Friday, November 06, 2009

Apparently, only Republicans would attempt to honor those murdered at Ft. Hood

Rosa's Cafe put a note on its Facebook page showing respect for those who were murdered at Fort Hood yesterday.  Check out the very first response.

Happily, nearly all of the following comments piled on her (except for her followup reply which says, in total: "hahahahahaha. wow.").


(Click to view full-sized image)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wonder if Ms. Covington is in general agreement with the fine, upstanding citizens who displayed this banner at an antiwar rally back in 2003:

If so, then Rosa’s Cafe is well rid of her business.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

“24” Season 8 trailer

In my opinion, 24 is one of the few oases in the blighted wasteland that is network television.  Here’s the Season 8 promo that premiered during the first game of the World Series:

(Found via Dark Horizons via BibChr)

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

New Jersey, Virginia vote for change; conservatives almost pull off NY-23 upset

Highly partisan George Stephanopoulos, to whom ABC News turns when it wants nonpartisan political analysis, described Democrat Bill Owens’ NY-23 win as “a big loss for Sarah Palin” this morning.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, which saw Obama-endorsed candidates going down, should not be seen as referenda on the president, White House mouthpiece Robert Gibbs insisted:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday that voters went to the polls in Virginia and New Jersey to work through "very local issues that didn't involve the president." The presidential spokesman said voters were concerned about the economy.

And yet, the NY-23 race was supposedly all about Sarah Palin.

In the real world, it’s amazing that the Conservative Party candidate almost pulled it off, given that the Republican dropped out and started campaigning for the Democrat.

The message of the NY-23 race is that many conservatives are tired of being part of a political party that can’t shake the habit of putting forth candidates like Dede Scozzafava.  If the GOP becomes a little more reluctant to do this in the future, I will consider the NY-23 race to be a victory.

Creepy compilation

We haven’t seen many new examples of Obama reverence lately, now that the president’s halo is showing signs of tarnish.  Still, it’s useful to see a compilation of videos reflecting the messianic expectations that so many have had for him.

FWIW, I’m not completely sold on the “Hear us” segment.  Many are certain that the people are saying “Hear us, Obama”, but to me it could just as easily be “Hear us, O God”.  That’s bad enough, since it implies that they see Obama as God-sent.


UPDATE: John Nolte at Big Hollywood has many more, most of which I had not seen before.

Monday, November 02, 2009

“Former” VP Biden, the gift that keeps on giving

Too bad this was just a brain burp on CNN’s part. 

This is from a CNN article today reporting on the ongoing efforts by Democrats to help Bill Owens overcome the surging candidacy of conservative Doug Hoffman.  Even though alleged Republican Dede Scozzafava is now campaigning for the Democrat, Hoffman currently holds a five-point lead over Owens in the latest Siena College poll.

The CNN article also relates this howler from our esteemed Former Vice President (emphasis added):

"We aren't asking you to switch your party," Biden said at a rally for Democrat Bill Owens in Watertown, New York Monday morning. "We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party."

Tell us, Former Vice President Biden, about how famous the Democrats are for permitting dissent within their party in recent years.

Quick Quote: Thomas Jefferson on nanny government

And now, a word from the founder of the Democratic Party:

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

– Autobiography, 1821

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (74)

Friday, October 30, 2009

Sarah v. Mitt, Mike and Mike

Grant Ellis at American Thinker notes that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Mike Pence – all named as potential candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination – have all refused to take sides in the congressional race for New York’s 23rd district.

Ellis goes on to say this about Sarah Palin’s unashamed endorsement of conservative Doug Hoffman:

You have to look no further to see why conservatives are so passionate about their support for Palin. Regardless of the arguable notion that she has yet to fully mature, she commands a degree of respect that eludes all others currently on the conservative scene. The reason? She is unwilling (and perhaps unable) to couch her views in muted, plausibly deniable tones. Regardless of the outcome of NY23, Palin wins. She drives debate. She leads. She is "out there" when and where others fear to tread.

C’mon Mitt, Mike and Mike – show us why you’re more worthy of the conservative vote than Sarah is.

(Via Texas for Sarah Palin)

Newt digs his heels in, scolds conservatives for demanding that the GOP stand for something

GOP savior-wannabe Newt Gingrich is confident that a future GOP majority containing the likes of Dede Scozzafava is a goal worth spending what’s left of his political capital.

He’s so confident of this, he’s willing to wag his finger at conservatives who think that the Republican Party ought to stand for something.  The Hill reported October 27:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a "purge" of the GOP.

[…] "This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.

This is such a worn, clichéd argument. Gingrich’s ridiculous hyperbole (“we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent”) is unworthy of him.

Gingrich is fighting a straw man.  Are there any prominent conservatives saying that 100 percent agreement is a requirement for their endorsement?  I’m not aware of any.

Does Gingrich think there any principles worth drawing a line in the sand and saying: I will not vote for any candidate that crosses this line

What if there was a candidate running on the GOP line who agreed with Newt on every issue, with the teeny, tiny little exception that he supported the right of neo-Nazis to gas all Jews in America?Would Gingrich scold conservatives for backing an independent candidate against this Republican? 

If not, then I have no choice but to conclude that he doesn’t consider any of Dede Scozzafava’s negatives – such as her enthusiastic support of the right to kill one’s preborn child –  to be troubling enough that he would withhold his endorsement of her.

So, Mr. Gingrich: Should we support anybody that manages to snag the Republican nomination, no matter what they believe?  What price should we be willing to pay to regain a GOP majority?  Should we care how that majority will govern, or is gaining and maintaining power the highest value of the GOP?

Monday, October 26, 2009

Newt packing his bags for an ego trip?

Newt Gingrich continues to drop hints that he’s considering a run for the 2012 GOP nomination.  The latest comes from an October 25 appearance on C-SPAN:

When asked what factors would help him decide one way or the other, this is how he replied:

"Callista [his wife] and I are going to think about this in February 2011. And we are going to reach out to all of our friends around the country. And we'll decide, if there's a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there's not a requirement, if other people have filled the vacuum, I suspect we won't."

Mr. G, you’ve alienated so many of your conservative admirers through your bizarre choices in recent years (such as when you swallowed whole the premises of the global warmists, or when you wholeheartedly endorsed a Republican candidate who is more liberal than many Democrats in the district she seeks to represent).  Whatever you mean by the bizarre phrase “requirement as citizens that we run”, you can’t possibly be anticipating the acclamation of conservatives.

Get a clue, Newt.  The reason you’re getting so much media time now is that the left sees you as a means of fomenting disunity on the right. 

Please.  Ignore the voices in your head, and focus on the reality of your situation.  This isn’t about you.

(Via Politics Daily)

Friday, October 23, 2009

Dems in Congress have no clue about the constitutional basis of their power

A reporter for CNSNews has been asking prominent congressional Democrats: Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance? 

All of the proposed health care “reform” bills have this mandate, so obviously the majority think they have the power to  make the purchase of a product a “condition of lawful residence in the United States” (in the words of the Congressional Budget Office, which notes that such a move by Congress is unprecedented).

Of course, no such power is granted to Congress, but you wouldn’t know it asking congressional leaders.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer thinks that the health care mandate is no different from a general tax law:

Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

Hoyer compared a health insurance mandate to the government’s power to levy taxes, saying “we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes.”

The section of the Constitution Hoyer was referring to, Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes, but not the purchasing any type of product or service. The opening paragraph of Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes to, among other things, “provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy simply asserts the authority:

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"

Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

CNSNews.com: "I’m asking—"

Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is flabbergasted that anybody would question Congress’ power to legislate as it pleases:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated [sic] that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

The question obviously caught Pelosi by surprise, and her answer amounted to “Who let this guy in here?” Later, her staff gathered its wits and fell back on Congress’ old friend, the omnipotent ‘Interstate Commerce Clause’:

Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Okay, I’m convinced.  How about you?