Confederate Yankee
April 27, 2010
Military Hive Joins BlogAds Initiative
You may (or may not) have noticed in your time here that CY is on both the Conservative Blog Hive and Military Blog Hive on BlogAds, which specializes in blog advertising (such as those ads you see in the margin).
The
Military Hive and the Economics Blog Hive are part of a new initiative to draw in advertisers and support blogs (and bloggers) that sometimes get passed over in favor of larger media buys. Henry Copeland has the official word on the
BlogAds Blog which explains things better than I can.
Once the kinks are ironed out and the beta period is over, this program will be rolled out to other 130+ blog hives and their bloggers.
Good luck, everyone!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:35 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Updated: White House, HHS Hid Report Exposing Cost of Obamacare
This merely confirms the fact that Barack Obama and his administration chose to deceive and defraud the American people in order to further their statist goals:
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."
The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."
58% of voters already support repealing Obamacare. News that Obama and his allies deceived the American people by hiding this report will only push that number higher, while it simultaneously adds to the number of Americans who simply won't trust an Administration that has proven itself to be inherently corrupt and deceptive.
Update: Actuary denies the report was delayed. My thoughts on what this denial means are
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:34 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
According to ABC News, Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says this isn't true.
Posted by: TB at April 27, 2010 05:29 PM (aAMbh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 26, 2010
Breitbart: Audio Shows John Lewis, Andre Carson are Liars
He's right, you know.
If they weren't lying they'd stick to their guns instead of
trying to hide or change the subject. There is a certain amount of disgust one must have for Civil Rights veteran John Lewis, Andre Carson, and other Representatives and hangers-on of the Congressional Black Caucus who apparently hoped to incite Tea Party protesters, failed, and then later decided to lie and claim racial epithets were hurled because their attempt at bigotry trolling failed.
John Lewis, who spent his life presumably fighting for equality, now seems little better than racists such as David Duke, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton.
Indeed, it's amusing to watch liberals
fume and
huff over Duke's most recent comments about the Tea Party, but absolutely
refuse to address the cesspits of racial hatred of their own
racially-exclusive caucus and it's most recent orchestrated attempt to smear law-abiding citizens peaceably assembled to protest flawed legislation.
Until these faux liberals can admit the racism in their own midst, admit that minorities can be racist, and indeed, that some of the minorities who are the worst offenders hold positions of power in this Democratic Congress in general and the Congressional Black Caucus in specific, then they are simply not worth our further time or attention.
Breitbart has exposed real racists on Capitol Hill. Watch the liberals scatter as they try to avoid admitting that the bigots and liars are their own ignorant brethren.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:16 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As painful as it may be to uncover the bankruptcy of the CBC's leaders, this is an important moment for America as it signifies the transition to a post-racial society.
Most are misled in believing the status of post-racial occurs following the removal of race from discussion. Instead, the post-racial condition occurs when everything becomes racist. Derrida recognized this emergence through his famous deconstruction of Rousseau, Levi-Strauss and Saussure by uncovering the intrinsic phonocentrism in their thought and criticism of writing, but furthermore realizing that the criticism of writing was present in both binaries (writing/speech). Racism is equally inherent in all aspects of our society. Unable to un-remember the concept of race we apply to the human object, the equalizing alternative is to realize that everything is racist.
Lewis, Carson and others were correct to "hear" racism in the glances, utterances, chants - regardless of what was said or imagined. Race is in every facial expression and every word expressed. But they may not realize that this same racism is equally expressed in their thoughts, motions, and accusations as well. Nothing cannot be racist today. From an infant crying to the shuffle of Robert Byrd's feet, all invoke the racist violence imminent in our mere existence. Condemned to universal racism, humanity's again free to grapple with this condition that privileges no skin color, no ancestry, no economic class. In the era of Obama, we are all both master and slave.
My genuine appreciation to the CBC for allowing us to arrive at this transitory moment. America, we're all racists now. Now we may move on to new challenges.
Posted by: Hatless Hessian at April 26, 2010 10:33 PM (7r7wy)
2
Audio Shows John Lewis, Andre Carson are Liars
Technically speaking, audio "shows" nothing.
Also: Worse than not being a post-racial society, American is devolving into an oligarchy-ruled post-consumer society. Who cares about the oligarchs... but if we're not consumers, Americans have no identity at all!
Posted by: Miss Kublik at April 27, 2010 11:12 PM (8kQ8M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Framing the Coming Immigration Battle
"'Nobody wins' on immigration reform" blares the Politico headline. And they're right... immigration reform
shouldn't even be an issue until immigration enforcement is rock-solid.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party prefers lax immigration enforcement and prefers to have a high influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border, regardless of crime they bring or the drain on social services meant for American citizens. These illegals naturally gravitate towards the politics of the party that will grant them the ill-gotten services illegal immigrants need to survive here, instead of forcing them to return home.
Democrats hope to then convert these millions illegals into Democratic voters by offering them amnesty and citizenship without terms.
Sadly, many Republicans seem scared of championing enforcement efforts out of political cowardice, fearing they will be branded racists... and to a certain extent they are correct, as illegal aliens and their Democratic allies have tarred every supporter of enforcement as bigots.
But respect for American values and law is on the side of the right, and this is a fight that must be waged.
Liberal Democrats are attempting to work this building political battle by casting it as a reform effort.
Conservatives and independents need to make sure that they speak the language of the enforcement of laws and respect for legal residents. Legal citizens far outnumber the coffer-draining tens of millions that the Democrats would conscript as political allies.
Americans respect the law, and revile criminals that steal from the hard work of others. Every illegal alien is a thief, taking services meant for American citizens and legal visitors to this Republic.
Republicans must wage a battle to secure the finances and manpower to enforce existing laws, and make certain that this is the battle that is waged. Democrats don't want reform. Democrats don't want to protect our nation's borders. They desire power, and they don't care how many citizens are denied services or are forced to pay more than their fair share because of these foreign invaders.
We demand that the government builds an effective physical border that makes it far more difficult for illegals and drug runners to invade out nation without detection. We required that it be staffed with as many law enforcement officers as it take to capture those trying to sneak into our nation. We will accept no amnesty. Any alien captured should be stripped of their assets to pay for the cost of deportation. Employers that refuse to comply with existing laws against hiring illegals must be shut down.
We don't need "reform" that only enriches the electoral hopes of Democratic party politicians. We need real enforcement that stands up for the rights of all Americans.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You're ignoring the businesses that depend upon the cheap labor, that's one big reason the Republican Congress did zip about immigration when Bush was in office. It's not as simple as Dems like undocumented workers, Reps don't.
And it's easy to talk about a huge wall and as many police as it takes to patrol it, but I don't see any mention of how you'd pay for either thing.
There are real costs to the citizens of the USA associated with your immigration policy, ignoring them won't make them go away.
Posted by: Jim at April 26, 2010 07:49 PM (TNxYU)
2
This unmatched chaos caused by decades of unimportance as seen by both political parties over illegal immigration. In this firestorm of an issue we need to enact immediately the following measures to stabilize our nation’s immigration enforcement. This is specifically come to the surface after the bloody murder of Robert Krentz, rancher and landowner, with the upsurge in deaths of border Patrol agents and illegal aliens. 1. Deploy the National Guard permanently--fully armed along the border from San Diego, CA to Brownville, Texas. 2. Make it a felony with prison time for any employer not using the computer application E-Verify, to identify all workers on the payroll. This program will improve nationwide impact of self-deportation by ATTRITION, over the coming years for unlawful labor. 3. To terminate decades of unprecedented billions of dollars of debt for support of illegal immigrants on taxpayers. Read what Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has to say about what taxpayers are forced to pay for 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants at--THE DAILY CALLER WEBSITE.
Reestablish the legality of instant citizenship to babies born to an illegal parent or parents in federal court. 4. Make absolutely sure that any incumbent of both parties, starting with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is thrown out of office this year. Send this searing message to--ALL--pro illegal immigrant, Pro-amnesty politicians that America will not stand any longer lawmakers that are for sale to the highest bidder. 5. Those elected will re-fence the border as two separate barriers, with an open tracking area in between for the movement of National Guardsman accompanying the US Border patrol with full funding. That lawmakers who are supposedly there to represent every citizen and permanent resident possessing a green card, appropriate the money to seal the border from illegal entry. That these same elected officials have already spent $445 Billion dollars in taxpayer’s money in supporting some distant foreign government in Afghanistan; they therefore can easily appropriate funds for the correctly designed border fence.
As a patriotic people we will voice our vehemence that we will join the war against any type of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. That contains in any shape or form a citizenship path, for those who stole into America. THERE WILL BE NO AMNESTY--NO PARDON FOR CRIMINALS WHO IGNORE OUR LAWS. We are not the financial, free-handout for foreign labor, which cannot support those entering America illegally. Arizona is the first state with a backbone that has been financial crippled by welfare payments to illegal alien families. Its undercurrent caused by the rising crime rate never seen to this extent before. Violence on a grand scale has flowed across the Rio Grande from the illicit drug industry. Exhaustion of the local police in Phoenix and other communities unable to handle the daily homicides, kidnappings, home invasions, predatory smuggling people and the narcotics trade.
Any state, county city, town or public servant that boycotts the exceptional state of Arizona, should be black-listed. Hopefully--Americans will donate (however small) money to Arizona if the Governor Jan brewer gets sued. Perhaps a good patriotic American will arrange a website for everybody to give money in the immediate future? If and when it happens my check will be waiting...? If that happens Americans will boycott companies that hire illegal immigrants and that I will add--ONE--company hiring foreign labor to my blogs.
NUMBERSUSA--is the website for the legal people of this country, so you can fight this illegal immigrant epidemic--with over a MILLION--members. We are here to tell the--TRUTH--not lies or well-honed rhetoric as the Far-Left liberals, hidden inside the Democratic Party, not from the Liberal editors of national press at the, Huffington Post, New York Times or the Los Angeles Times and others.
Posted by: Brittanicus at April 26, 2010 09:17 PM (Kc4uK)
3
While I have mixed views on Arizona's new law, the basis is, from what i can tell, that Arizona is getting pissed that the feds are not their job properly. And Arizona has every right to be pissed about it. Arizona should not be forced to guard its own borders when that is the Fed's requirement. And the Feds don't want to fund adequate border protection.
Neither the democrats or GOP really want to crank down on illegal immigration, whether they be from Mexico, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe or Eastern Europe. Too much for them to lose, prices will rise for a lot of services the politicians use themselves, and they don't want to pay the higher prices.
Posted by: Penfold at April 27, 2010 10:35 AM (1PeEC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Can Irony Be Fatal?
If it is, we'll be ignoring the funeral of Matthew Yglesias later this week.
Here's a free hint, kid: don't talk crap about someone being a shill for ideologically-driven publications and think tanks when that sums up your entire resume. Your bosses might find you ungrateful...or they may giggle over the fact you're a malleable idiot utterly lacking in self-awareness.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:19 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
No nepotism in Yglesias's career, and his book publisher, Wiley,is general interest, not an ideological niche publisher. No easy gigs lined up on tv or talk radio, and the magazines he writes for aren't rolling in dough from Rupert Murdoch or the Olin Foundation. On the plus side, he doesn't have to pretend Mark Levin has a brain. So far so good for his argument. On your side, you manage only to notice that Yglesias tends to write and work for liberals. That would be the beginning of a case, not the whole of it.
either. Not much in the way of shilling either. Your works for a liberal think tank, but otherwise the parallel falls down. No nepotism, and Wiley, his book publisher, There's a lot less scratch to go around on the liberal side, which reduces incentives for shilling
Posted by: Kyle at April 26, 2010 08:50 AM (ML+Hg)
2
Kyle: YGBSM. It's an open secret that most foundations prefer to fund lefty causes and think-tanks, and it's interesting that you drop the names of Rupert Murdoch and the Olin Foundation while completely ignoring George Soros, Ralph Nader, and their small army of lobbying organizations, "media watchdogs" such as Media Matters, and other such liberal opinion outlets. The Juice Box Mafia may not be rolling in dough, but none of them are hurting for cash, either. Overall, you get a 3/10 for this miserable attempt at a troll; points deducted for the lousy editing job. Preview before you post next time; it'll keep you from looking quite so befuddled and incoherent.
Posted by: wombat-socho at April 26, 2010 05:40 PM (5FuMB)
3
Doubleday's an ideological niche publisher?
Posted by: H. G Fielding at April 26, 2010 07:42 PM (aMLx7)
4
Irony is lost on lefty trolls.
Matty works for TP(ideologically-driven blog), funded by CfAPAF(ideologically-driven big money organization), and it is
EXACTLY what he is slamming.
Posted by: JP at April 27, 2010 01:51 AM (VxiFL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wannabe Cop, Wannabe Assassin?
Sunday afternoon law enforcement officers arrested an armed Ohio man who said he wanted to meet President Obama. Was this a poorly-organized murder plot?
An armed man spotted at a North Carolina airport parking lot just after Air Force One departed Sunday told an officer he wanted to see the president and had a car equipped with police gear, including a siren and flashing lights, authorities said.
Joseph Sean McVey, 23, of Coshocton, Ohio, is charged with going armed in terror of the public, a misdemeanor, said Asheville Regional Airport Police Capt. Kevan Smith.
Security was heightened at the airport because President Barack Obama was leaving after spending the weekend vacationing in Asheville. He was headed to a memorial service for 29 West Virginia coal miners killed in an explosion.
At about 2 p.m., airport police saw McVey get out of a maroon car with Ohio plates and that he had a sidearm, Smith said. Both airport police and the Secret Service questioned him and he was taken into custody. The suspect was nowhere near the president's plane, which had just departed, and was in a rental car return lot that is open to the public, Smith said.
His car was equipped with clear LED law enforcement-style strobe lights in the front and rear dash, Smith said. The car also had a mounted digital camera in the front window, four large antennas on the trunk lid, and under the steering wheel was a working siren box. Smith said McVey was not in law enforcement.
"Going armed in terror of the public" is a bizarre and quite frankly idiotic North Carolina law. It is legal to carry a weapon openly on your hip in North Carolina,
until it scares someone. If someone complains, or feels threatened for any reason at all (even if the person carrying the gun is making no threatening mannerisms or gestures) then cops can charge the otherwise legal gun carrier with going armed in terror of the public.
It is a stupid law, and the only law that I aware of that converts an otherwise legal activity into a crime based upon a third party's irrational fears instead of criminal behavior. North Carolinians have been trying to repeal this law for years, but a gun-hating Raleigh Democrat has bottled up in committee in the state legislature.
Anyway, going armed in terror of the public is a odd law to bring against a potential assassin, so the most rational explanation for it is that cops wanted a reason to hold on to him so that they can further investigate McVey's background and determine how much of a threat he might be, or if he even is a serious threat.
I'm not sure what the laws are regarding impersonating police officers, or if McVey ran afoul of other firearms laws, but I imagine we'll her more later today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:25 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe they just thought his name sounded like a white, right-wing terrorist.
Hey, who's the gun-hating Raleigh Dem?
Posted by: rivlax at April 26, 2010 08:23 AM (abvHg)
2
Bob, GATTTOTP a common law crime that goes all the way back to the thirteenth century. We just happen to be one of the few states that still recognize it. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a "nervous nelly" crime -- you have to be doing something that a reasonable person under the circumstances would consider directly threatening, like waving a gun around and screaming that you're gonna shoot the next gov't SOB you see. It doesn't sound like anything this guy did was per se illegal unless he directly represented himself as a peace officer. I'd think that he'll probably walk if he gets a decent lawyer.
I will send you some more info by email.
Posted by: Joe Hooker at April 26, 2010 09:13 PM (p7hIc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 25, 2010
Agents of Incompetence, Part IV
What do you do when you can't apparently justify claiming a toy is a machine gun?
Misdirect!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:27 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
April 24, 2010
Welcome to the Freak Show
I'll eventually have to head out to the Bay area on business, and while I'm there, I think I'll have to sign up for the ZomGuide Walking Tour.
Seems to kind of be like a walking tour of a zoo, only with more a exotic and bizarre collection of specimens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:55 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Enjoy our homelessness, violent leftards, a crashed economy, and megawealthy liberals.
Posted by: Federale at April 24, 2010 09:01 PM (hTgaS)
2
Yes, enjoy the gun toting leftist who in their hatred for all that is conservative may assault without provocation! But more importantly, enjoy the diversity which is emblematic of one of the World's most fascinating cities!
Posted by: Steve Schwab at April 25, 2010 07:05 AM (5h8aJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Remember, Remember...
Jim Treacher has spanked Michael Scherer for his bed-wetting in Time's Swampland over the new (and brutally effective) ad from the Republican Governor's Association and their new site, RememberNovember.com.
Scherer bleats:
The politics and substance aside, this strikes me as a remarkable bit of political messaging, not just for its cinematic quality. The RGA, under the control of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is clearly stepping out of the stodgy, safe territory it normally inhabits. It is aiming to tap into the vast well of anti-government fury now coursing through the nation. Who would have guessed that Barbour would embrace the symbolic value of the same would-be mass murderer as the Wachowski brothers?
It's amusing to consider how the left absolutely
adored the anti-government message of
V for Vendetta when it came out during the start of George W. Bush's second term as they attempted to portray him as a fascist, but are now offended that anti-statist rhetoric is proving effective against the real statist bent of the Obama Administration and the corrupt liberal Congressional leadership.
There isn't anything, of course, remotely close to a call for violence in the RGA message, just a rallying cry to raise funds for electoral justice.
That liberals such as Scherer are reduced to trying to message an effective ad into something else is merely a measurement of just how effective the ad truly is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I presume Scherer is outraged at the use of iconography in the ad. Such anger could only come from someone who had seen, and perhaps fetish-ized, V for Vendetta.
For him to suggest that "November" is a reference to anything other than the mid-term election is ludicrous. Some Americans may know who and what Guy Fawkes was, but I doubt one in a hundred would know that his plot happened in November.
I'm a history guy, and I would never have made any such connection to the RGA ad, and I don't think the RGA's target audience is going to make that connection, either.
Scherer is a tool.
Posted by: Russ at April 24, 2010 12:27 PM (7r11k)
2
And I would add that Guy Fawkes Day is November 5, not November 2, Election Day, which the ad clearly references- "Eleven Two."
Posted by: Bohemond at April 24, 2010 04:15 PM (d62gZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2010
Brewer to Hopey McChange: Eff Off
I'm sure you heard it elsewhere first, but Arizona's legislature passed a bill requiring law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally. the bill was in more or less direct response to the federal government refusing to do their job of defending the border.
Arizona governor Jan Brewer had three options today:
- veto the bill
- let the bill pass without signing it
- sign the bill
It was rumored that Brewer wasn't in favor of the bill and may have even wanted to veto it, and she was certainly getting a lot of pressure to do just that. At
most, there was an expectation that she might allow the bill to become law without signing it.
And then Barack Obama had to open his mouth, calling the legislature and people of Arizona "misguided," and made the not at all subtle threat of directing his Justice Department to see what they could do to overturn it.
Obviously, that didn't sit well with Governor Brewer, who decided her citizens needed real hope and change,
not empty rhetoric:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a controversial bill that seeks to crack down on illegal immigration.
The sweeping measure will make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It will also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.
It takes effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.
Before signing the bill, Brewer called the measure "another step forward in protecting the state of Arizona."
She said the bill "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix -- the crisis caused by illegal immigration."
That Brewer signed the bill—and chose to follow up the signing with the rhetorical shot across Obama's box—seem to be in direct response to his attempt to bully the Governor into vetoing the bill.
One of these day he might learn to keep his mouth shut when all it can do is get him in trouble... but I doubt it will be any time soon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:07 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He can't help himself. Being Teh Won and all.
Posted by: Maxx at April 23, 2010 10:49 PM (bFNvP)
2
Papers please.
Is this the way we really want to go?
Fire away!
Posted by: Larry at April 24, 2010 05:41 AM (VeO75)
3
What the hell! We don't need no steenkeen laws!
Just throw the gates open and let any and everyone in.
How about we just mirror Mexico's immigration laws?
What could be more fair than that?
Posted by: maxx at April 24, 2010 09:29 AM (bFNvP)
4
I want to move to Arizona.
Posted by: Chevy at April 24, 2010 09:30 AM (pZRbs)
5
The best part of all this is that Obama put Brewer in office. Good work, Baracky!
Posted by: Pablo at April 24, 2010 02:24 PM (da62L)
6
Papers please.
Is this the way we really want to go?
Fire away!
Posted by Larry at April 24, 2010 05:41 AM
So checking health insurance papers for American citizens is ok, but checking to see if someone who doesn't speak English is in this country illegally is not?
Just what kind of crap are you trying to pull? As if we didn't know.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 25, 2010 02:17 AM (yTmCE)
7
If I were Larry, I'd burn my driver's license and passport. It demeans and diminishes him each and every time someone asks for ID.
Posted by: Pablo at April 25, 2010 08:31 AM (yTndK)
8
I really wouldn't want to be pulled over and be asked to prove that I'm here legally. As far as I know, you can get a driver's license while being an illegal alien, so that isn't going to cut it as proof. I'm not about to start carrying my birth certificate around in my wallet.
Although, if I have to choose between that and open borders with no way to deport the illegals... I guess I'd choose to carry around my birth certificate. If the government would just do a better job of securing the border, we wouldn't be in this awkward position.
Posted by: Rusty at April 25, 2010 12:46 PM (uVv+L)
9
For the past ten years or so, I've been carrying my passport when I go to the polls, partly in silent protest against the fact that we do in Texas issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, many of whom don't even speak English. Think for a minute how you would feel if a non-English speaking non-citizen struck your car with his and left the scene. Fat chance you'd have of getting him to pay damages. He'd be long gone while you were still dragging your bloody body out of the wreck.
I like having a passport. My ancestors were here before this country was officially the United States of America, and I was born 82 years ago into a country which still respected itself and its citizens. Now we give driver's licenses to any old invader who crosses our border illegally and sets up shop and signs up for food stamps.
I'm with Gov. Brewer on the bill she signed. I just wish/hope/pray that Texas passes one too, as well as New Mexico and any other border state that does not yet have the protection of a border fence to keep out the drug cartels and other violent aliens.
This isn't a pinochle game, folks. It's life and death. It also isn't rocket science. Every other civilized nation in the western world has armed guards along their borders to protect them from invaders. Maybe each state should use its National Guard forces to protect its borders.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at April 25, 2010 04:17 PM (Aaj8s)
10
As far as I know, you can get a driver's license while being an illegal alien, so that isn't going to cut it as proof.
According to the law, it certainly will. It is one of several documents that will rebut any reasonable suspicion an officer once have. Flash your license, ID card, passport or green card and you're good to go.
Posted by: Pablo at April 26, 2010 10:45 AM (yTndK)
11
I know you're not really supposed to, but I have copies of my birth certificate and my social security card in my wallet along with my driver's license. I wouldn't mind at all if (assuming someone had reason to suspect I wasn't an American citizen) someone asked me for proof. Seems to me that it works the same way as guns or profiling on airplanes, legals shouldn't mind and should, in fact, be grateful.
Posted by: Kat at April 28, 2010 01:25 PM (H0eO1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obamacare Kills 2,500
Jobs, not people... at least for now.
The Sallie Mae layoffs are a direct result of the student loan takeover Democrats shoved into Obamacare.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:08 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You could have quoted this part of your link for a little perspective:
"The law strips the middleman role in student lending away from banks. It's expected to save at least $60 billion in fees that went to banks to process government-backed student loans.
That's $24 million per job. Now pretend for a moment that Obama had just done the opposite and hired Sallie Mae to oversee the Federal Loan Program, hiring 2,500 at a cost of just $60 billion tax payer dollars. You'd freak, and rightly so.
Posted by: Jim at April 23, 2010 08:06 PM (TNxYU)
2
Obama will just hire 50,000 new Federal employees to replace the 2,500 lost private sector jobs.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 23, 2010 10:50 PM (1OIFn)
3
2,500 lost private sector jobs that were paid for with Federal tax dollars.
Like I said, if Obama had created those 2,500 private sector jobs at Sallie Mae with a $60 billion stimulus bill you guys would not be impressed. Sometimes you need to take a deep breath and admit that even a Congress and President you dislike does something that makes good fiscal sense.
But again, if you have an argument for why $24 million per job is a good deal for we taxpayers I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: Jim at April 23, 2010 11:25 PM (TNxYU)
4
Jim, for heaven's sake stop the apples to kumquats comparison. Only one labor category effected? Only one SWAG at jobs lost? Sheesh!!!!
Posted by: CoRev at April 24, 2010 09:55 AM (0U8Ob)
5
Jim, let me add, that the original layoffs were for one company only. They project that the total should be nearly 1/3 of their total employment. One company's estimate, only!
What will you say when the Sallie May budget is expanded over that $60B?
I shall repeat, Sheesh!!!!
Posted by: CoRev at April 24, 2010 10:04 AM (0U8Ob)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Shock to None: Democrats Lied About the Cost of Obamacare
Most Americans knew that the unrealistic constraints placed upon the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) by the leftists that authored the bill meant that the CBO cost estimate of Obamacare was a fantasy.
The Health and Human Services Department
just confirmed what we've known all along:
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
It should be worrisome, but hardly unexpected. Democrats sold their political futures on cheap rhetoric and top-down bullying against the will of the majority of the American people.
There is a price to pay for that, and we'll know the exact cost in November.
Update: Obamacare's cuts to Medicare are already
adding to health care costs in Kansas.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:56 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Even this "Estimate" is absurdly low. 1% of total cost over ten years is only $100 billion dollars. This does not include the "Doctor Fix" or the fact that they save $5oo billion from Medicare but spend it in other new programs! Doc fix is $250 B + $500B (Not saved from Medicare)+ $100B in newly discovered cost = $850B loss over ten years that the liars in DC forgot to tell us about.
Posted by: insectorudy at April 23, 2010 11:11 AM (Vo1wX)
2
I don't think anyone can really estimate the cost of this program. When they were pushing Medicare 40 years ago, the cost was estimated at a level that is now something like 10 times greater. I can assure you that to maintain the current quality of the system in the coming years, the cost will be excessive. The only way to reduce the cost will be at the expense of quality and rationing.
Posted by: David at April 23, 2010 03:30 PM (jHK8i)
3
I think Purdue has just proposed the same cost cutting measure as Kansas.
Posted by: gruntle at April 23, 2010 05:53 PM (762Lm)
4
This was known before health care reform passed.
Over the next decade, the Affordable Care Act expands coverage, and offsets the cost with a mix of new taxes and spending reductions. It's not supposed to control costs over this time. It will provide coverage to some 30 million people who don't have it, while only expanding total spending by less than one percent. That's what it's supposed to do.
Then, after 2019 the cost controls kick in and the total spending on health care will be reduced. Conservatives are attempting to draw sweeping conclusions from only half of the available information and make it fit into their anti-HCR talking points. An honest criticism would acknowledge the fact that this information was known a year ago and include post-2019 cost projections.
This demonstrates the "epistemic closure" of the conservative mind we've been hearing so much about lately.
Posted by: jm at April 24, 2010 11:51 AM (3cFcY)
5
jm,
Exactly how is the bill going to reduce cost? Do you have any idea of the complex nature of medical economics? I have seen first hand the "reduction" in cost associated with the limited interference of the Feds. The cost of the program will grow to the point that it will bankrupt the country. No matter what the bill says or the assurances of our great politicians. To believe otherwise is very naive.
Posted by: David at April 24, 2010 12:46 PM (jHK8i)
6
Jim has no idea how price controls will somehow control costs. His arguments are, fundamentally, just playing a shell game with words. With the ultimate goal of single payer--which also will not reduce costs until health provider price controls are put in place. Which will complete the destruction of the finest healthcare system in the world.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 25, 2010 02:20 AM (yTmCE)
7
So Jim has no idea how the bill will save costs, but the True Patriots (TM) on the right do?
Please. At least be consistent with your lying.
Posted by: ChrisJ at April 26, 2010 12:05 AM (jsQWZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Make Way For The Space Marines
I'm not expecting it anytime soon, but the concept is slick:
After decades of unsuccessful development, military space planes are finally getting some respect. On April 19 the U.S. Air Force plans to launch the X-37B, an unmanned space plane that will circle the planet a classified number of times before making an autonomous landing. (Popular Mechanics profiled the effort as the magazine's cover story in April.) The idea of a pop-up reconnaissance platform, to be used if a satellite is not available or is disabled, is an importantrationale for the Air Force's project.
The Marines' space plane takes the Corps' slogan of "first to fight" to the extreme: It could transport a squad of Marine riflemen to anyplace on earth within 2 hours, and then extract them after their mission is complete. Though the goal is appealing—imagine delivering well-armed Marines at hypersonic speed to a suspected Osama bin Laden hideout or besieged embassy—the concept seemed outlandish to many when it was first proposed.
Now, this sort of response time would be incredible, but think about the possibilities of how this hypersonic vehicle can be integrated with other technologies in development, such as micro-UAVs, load-bearing armored exoskeletons, ultra-high velocity kinetic weapons, and ever-shrinking smart weapons.
HALO vs. al Qaeda... could be interesting.
Update: More hyper-velocity future weapons at
Ace of Spades.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:31 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I love this concept. Combine this with the Land Warrior project, and you get real-world Mobile Infantry.
Posted by: Dixie at April 23, 2010 01:38 PM (j1/6L)
2
This is indeed getting close to a true MI capability.
I want to see the Y rack launcher for pocket tac nukes ! Al Quaeda in a cave ?
Posted by: GreyOne at April 23, 2010 09:20 PM (aNtyu)
3
NEWS FLASH: this idea is -in terms of predictable success- right behind behind the concept of the USAF using nothing but bio-diesel.
We'll see a reusable single stage to orbit booster before we see this crap in the real world.
Posted by: Casey at April 24, 2010 05:40 AM (V4F6M)
4
Not enough to have, must be willing to USE also (use to finish, not play tag with)
Posted by: tracycoyle at April 24, 2010 11:28 AM (gorkw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 22, 2010
An Updated Southern Strategy in the City of Brotherly Love
Philadelphia, you're... something.
17 years ago, Tom Hanks
played the role of a real-life gay man (Geoffrey Bowers) attempting to survive AIDS and bitter anti-gay bigotry in 1987.
In 2010, incumbent Democrat Rep. Babette Josephs is cynically attempting to use homosexuality in her bid to stay in office... in a rather unusual way:
Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district.
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, "and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
Josephs' attempt to brand her opponent as not gay enough is just a slightly more palatable form of bigotry than that that drives supremacist groups around the world. Certainly, nothing in Joseph's remarks can be miscast as a call to violence, but her message is clear,
he isn't one of us, and he can't be trusted.
So much for tolerance.
(H/T
Allah)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:32 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I lived in her district when she was first elected. I remember that some of her campaign materials were downright manhating - it was clear that she had no intention of representing me.
She has a real problem with men.
Posted by: Amphipolis at April 23, 2010 09:27 AM (s4cjM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Did Obama Lie About His Role In Selling His Old Seat?
An improperly-redacted copy of a subpoena issued by the defense in United States v. Rod Blagojevich sure makes it look that way. What the subpoena alleges Obama did is at odds about what he claimed publicly.
We know Barack Obama lies. What we don't know is whether or not he has been dumb enough to get exposed as a criminal as well. I certainly hope not.
The thought of "President Biden" is almost too much to bear.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:50 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm not so sure. While Biden has been a reliable liberal and generally wrong on every major issue before Congress during his tenure, there is little evidence that he is a socialist true believer intent on destroying democracy and capitalism. He might well be better than Obama, though it would surely be a matter of degree.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 22, 2010 04:53 PM (qjRSd)
2
Oh yea. Like this would change anything if true. We had another president lie, er, mistate the truth, and look what it got him.
Posted by: Trent at April 22, 2010 05:01 PM (XBUdh)
3
Who would that be Trent? I trust you are talking about William Jefferson Clinton.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at April 22, 2010 06:33 PM (npl/7)
4
CY - I would have to agree with mikemcdaniel. Biden would be controllable because he is a stumbling buffoon that very few would take serious, and Harry & Nancy would think him easy to manipulate. His boss though is a whole different animal - he is evil and a pathological ideologue that is systematically tearing down this country so that he can rebuild it in his socialistic/statist vision.
Posted by: mixitup at April 22, 2010 08:22 PM (Z21cb)
5
bring on Biden..... he's an improvement over Ear Leader.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 22, 2010 09:58 PM (d1FhN)
6
Biden is responsible for VAWA, which is designed to ruin lives and eliminate liberty. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Pablo at April 22, 2010 09:59 PM (yTndK)
7
Given that it would likely be in concert with Vice-President Pelosi, I wonder how long President Biden would reign before he was suddenly found ... deceased.
Posted by: Wayne at April 23, 2010 09:25 AM (i3tSP)
8
If you want to be kept up at night worrying about the line of succession, think about president Nancy.
Joe Biden may be dumb as a box of rocks, but he's malleable. And he passes my "would I have a drink with this guy" test. Obama surely does not pass that test.
Given that Congress will almost certainly be in better balance after this year's elections, Biden will not be nearly as great a threat to our liberty as Obama is.
Posted by: John of Virginia at April 23, 2010 09:31 AM (66Mw5)
9
I see no reason why Biden would choose Pelosi to be his VP. And Biden would be too happy talking all the time to actually do anything. Which is cool with me.
Posted by: buzz at April 23, 2010 03:27 PM (GmELZ)
10
buzz, Nancy already is in the line of succession: No. 3 as Speaker of the House.
If Biden becomes president, until he gets a Veep, she's next.
Posted by: John of Virginia at April 23, 2010 08:32 PM (66Mw5)
11
Amen to that, as one of Ann Coulters titles to her commentary "Joe Biden Assassination Insurance". If one thinks Obama has handlers, wait for President Biden. I doubt Biden could tie his own shoes with-out someone doing it for him.
There was a reason he was one of the most senior Senators and his own party would not give him a chairmanship on a committee. That is unheard of. I never understood that pick. If I was a conspiracy nut who assume things with-out any evidence I would think it was some plot to set-up a puppet, or insure Obama stays inline.
Its not like he was not going to get reelected from all indications. Something just has never smelled right about that pick, unless Obama really is that stupid. If he lied to federal investigators, then I would say he really is dumb to pick Biden.
Posted by: Brian at April 24, 2010 08:37 AM (DxNnw)
12
I just have one question. Where is Rezko???
Posted by: dgj at April 24, 2010 09:42 AM (g/BUt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
File This Under "Duh." Tea Party Protesters More Peaceful Than Left Wing Protesters
Over at Newsbusters Candance Moore highlights a Christian Science Monitor story that notes Tea Party protesters may be getting preferential treatment because they are far better behaved than the left-wing rabble that typically bring violence to protests.
Predictably, the
CS Monitor laments that the preferential treatment afforded to Tea Party protesters isn't fair, and may be unconstitutional... though they don't really do a good job of explaining why treating each protest group based upon the makeup of the crowd and their threat potential is anything other than common sense police work. Instead they cite "experts" and activists that try to claim that the police may be engaged in "viewpoint-based discrimination," which would mean they establish and enforce rules unevenly based upon whether or not they agree with the protesters.
They ultimately fail to establish that this bias is anything other than a pet theory, however, and leave the field open to the more logical conclusion that police agencies see less violence potential out of a group of mature adults than a crowd of militant 20-something anarchists.
The media is left labeling common sense as bias.
How far they've fallen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:24 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The cops don't need to enforce the rules at Tea Party protests because the Tea Partiers are already abiding by them. You only need to enforce the law when they're being broken.
Posted by: Tim at April 22, 2010 12:01 PM (xq7pr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Other 95%... Seriously?
The so-called "Coffee Party" organized by Obama propagandist filmmakers was a farce. I don't know if it is even still around, but what is certain is that friendly media was unable to make that astroturf grow into something to counter the Tea Party movement.
Not content to crash and burn just once, desperate Obamaphiles have attempted to bring back the Coffee Party under another name, with a different group of professional activists pushing a slightly different message. "The Other 95%" reveals the desperation of the far left as we approach the November elections.
It's pretty bad when your best attempt at faking bipartisanship grassroots support is an effort fronted by a professional far left radical
basing a group on a lie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:59 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
April 21, 2010
AZ House Passes Anti-Birther Bill
I doubt the state has the legal authority to ask candidates for birth certificates, but let's grant that it does for the sake of argument.
When asked for proof, Obama will merely turn over the same certificate of live birth that he's previously shown,
and that meets the standard the Arizona House requires.
Whether by intent or incompetence, this is an anti-birther bill that will validate any state's recognized birth certification document as evidence of eligibility to run for President.
Can you say, "d'oh"?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:15 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Since the Constitution requires a natural born citizen, why would it be illegal to ask for proof? Not arguing this, just not sure I understand the why of the statement that you speculate and I've seen others state as fact. If it was proof of age, would it seem illegal? If so, then how is it that we get asked for proof of age for all types of activities, like driving, buying beer/cigs, or firearms as examples.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at April 21, 2010 09:22 PM (nas9l)
2
I dunno, this sounds like a reasonable exercise of state powers under the Constitution. To my knowledge, the states--with no federal interference--have always set the requirements for appearing on the ballot, and almost every state has a different set of procedures.
I frankly think it should be somewhat difficult to get on a state's ballot for President of the United States. It keeps the Naderites and Mickey Mouse Party candidates busy for months.
Posted by: David at April 21, 2010 09:27 PM (bv1hq)
3
They clearly do have the right to do so, just as they have the right to set other ballot access criteria (fees, signatures, party certification, etc).
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 21, 2010 10:02 PM (IEZXW)
4
I agree that the State of Arizona has the right to do this. I believe all candidates should prove that they meet the requirements of the position they are running for as a matter of course. As for a Certificate of Live Birth being legitimate (for all the Birthers out there), I believe it is or at least can be. I say that because that's what I have, and I was born at the Naval Air Station Hospital in Memphis, TN. The fact that he has a Certificate of Live Birth instead of a Birth Certificate proves nothing.
Posted by: Jim at April 22, 2010 05:54 AM (YTe8V)
5
I think this is an excellent move, though it should have specified an original document or a document that has more info than an abstract of the original document, which Obama has presented so far.
Posted by: Federale at April 24, 2010 09:04 PM (hTgaS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So Dumb, Even a Caveman Wouldn't Do It
Let me pass along a bit of common sense that apparently never occurred to actor Lance Baxter: if your career hinges on the public liking you—or at least not being offended by you—it is probably best that you don't call them names:
Actor Lance Baxter, otherwise known as "D.C. Douglas," currently known as the man who informs you how much GEICO can save you on car insurance, left a message last month with FreedomWorks in which he asked the group how many "mentally retarded" people it had on staff and what it would do when a tea partyer "killed someone." On April 14, FreedomWorks put his voicemail online.
Let me explain this very clearly for the whining Mr. Baxter and his would-be defenders. As an American, you have the freedom of speech. You do
not have the right to avoid entirely reasonable responses to the speech you decide to exercise.
Baxter chose to take actions that led to a response by the target of his ire, which was entirely within their rights. GEICO, likewise, was entirely within their rights to dump Mr. Baxter, who could not control himself and made an outburst that could cause the company financial losses.
Freedom isn't free, it requires responsibility and knowing that you may be required to pay a price for your convictions.
Mr. Baxter has now learned that lesson.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:54 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's how you do it, son.
Posted by: EC at April 21, 2010 12:17 PM (mAhn3)
2
That's called putting your tongue in your paycheck......fair dinkum!
Posted by: WARREN at April 21, 2010 12:24 PM (Clyj2)
3
Talk about vindictive. Politics today has become very heated and it was dumb of this guy to leave that voice message, but I think you cross a line when you try and get a guy fired for expressing an opinion.
Posted by: Tom at April 21, 2010 12:39 PM (WiU5D)
Posted by: DaMav at April 21, 2010 12:43 PM (QNU76)
5
to make it clear, my 'Amen!' was directed at the OP, not the 'cross a line' stuff.
The line was crossed by Baxter when he called us morons and accused us of inciting murder.
Sarah Palin put it so well: "We are not going to sit down and shut up!" Amen again.
Posted by: DaMav at April 21, 2010 12:46 PM (QNU76)
6
I think it's a bit early to say that Baxter has learned anything. I suspect he may never learn.
Posted by: Russ at April 21, 2010 12:48 PM (7r11k)
7
I read his press release (per the link) but didn't understand the reference to anti-gay language at tea parties. Was he referring to the anti-gay behavior of the White House and the intimidation and questionable removal of news media from public property during gay protests against President Obama?
Considering we've been to tea parties in Omaha and have had gay and minority friends we know also participating, I'm perplexed as to where this observation is coming from. Certainly the left isn't being racist in calling someone anti-gay that's not? That in itself creates and sustains binaries that continue the oppression against minorities.
Posted by: Hatless Hessian at April 21, 2010 06:38 PM (7r7wy)
8
I don't remember exactly how he said it, but Thomas Sowell said that if you think free speech cannot have consequences, go home tonight and tell your wife she needs to lose a little weight.
Posted by: Paul Gross at April 22, 2010 09:49 AM (UEQr+)
9
Politics today has become very heated and it was dumb of this guy to leave that voice message, but I think you cross a line when you try and get a guy fired for expressing an opinion.
Speech begat more speech. There's is nothing wrong with that. Maybe you should blame GEICO for firing him. Pardon me while I decline to join you. I'm busy being unhappy with them for joining a boycott of Glenn Beck for expressing his opinion.
Posted by: Pablo at April 22, 2010 10:02 AM (yTndK)
10
Politics today has become very heated and it was dumb of this guy to leave that voice message, but I think you cross a line when you try and get a guy fired for expressing an opinion.
So if a spokesman for a company with which you do business insults you, you should just keep your mouth shut.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 22, 2010 10:32 AM (9SrGF)
11
This is a case of free speech working perfectly.
Baxter by all means had the right to express his opinion that people who want smaller government are a bunch of retards who may kill at any instant.
Similarly, tea party members have the right to express their opinion that they don't want to buy insurance from a company that employs that guy as a spokesman. After all, continuing to employ him can be regarded as silent approval of his opinion.
So then Geico has the right to decide whether they consider his employment worth the potential lost business, and then express their opinion that they prefer to have tea partiers as customers rather than tea party bashers as spokesmen.
Posted by: plaidunicorn at April 22, 2010 12:43 PM (8Phn7)
12
I'm sure I've heard this phrasology before but for some reason this particular story finally made it stick:
The "free" in "Freedom" does not mean "without cost, consequence, or responsibility."
Posted by: DoorHold at April 25, 2010 12:10 PM (WgbAH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Love Unrequited
Yesterday, six gay-and-out military veterans handcuffed themselves to the fence outside the White House as a way of protesting the Administration's handling of "don't ask, don't tell" provisions they'd like to see struck down. The police response was to bum rush the journalists covering the unfolding story, forcing them away from the protest in what appears to be a clear violating of First Amendment rights.
The
outrage on left-wing blogs to this totalitarian behavior is as shrill as it is predictable, as is the blubbering of left-leaning new organizations. Both campaigned for Obama, championed him, fawned over him, and in return, they've been rejected and marginalized by his Administration time and again.
The sad thing is that you know they'll come crawling back for his approval like whipped dogs.
How pathetic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:06 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The news media is like a politician. Once bought, they may (did I say may?) stay bought. But don't worry, they will soon have a Republican in the white house to try to destroy.
Posted by: TimothyJ at April 22, 2010 09:47 AM (IKKIf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 57 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.348 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3343 seconds, 101 records returned.
Page size 82 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.