Tiller Killer

Two months ago I posted this article on baby killer George Tiller and how political corruption allowed him to continue his evil trade.

Earlier today, Tiller was shot to death in the foyer of his Church in Wichita, Kansas.

There is no question that his murder was wrong. You'll see no attempt to justify it here on this blog. While I believe Tiller was a murder and will pay for his sins in hell for all eternity, we have a judicial system for taking care of murderers. Sometimes it works. Sometimes, as in the case of Tiller, it does not. When it doesn't, there is no justification for taking the law into your own hands.

I understand the frustration.

Two months ago, the State held a mock trial to make a show of finding TIller innocent of breaking the law, even though Tiller never tried to hide his violations of late term abortion laws.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Obama made a show at Notre Dame of trying to find middle ground on the abortion issue, even though his actions are aimed at increasing the number of abortions.

While motives and justifications of the suspect have not been released, more than likely the killer was a misguided individual who felt frustrated at what Tiller has done, as well as what he represented.

Walking into a church and killing Adolph Hitler might have saved millions of lives, but it would still have been wrong.

Walking into a church and killing Joseph Stalin might have saved millions of lives, but it still would have been wrong. 

Similarly, killing Tiller was wrong, no matter how many lives it may save.

I would hope that those on the left who are condemning this as an act of terrorism, would look at William Ayers, the Black Panthers, the Daily Kos (which advocated the murder of George W. Bush), and Wanda Sykes in the same light that they are looking at the Tiller Killer.

Health Care Crisis ... Part 1

The left has everyone convinced that there is a health care crisis.

In fact, during the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain was so scared that he would lose votes over the health care "crisis" that his staff had to come up with their own health care plan, because he believed he would lose a significant number of votes if he didn't.  And he was probably right. The American people now believe we have a health care "crisis."

In fact, when politicians refer to the health care "crisis," there is never any question from the media (MainStream or otherwise, for the most part) about whether or not there even is a crisis. The only question is how to solve it.

I'd like to submit that there really is no crisis in health care.

There are problems and issues.  They can be solved without the government taking the whole system over.  But there is no crisis.

My first point in this argument (against a crisis) is that most people who do not have health insurance have chosen not to have health insurance.

That, of course is a generalization, and you probably wouldn't have to look far to find an exception or two. But I think the generality is accurate.

Of course, there are many ways you can make a choice. Sometimes your choices are consequences of other choices. For example: If you choose to screw off in high school and not go to college and have no basic skills that would allow you to hold down a decent job, you've essentially made a choice to have no health insurance, unless you qualify for "welfare health care."

Other times, a choice is a matter of priorities. Some folks choose to have three cars in the driveway and makes sure their kids have four video game consoles, and that everyone in the family has cell phones, goes out to eat 5 or 6 times a week, that there are 500 cable channels on the 5 household TVs and that there is a large library of CDs, DVDs and iPods in every kid's backpack ... and there just isn't money left to pay the health insurance premium. That's still a choice.

Some folks play the odds game. They decide that at age 30 and in good health that the chances they'll need to spend a couple of thousand dollars for health care is low, so why spend a couple of thousand on health insurance premiums? Again, a choice is made.

I know that most people who don't have health insurance and who have made choices that leave them without insurance think we have a health care crisis. It's too bad they've made the choices they've made, when they could have made better choices.

What's even sadder is that they've convinced everyone else that they don't really have a choice.

I Have A Dream...

White House: North Korea Not A Threat

The strategy on North Korea at the White House seems to fluctuate on a daily, or even an hourly, basis. Obama called the rogue nation a "regional threat" after its missile launch in April, and this week declared the nation a threat to global peace. Now Obama's national security advisor James Jones says that they are not an imminent threat at all. 

I guess I don't understand the world of geopolitics. I would have presumed that a nation that was testing nuclear weapons, testing missiles to launch nuclear weapons, and that has a history of demonstrating that its leadership is not only itching for war, but is also likely mentally unstable ... I would presume that nation might be a threat to someone. 

We have 25,000 soldiers in the immediate area, and thousands more Americans, including civilians within reach of their missile capability. In fact, as I pointed out a few days ago (in a post very much worth reading, I might add), North Korea's missiles can reach well into the interior of Alaska, and even to its more populated South Eastern coastal region, even though their accuracy is probably not good.

So, I guess I'd have to say that I'm very, very happy that North Korea is not a threat. 

I'm also happy that we no longer have a war on terror, that Gitmo detainees are no longer terrorists and that all is well. In fact, when I read the information coming out of the White House, I'd say the United States is in the best shape we've ever been in, both economically and from a security standpoint.

Anyone with me on this?

.... Hello?

Home Bible Study Is Illegal In San Diego

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Guess What's Offensive Now

Debbie McLucas comes from a patriotic family – her husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military, and her daughter is currently deployed to Iraq on her second tour of duty as a combat medic.

So when McLucas arrived at work at a Texas hospital last Friday, she was stunned to be told that the Stars and Stripes she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day were offensive, and that the flag had been removed.

“I got into work, I was met by my supervisor and told that there had been multiple complaints, that people found the flag very offensive and it had been taken down," McLucas told FOXNews.com.

"I went to the office to retrieve it and found the flag wrapped around the pole, sitting in the corner on the ground. I was speechless."

McLucas, a supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, had displayed the 3-by-5-foot flag in the office she shares with the hospital’s three other supervisors. McLucas said one of her colleagues, a woman who immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago, complained about the flag to upper management, and the hospital decided to take down the flag.

"I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down," McLucas said.

Another Obama Scandal Brewing

Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Republicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.

The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan learned from a House colleague that his Venice, Florida, dealership is on the hit list. Buchanan also has a Nissan franchise paired with the Chrysler facility in Venice.

"It's an outrage. It's not about me. I'm going to be fine," said Buchanan, the dealership's majority owner. "You're talking over 100,000 jobs. We're supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs," Buchanan told News 10, a local Florida television station.

Buchanan, who succeeded former Rep. Katharine Harris in 2006, reportedly learned of his dealership's termination from Rep.Candace Miller, R-MI. Buchanan owns a total of 23 dealerships in Florida and North Carolina.

Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor. 

A lawyer representing a group of Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force," said attorney Leonard Bellavia.

As part of Chrysler's bankruptcy agreement with the White House, the company plans to close roughly a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships. Many dealers contend the criteria being used to determine which dealerships survive is not clear and that many of those that are being closed in fact are profitable businesses, despite the current recession while competitors with less sales and worse customer satisfaction ratings are remaining open.

No More Americanization

Melissa Clouthier writes the following column for RightWingNews:

The impulse is to say Soto-may-er. But that wouldn't be correct. The proper pronunciation is Soto-may-YOUR and with a opening of the mouth to get the proper fullness and roll of the tongue. 

Sigh.

Remember when people Americanized their names? Partly, it made their names easier to say. Mostly, people just wanted to be American. Fully American.

When the in-laws came from Italy, Italian was most certainly not spoken. They were Americans and they spoke English. In the second generation, that would be grandma who is 92, there is not even the remotest hint of Italy in her voice though she is only the second generation here in America.

Not so now with some folks. Oh no. Acculturation is akin to living in the closet and hiding your ancestral glory. Much better to keep the Puerto Rican accent even though you've grown up on American soil.

My uncle is of Mexican descent. He speaks Spanish and knows five dialects. When he speaks English it is not Spanglish. It's English. It is not English with the twang of Spanish hovering over him. I dare say, if I asked him if his Mexican heritage makes his judgment more stellar, he would say no. I'm quite sure he wouldn't say that being a man makes him smarter. And yet, he finds a way to integrate his Mexican heritage and embrace his history.

Generations of Americans have done this. They know the language of the old country. They keep certain traditions. But they were eager to be American. They were eager to Americanize their name, even. It was symbolic. It was a blessed gift to have this country and people were proud to be a part of it. A shortened name meant becoming new and American.

So, while President Barack Obama can say Pak-ee-stahn correctly and every newscaster is embracing his inner Latina pronouncing Soto-may-YOUR with relish, I just see more of an effort to elevate other cultures in relation to the American culture.

For the left, It isn't about proper pronunciation it's about putting America in her place. And her place is no better than any other place, including 3rd world racist, sexist, intolerant, nuclear-armed holes like Pakistan. Well, I say America is better. America is better than Mexico. It's safer. There are more jobs. There is less corruption (for the time being). America is better than pretty much any place in the world I can think of, actually.

People who live here, myself included, are damn lucky to be here by birthright. And those who choose to become citizens are making the best decision of their lives. Their whole future will change.

So, a kid from Puerto Rico can come to America, get educated in the best schools and be put forth as a potential Supreme Court Justice for the best country in the world. That's America. It's great. And America is bigger than our collective pasts. She is better than the places we came from. We do well to melt into her beauty and live to rise to her ideals.

Americanization is a good thing. Assimilating and changing to fit America's mold is what makes this country different from the fractured and racist Europe. So those who are so intent on elevating other cultures might want to consider the outcome of their actions. America doesn't need to turn into a place where races are Balkanized and marginalized by neighborhoods, language, religion and culture. That would be a destructive place.

America needs to continue to be a melting pot. I'm Melissa Clouthier. It is not Cloo-tee-ay. It is Cloth-ee-er. I'm American and proud of it.

Taxpayers Pay For Obama's Political Trip

President Obama has the star power to raise millions of dollars for the candidates and organizations he graces with his stump speech.

But when the president hit the road Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour to pack the party coffers, he also was racking up a $265,000 partisan bill for just one leg of the trip, according to a watchdog group -- part of which taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will have to pay.

Obama started out in Las Vegas, where he stumped that night for state Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. On Wednesday night he was to attend a two-tiered donor dinner for the Democratic Party in Los Angeles.

But sandwiched between political appearances, Obama squeezed in some quick public remarks on energy, ironically before burning fuel to Los Angeles, at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base. It was a key stop, because it gives the entire trip an air of official legitimacy and allows the White House to write off part of the trip under rules governing travel, said Pete Sepp, vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union.

"You've got to have some official (business) in the trip somewhere. It becomes almost a game to find some official function to hang the trip on," Sepp said.

The rest, though, is all politics. And, if history is any gauge, the American taxpayer will pick up a large portion of the tab.

Sepp estimated that the purely political part of the trip -- the distance from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and back, with no public events -- would cost at least $265,000, just for air travel expenses.

He said the minimum domestic travel package for the president consists of one Boeing 747, which serves as Air Force One, one back-up dummy plane and one C17 cargo plane. The cost estimate is based on past hourly operational costs for the three aircraft, adjusted for inflation.

White House travel rules, which were developed under the Reagan administration, state that the Air Force pays all costs for the use of the aircraft, but that the government must be reimbursed for airfare, food, lodging and other expenses incurred during whatever portion of the trip is political.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the Democratic National Committee is paying its share for this trip.

"The DNC is paying 100 percent of the legally mandated costs for the trip from Nevada to California, and we are complying fully with all legal requirements," Vietor wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

But reimbursement for political activities involves a tricky formula, and actual reimbursements typically come nowhere close to compensating the government for the cost of such trips. Secret Service costs, for one, are always footed by the government.

A 2006 report for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that during 2002, political campaigns reimbursed the federal government for $198,000 of the $6.5 million in flight expenses racked up by campaign-related stops made by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. That's 3 percent of the total cost.

Taxpayers paid the remaining $6.3 million.

"The president and vice president can legally participate in campaign and fundraising events for candidates," the report said. "But when they do so, the taxpayer bears most of the cost."

That Obama is raising funds while in office is hardly unusual. Both Bush and Bill Clinton made similar political trips in their presidencies.

Watchdog groups don't suggest that the president shouldn't travel, or even that the president should not travel to political events. Rather, they say the White House should be more forthcoming with its travel expenses and details and establish a more equitable reimbursement program.

"You can't keep the president from traveling. That's what he does. ... No one would suggest he not travel," said Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste. "What is most important for taxpayers is how much is it costing for this stuff."

"Having more realistic reimbursement rules for political legs of these trips would be quite helpful," Sepp said.

Paige said more transparency is needed, noting it's "very hard" to pry the full costs of these trips from any administration.

The DNC did not respond to a request for comment; Sepp said any DNC reimbursement for Obama's trip this week would be minimal.

Of course this all is being ignored by the MainStreamMedia, even though they made huge deal out of Sarah Palin spending money during a recession to travel to Indiana for a pro-life speech.  That trip was NOT paid for by any tax dollars at all.

It is also interesting to note that those on the left criticized Bush for being gone too much.  Every time he travelled, there was criticism from the left about Bush not being in the White House.  Obama, thus far, has been gone more than Bush, yet the left seems to think his travel is "necessary."

Sign Angers Neighbors

A Lodi woman has been getting a lot of attention lately for a sign in her yard that reads, "Hit a cat, I'll hit your kid."

Early Friday morning, Tina Teixeira said a driver who was speeding down Elm Street hit one of her eight cats. Teixeira said the driver did not even stop to help.

"I can't just let her die in vain for nothing," Teixeira said. "Someone needs to stand up to these people."

Teixeira said yelling and screaming at speeding drivers wasn't working, and she needed to take a different, more shocking approach to get people to slow down and pay attention.

Teixeira's sign is definitely getting attention now.

"If a cat can't walk in a bike lane in front of its own house, what do you think is going to happen to your kids one of these days?" Teixeira said.

While some neighbors are pleased that something is being done to slow down drivers on this residential street, others are angered and offended that this resident is equating children and pets.

Who Said This?

I'm curious if anyone knows who made the following statements?  (All made by the same person, by the way.)  The statements were made about Judge Janice Robert Brown, an African American woman nominated by George W. Bush for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• Now, the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent. Some of us who attended law school or are in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff. The test of whether a judge is qualified to be a judge is not their intelligence. It is their judgment.
• The test of a qualified judicial nominee is also not whether that person has their own political views. Every jurist surely does. The test is whether he or she can effectively subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and the merits alone. That is what keeps our judiciary independent in America. That is what our Founders intended.
• Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge.
• Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law. When you bend and twist all of these to cramp them into a conclusion you have already made -- a conclusion that is based on your own personal ideology -- you do a disservice to the ideal of an independent judiciary and to the American people who count on an independent judiciary.
• Because of this tendency, and because of her record, it seems as if Justice Brown's mission is not blind justice but political activism.
• Supreme Court Justice Scalia is not somebody with whom I frequently agree. I do not like a lot of his judicial approaches, but at least the guy is consistent. Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution. That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
• Moreover, I am not somebody who subscribes to the view that because somebody is a member of a minority group they somehow have to subscribe to a particular ideology or a particular political party. I think it is wonderful that Asian Americans, Latinos, African Americans, and others are represented in all parties and across the political spectrum. When such representation exists, then those groups are less likely to be taken for granted by any political party.
• I do not think that because Justice Brown is an African-American woman she has to adhere to a particular political orthodoxy, something that has been suggested by the other side of the aisle. Just as it would be cynical and offensive that Justice Brown be vilified simply for being a Black conservative, it is equally offensive and cynical to suggest that somehow she should get a pass for her outlandish views simply because she is a Black woman.
• I believe if the American people could truly see what was going on here they would oppose this nomination, not because she is African American, not because she is a woman, but because they fundamentally disagree with a version of America she is trying to create from her position on the bench. It is social Darwinism, a view of America that says there is not a problem that cannot be solved by making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery and does not consider who our parents were or the education received or the right breaks that came at the right time.
• Today, at a time when American families are facing more risk and greater insecurity than they have in recent history, at a time when they have fewer resources and a weaker safety net to protect them against those insecurities, people of all backgrounds in America want a nation where we share life's risks and rewards with each other. And when they make laws that will spread this opportunity to all who are willing to work for it, they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections. Republican, Democrat, or anyone in between. Those are the types of judges the American people deserve. Justice Brown is not one of those judges. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination.

That's right.  These statements were made by (then Senator) Barack Obama.

It's A Good Thing...

It's a good thing we poured billions of dollars down the GM drain to avoid news stories like the ones I'm reading today....

From Germany:

Vauxhall and Opel Rescue in Chaos Over GM Demand for Extra State Aid

Talks to secure thousands of jobs in Vauxhall and Opel have broken down in acrimony after the German Government accused the US parent company, General Motors, of "scandalous" behaviour by requesting extra state aid.

I wonder where they might have gotten the idea to do that?

From Detroit:

GM Days from Chapter 11 Filing

Bondholders' overwhelming rejection of General Motors' debt-for-equity offer virtually ensures GM will file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection within days. The filing will probably come around the government's Monday deadline for GM to finish restructuring or enter court protection.

I have an idea. Let's invest MORE money into a company that's going bankrupt and is doing very little to solve the issues that got it there in the first place.

From an anonymous insider:

General Motors to Announce 14 Plant Closures Monday

A person briefed on General Motors Corp.'s plans says the company on Monday will identify the 14 factories it will close as it heads toward a likely Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing. About 21,000 jobs will be lost in addition to the jobs lost as a result of closing dealerships.

There goes another five million jobs for the month of June, Nancy.

A few billion here, a few billion there. Before you know it, this bailout thing could start adding up.

Rock the Vote

"Elections are the foundation of democracy. If not for our political beliefs, we must vote to show our desire to rule our own land. Our desire to choose our own leaders must be illustrated through our active participation and not through silence. 

Every four years we have the constitutional right to vote. Many believe that such a system is futile. They believe that candidates do not represent their views, or that their vote is not significant enough to count.

Your vote does matter. It can bring about change, and yes, you do have a choice. You have the choice to use your right to vote that has been given to you by the constitution, to push the country towards the right path or to decline this right and have the consequences of your inaction affect your country and your life directly for the next four years. 

There are less than 20 days left to election day. I urge you, as one of your countrymen who seeks a bright and free future to read about the candidates, increase your knowledge of the stands and their economic and political agendas. I beg you with all that I have to go to the polls on Election Day and cast your vote. I beg you this because it is important to me. I believe our actions will write our country's path in history, and our actions will bring a better future for years to come. 

Is one day every four years too much to ask to put aside for your country?"

The above was taken from a website urging Iranians, and particularly Iranians who are living outside of the country, to vote. Some of the specific language was changed in order to make the plea more "generic", i.e. less specific to Iran, but none of the thoughts were altered. 

Burris and Blago Update

To the surprise of no one, it seems that Roland Burris lied .... uh ... "forgot about" certain phone conversations with former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother. Recently released tapes had the Senator who bought ... uh .... was appointed to ... the seat once held by Obama, backpedaling regarding his previous testimony to the Illinois state Senate. 

Once upon a time, the U.S. Senate began "taking a stand" against the idea of a corrupt politician appointing anyone to a U.S. Senate seat. That stand crumbled quickly when race-baiting Democrats led by the likes of Bobby Rush started playing the race card. Then, Burris and the Senate reached an "agreement," because the last thing the Democrat-led body wanted was to be accused of racism so soon after the first black President, who also happens to be a Democrat, was elected.

Nevertheless, the Senate Ethics committee began an "investigation" into Burris' claims. That investigation was probably not intent on finding anything that would damage his reputation, and it did, in fact, go nowhere. 

But now, transcripts of one of the three calls to Blago was released.  What are they going to do now?

Me? I'm grabbing the popcorn.  This ought to be entertaining.

A Quick Thought On Sotomayer

If the Obama administration has shown us anything, it has shown us how to not pick nominees.  That said, the first question on everyone's mind about Sonia Sotomayer should not be her race or her stance on constitutional issues. The first question on everyone's mind should be "How much in back taxes does she owe, and how will she explain it?"