They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world.
Just thought you would like to know.
*************** ***************** *******************
When I received this it made sense to me, but there were also a couple blank spots. Thus, I sent it to a friend who is a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert, Dr. Jim Murk. Here is his explanation that states a little clearer what the Arabs at Blockbuster were saying.
Bear,
"An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices shari'ah law, which includes Saudi Arabia ,. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe or at home when he went to especially Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this included his bowing to the Saudi king. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in these countries simply because he was born to a Muslim father. Note that he has downplayed his Christianity--even spoke of his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus --by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C., but simply attending the chapel or services at Camp David .
He also played down the fact that the USA was a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has also publicly taken the part of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel Finally he ignored the National Day of Prayer. He is bad newsl He is God's judgment on America ." Jim Murk
Bear: Thus once again ACTIONS speak louder than words. Check out Obama's. Do they appear treasonous to you or is it just millions of us who think so? God help us!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:29:56 PM
Pat K.
Could someone please explain how Obama inherited the problems of the Bush administration when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007?? If the Democrats were in control of Congress in 2007-2008...then why didn't they do something to stop the economic crisis that they claimed in 2009 was all Bush's fault?? Did the Dems just sit on their hands for two years so they could blame Bush...or were they just practicing being incompetent???
Bush made his share of mistakes...but for Obama to continue to blame him for his last two years in office while the Dems were in control of Congress and did nothing....is stretching it!! I would like to know what the Dems were doing in those two years to prevent the economic crisis...or did they cause it. Why has Barney Frank been allowed to remain in his position while being the lead cause in the country's economic crisis??
What Obama has managed to do in just one year overshadows all mistakes made by previous presidents!! Obama is a man beyond belief and what he has or has not accomplished in his first year would be laughable if it weren't so serious!!
Our federal government has turned into a looney bin and the biggest loons (the Dems) are running the country...and that is the fault of Americans for allowing it to continue!!! Should Americans just stand by and let the White House burn while everyone is debating who should put out the fire...because that is the politically correct thing to do??? It sure looks that way...except it appears help is on the way and with any luck this band of loons will be banished to the back halls of Congress or back home!! Hopefully...sooner rather than later!!!
Obama needs to be called out on this Bush blame game rhetoric that is getting really old. After this past year...he no longer has any right to blame others...especially Bush!! The buck stops with Obama now...the bad and the ugly....whether he likes ir or not!!!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:31:32 PM
Paula
Just want to give you a heads-up on RINO's and others who are attempting to subvert the Tea Party movement. I don't think Glenn Beck is a true supporter of what was orginally created: a Constitutional Republic. Folks like him give you about 90% of the truth then twist things... just look at his recent comments on taxes. If he were a true Constitutionalist, he would be going after the FRB, IRS and some of the 180,000 bureaucracies that devour our incomes and micromanage our lives. Not exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind...!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:39:50 PM
karl anglin
US Senator Scott Brown= Hope and Change!
Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:05:27 PM
Olivia
RE: Faith and Family: Roe v. Wade Turns 37
As a friend of mine said recently, "As a nation, we have been heart-broken about what is happening in Haiti. But if the numbers of those aborted were as much in the news, we would be utterly crushed under the weight of such news."
Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:20:49 PM
Roy MacLean
As a "Joe the Plumber" type who lives in Massachusetts, I could certainly use your help with the answer to two simple questions:
1. Where is it written in the US Constitution that the federal government has the authority to force every individual to have health insurance?
2. Where is it written in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that everyone within the state boundaries must have health insurance and pay a hefty fine if they don't have it?
I would look forward to a discussion on both of these questions.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:22:25 PM
Dr. Thomas W. Addcox
I greatly enjoy reading the excellent information transmitted in this site. Do you have any further info on the Supreme Court's acceptance of the Obama birthright case? Thanks and keep up the excellent site.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:53:48 PM
stephen nelson
The funny thing about this whole Brown episode is if the fools no the hill in Boston didn't try to screw then Gov. Romney. When all those geniuses though John Kerry would beat George Bush they changed how the replacement for a senator is chosen They screwed themselves.Which proves there is a God We here in Mass are thrilled and hpoe Scott stays who he is and doesn't turn into John McCain or Linsay Gramnasty
Posted January 22, 2010 at 5:10:50 PM
Keith
To ROY MACLEAN
The two questions you asked are obviously excellent. I'm sorry I don't have the answers but I do have some thoughts.
1. Sometimes when Constitutionality is questionable, the reason for why any particular law exists can simply be that no one has officially challenged the law in court!
2. I wouldn't profess to know exactly what clause or clauses in the Constitution may have been used or will be used to try to justify forced health care, but I would guess that it may involve some loose interpretation of the "promote the general welfare" phrase.
3. In the general case, all these questions about the Constitutionality of bad law, to me, beg the question of why legislators are allowed to pass bills into law without the bills first passing Constitutional muster. I'm sure there's some reason, but regardless of the reason, in practice, it sure doesn't seem to work well. How many people can become victims of bad law until the law is overturned in court? And there is probably no compensation for the damage due to the bad law. Seems to me that making law without a constitutional check is analogous to erecting a bridge without the analysis required to keep the bridge from collapsing and for it to carry the intended load.
I hope someone provides your answers.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 5:15:16 PM
Howard Last
I believe I know how McCain - Feingold is to work. Most politicians are crooks. If you prevent people from saying they are crooks, they will become honest.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 5:18:39 PM
JW
ACOG:
If Trijicon supplies the best product for the job, then they should be allowed to stamp whatever they want on their sights and sell them that way. That's free market. If another company can make a better one, or one whose failings are still less than having sights devoid of "offensive" references, then the interloper will overtake the business.
Until we become completely communized, the government does not have a right to whatever products it needs, and the manufacturers do not have an obligation to run special batches to accommodate such narrow-mindedness. Of course Trijicon has the right to do whatever they feel is commercially prudent to keep the military contracts, but it's heartbreaking every time someone bends to the will of these socialist/communist whims.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 5:40:55 PM
Howard Last
In the news today was the following, "The Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve."
How come no senator has asked the following two questions? Which section of the Constitution authorizes a Federal Reserve Board? When was Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 amended?
Andrew Jackson call your office.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 6:50:58 PM
Helen
I had to laugh when I read Obama's Hope & Change Haiti story. NOW, he thinks America is a great nation? He made a big todo about apologizing to other nations for the "harm" we have done? This man is crazy as a loon.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 6:51:12 PM
Howard Last
Helen, he is not crazy, just a communist trying to maintain power.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 7:02:54 PM
John Willse
Has anyone in the Federal Government considered the consequences to the potential jurors if the KSM trial is actually held in NYC? I suspect that the jurors and their families will be in danger for a long time after the trial ends. The Jihadists will swear out a Fatwah on nthem for having the audacity to judge "holy warriors". This should have been handled by a military tribunal.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 7:26:28 PM
David Bushlow
It's true Scott Brown voted for the Mass. healthcare debacle. He may have learned from the Mass. mess, and decided he doesn't want to see the whole country go the same way. l'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 7:46:31 PM
Myrl Allinder
Graydon Comstock? That's nothing.
Check out Frank Mitchell Jr. #500
at the Florida Civil Commitment Center
Arcadia, FL.. run by the FL Dept of Children
& Families
Frank is in his 8th year of confinement
without trial or hearing. He stiffed a prostitute
in 1980, served 2 years when the prostitute
cried "rape".
Upon completing a term for drugs in 2001
Frank Mitchell Jr was incarcerated at the hell-hole
in Arcadia on the "Jimmy Ryce Act".. as a sexual
predator... based on his 1981 conviction for
"raping" a prostitute
Posted January 22, 2010 at 7:53:01 PM
Michael Fontes
I believe that, as a longtime resident of Massachusetts, I can paraphrase Michelle Obama's remark, and say that for the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of my state!
Massachusetts has fired a second shot heard 'round the world, and that this virtual miracle is not only national news, but international news as well.
It is a victory of the people over a vicious and stubbornly entrenched political machine who thought they could easily seat their miserable puppet in the Senate.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 8:17:59 PM
Ken In SLC, Ut
I approach this frothing over Brown with great skepticism. And my doubt is founded on the history of great conservative Republicans giving ultimate homage to the his/her paycheck at the expense of our Republic.
Has Mr. Brown once denounced ANY form of socialized medicine as unconstitutional? All I hear from him is that Obamacare simply needs to "go back to the drawing board". What?! I'm sorry, but what part of NO do you not understand? No rewrite! No negotiating! No new twists and turns! Just ... simply... NO!!
Mr. Brown, words are cheap. You won't get my applause until AFTER you prove yourself.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 8:56:28 PM
Ann
FRED: Most die-hard, pro-abortion liberals are actually OK with a woman selling herself for sex. They have no problem with the sex trade and don't even do anything about sex trafficking most of the time.
Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:15:37 PM
Barrie Dyer
I love the Patriot Post, but please, about Glenn Beck to be featured at the "Essential Liberty Project Conference" in St. Louis. That man has been openly calling for higher taxes to pay back the explosive tyrannical empire. He is a foe to the Constitution and the people. He is, in fact, a traitor...
Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:10:36 PM
Francis Kidd
To Lawrence Loveless, RN
Perhaps Lawrence, rather than orphanages and foster care, we should kill the 400 children in TN up for adoption at any one time? If killing them is the better choice, does it really matter whether we kill them before or after they are born?
Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:11:10 PM
Ann
Barrie Dyer:
Glenn Beck calling for higher taxes?!?! What Glenn Beck do you listen to? Not the Glenn Beck I watch on Fox News at least. Glenn is an ardent advocate of the Constitution and calls higher taxes a very bad idea.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:03:04 AM
J/Tharg
Sorry... can't be for non-abortion rights. Its a womans choice. the funny part i've always found in most pubs is that they don't mind taking any life other than a childs. it may sound crass of me... but sometimes... a lot of times... its more merciful to abort than it is to extend. Which by most people i know who hunt wild critters (also alive... but not human) is the most merciful thing you can do should you participate. No the woman didn't have to participate in the "hunt" but at the same time the one's who abort also didn't forsee 18+ years of child. My guess is if my dog knew what was gonna happen when i hooked her up to spike... she would have said no and soundly beat his butt... instead she is an animal who had them and took care of them and has absolutely no idea where they are going. just that they won't be HERE. Be nice to have that as a human because all the people providing the fact that life is precious and should never be harmed are NOT at the forefront for taking all the kids that people don't "want" so its kinda like saying... you shouldn't buy that big screen TV but since you did i won't take it and you had BETTER pay for it ... even tho you didn't order it delivered to your house on purpose...
course i'm sure relating children to TV's will get a huge response... lol. analogy people... analogy... (sigh)
Its easy to say what other people should do when you aren't willing to pick up the slack of thier choices. If you ain't willin to take the kids they want to abort... (and pay for the )(^&(*()& pregnancy) then shut the hell up and take care of your own spawn. I don't say that out of spite... i wish more people would be responsible and only get preggers when they had the backing of a family. Thiers and the extended family. Just not the reality these days it seems but i'm not willing to tell other people how to live thier life which Obama has been trying to do and supposedly every pub from here to everywhere is against it *unless it has to do w/ a woman's choice* on havin a kid.
Me and my mom got in BIG arguments about how the govt money went to women to train them about what happens when you get pregger over a male... my point was a male doesn't have to carry it for 9 months... doesn't have to "give it up" for adoption or chose to abort it before then... just where does a male's responsibility come in? I'd like to THINK way before he had sex... but hey... none of you are THAT nieve no matter how you believe. (spelling hitters pop me... :))
not gonna convince no one... don't 'spect to... just sayin ... we ain't all the same.
-J/tharg!
Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:30:27 AM
Frank Leslie
As long as the Constitution is suspended, civil rights are denied, and state duly trained and licensed civilians possessing concealed firearms are prevented from carrying on stateside military installations, those installations will remain guns free zones and potential massacre sites as we witnessed at Fort Hood.
The report to Secretary Gates will not fix the problem, only force lower level accountability.
Department of Homeland Security's "Active Shooter Response Protocol" will only result in more deaths should another event occur similar to Hasan's.
Hasan had approximately 180 seconds before he was faced by an armed responder. How many of those he shot were shot within those 180 seconds? We may never know. How many less would have been shot had a duly state trained and licensed concealed handgun carrying person had been in the SRP at the time? We will probably never know that answer.
But as long as those in authority positions expect people to act like sheep in these kinds of situations, more will probably die.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 4:11:05 AM
Lise'
I really enjoy your emag, but you should know I am an atheist and I believe in the right to abortion. The reasons I agree with a lot of what you say is because it's common sense. I don't have a problem with your religious beliefs because you have the right to believe. I do have a problem with your abortion beliefs because if you weren't born with a uterus, you should have no say in the matter. Two seconds of bliss in my body doesn't give you the right to say what happens to my body for the next nine months.
Thanks for everything else you have to say though, I enjoy it very much.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 8:08:39 AM
Daniel Sorenson
The two pro-choice comment contributors ignore the absolutely crucial question which must be asked in regards to abortion and instead attempt to steer the argument into irrelevant areas such as the plight of the mother, the number of babies up for adoption, supposed overpopulation, and more. However, the CRUCIAL and only relevant question is this:
In an abortion, WHAT is it that's being killed, or "aborted"?
This question is crucial. The fact that the thing being killed is biologically ALIVE is beyond question. So, the question is of its nature. What is it? Is it human, animal, vegetable? If the living thing in question is NOT human, then no justification for killing it is necessary; kill it, eat it, plant it, cook it in soup. It shouldn't matter. If, however, the living thing in question IS human, then NO justification is sufficient. Actually, the answer to this question of what this living thing is should be nearly as the question as to whether it is living or not. It IS human. It is a human organism at an early stage of development. It has human DNA, human brainwaves, and more. Like a human toddler is at a comparatively early stage of development when compared with a human adult, a human embryo or human fetus is at an earlier stage of development than a human toddler. The embryo or the fetus is undeniably human, and any legal protection that is taken away from it logically threatens human rights as a whole. And yes, any intentional killing of this very young human being who has been convicted of no crime is indeed murder.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 9:12:40 AM
William D. Best
Technically (per US code) I believe the Ft Hood incident is an act of war, not terrorism as the targets were military personnel. To be a terrorist act the targets have to be civilians.
Of course the Major should be shot no matter how you look at it.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 10:47:11 AM
John McClain
When the federal government is considering taking over powers which have "traditionally" been state powers, it is good to remember, they didn't accidentally get put in the "State powers jacket", when powers were being handed out, but were specifically directed to their place, by elected public servants, pursuant to the law.
If there be any doubt on this issue, this definitively puts this as a "taking" of authority the federal government does not have, or it would have been allotted those powers when they were established. It is only now, when one would have difficulty finding five members of Congress who believe the Constitution still is a "controlling legal authority" over the central, once federal government, that such usurpations are considered routine, and most often go un-exposed, far less opposed on principle, as they should be.
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Vanceboro, NC
Posted January 23, 2010 at 11:32:30 AM
Keith
To: John McClain
You make some good points about Federal government usurpation of powers. My question to you is then what is the message? Have we uncovered a weakness in the entire government structure as built by our Founders? Or perhaps is this just an example of too many rotten apples in congress spoiling an otherwise functional system? Do we need additional controls at the federal level to prevent this?
Though I believe our government structure is the best constructed in the history of man, I also know that even a perfect system can be corrupted by corrupt people. If "code" or "language" doesn't presently exist within our government documents to block these corrupt Democrat usurpers, then the obvious solution is to acknowledge the deficiency and correct it, so we can block them. If these Democrats are acting outside their lawful boundaries as presently codified, then I would say that they are criminals in the same vein as a thief, for they are trying to steal our liberty, and they should therefore be arrested and prosecuted. And if for some reason, they are immune or shielded from arrest while they are in office, then perhaps that in itself is a deficiency that should be corrected as well.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:05:09 PM
Neil B. Normandeau
Dear Sirs, Over the past couple months I have recieved via the Internet several interesting articles concerning Obama's birth origins, etc. Leading me to think along with millions of others that he has no legal right to even sit as the President of the United States. The latest of these emails had to do with some reports that stated he entered the University of Hawaii as a Barry Soretoro or something similar to that. It asked some penetrating questions about what Passport did he use to make his around the world tour at around the age of twenty shortly after he arrived in New York penniless? Could someone in your office tell me if these reports are actually correct and ongoing? It claimed the U.S. Supreme court had agreed to look into or have a formal hearing on the validity of Obama's U.S. Citizenship. Yet I have heard nothing about any of this over the news outlets. Not even in "The Patriot", which surprise's me. I highly value your work with your publication and I read it faithfully and spread it's word far and wide! Please keep up the great work. Sincerely, Neil B. Normandeau of Montana
Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:50:35 PM
ozzyboy
Good job on reporting and explaining in a way that we can understand. Scary as the news may be although a little less so now with the Mass election. Thank you.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 2:58:00 PM
W.T. Door
Hood-winked. Mark, you know the Navy and the Armed Forces organization; so you know damn well that as the article correctly points out, there's a very serious leadership problem here. Did see a news item reporting that SECDEF Gates said that quote the military isn't sufficiently prepared to prevent similar attacks in the future and that as many as eight Army officers could face discipline for failing to do anything earlier end quotation. Obviously the officer corps is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. If they try to take appropriate action, they hit the political correctness barrier, and if they don't act, they're threatened with UCMJ punishment.
Posted January 23, 2010 at 7:35:50 PM
George Saines
I participated in the Right To Life March on March 22. The media has not said a word about the 200,000 people there. Perhaps you can get a photo of the huge crowd to display and a short write up . I have been marching the past three years and am disappointed that we are being ignored .
Posted January 23, 2010 at 7:51:01 PM
Bill
Abortion. Pro-choice. A woman's choice. She has a right to control her own body. Why? She didn't create it. She had nothing to do with its conception. She didn't choose her parents. She had no control over the care provided thru infancy and childhood. If she had been aborted, or dumped in a trash can as an unwanted pregnancy result, she never would have reached puberty. Isn't there a responsibility to good parents who would be good grandparents? Instead of control over her body, shouldn't it be proper care for that body, because it's a gift?
Posted January 23, 2010 at 8:18:57 PM
Dr. Norman L. Barrow
We hear incessant complaints about the decisions coming out of the WH. What should we expect from the cadre of adolessants Obama has surrounded himself with?
Posted January 24, 2010 at 12:05:55 AM
Rita Millman
It's bad enough that we have to see the President on TV more than any other president in history, but who in their right mind would want to be able to see him 24/7?
Posted January 24, 2010 at 10:18:55 AM
Backgammon
J/Tharg
Women HAVE a choice!
A Choice not to have sex
A Choice not to have unprotected sex
A Choice not to get drunk and not know what's up
A Choice to give a child up for adoption
Those are excellent choices
Figures a man would rant on about a woman's choice
Posted January 24, 2010 at 10:30:52 AM
terry goodwin
Browns' victory is good for the Country.
Beware of the Punishment from this Usurper in the coming months.
He needs to re-establish his power over the Country now more than ever ie; the new Taxes on the Banks and Wall Street.
The Brown victory has hurt the Dems. very badley and they need to re-assert their control.
True the tragedy in Haiti was terrable, but the place was a Rat Hole to begin with. We now have another Entitlement Debt that will cost in the Billions over the next Five Years--at your Expense, and We will get nothing in return.
Posted January 24, 2010 at 11:43:22 AM
norman earley
As the SCOTUS was eager to delve into the lst Amendment, would like you to comment on their past refusal to hear the case of the 10 Commandments under the religion part of the 1st. Also their refusal to hear the case of the petition clause of the 1st that was brought by We The People and Bob Shulz. Thanks.
Posted January 24, 2010 at 6:28:39 PM
Neal Rudin
They have gone too far and we are no longer a democracy. Corporate Plutocracy, as with Stalinist and Nazism means the people have lost to the greater power. Unlimited spending by those like MOBIL ($45,000,000,000 profit last year) now own this country. We have been "Borked" by the caner of unmitigated greed.
Posted January 25, 2010 at 9:33:34 AM
John T. Griffin Jr.
IT'S NOT JUST THE VIEW! Please check all the facts regarding the widespread & legitimate opposition to the Cape Wind Project in Nantucket Sound. First, study the chart (map)to appreciate why the location is inappropriate. Next, consider the hazards to maritime and air navigation plus the known degradation of air traffic/defense and surface radars caused by these huge turbines. Barnstable and several other Cape towns; the Hyannis, Nantucket & Martha's Vineyard airports; every major ferry operator; the Coast Guard; commercial fishermen; local Native American tribes, and on and on, are on record in opposition. The FAA has classified it as a "presumed hazard". Look at the aberation of the "DONUT HOLE" of federal waters in the middle of the Sound which allowed Cape Wind to claim the locus at no cost because of the lack of any specific jurisdiction. The Sound is largely landlocked. The turbines would cover about 25 square miles of pristine waters (about the size of Manhattan) barely 5 miles off of the Cape's beautiful southside beaches, not out in the ocean somewhere. This is an industrial powerplant. The fog horns and strobe lights on the towers will disrupt, not only the view, but sure won't be conducive to a good night's sleep for those who live near the southern shore of the Cape. This is not just NIMBY, it's a really bad idea.
Posted January 25, 2010 at 11:32:41 AM