Going Apoplectic Over BP

Last year, when the congress-critters in D.C. were waxing indignant over AIG, a Republican senator suggested that AIG execs commit hari-kari. Well, not to be outdone by his Senate counterpart, Republican Rep. Joseph Cao has now made a similar statement regarding BP.

"Well, in the Asian culture, we do things differently. During the Samurai days, we'd just give you the knife and ask you to commit hari-kari. My constituents are still debating on what they want me to ask you to do."

Rep. Ahn "Joseph" Cao (R-LA02)

First, Rep. Cao, you are in America, and our culture doesn't have a tradition of ritual suicide. If you'd like to fully embrace the Asian culture that you reference, however, you are free to return to your native land.

Second, I'm sick of the bumbling, incompetent leaches in D.C. complaining about the bumbling, incompetent leaders of the private sector. When the federal government gets its own house in order, then I'll listen to their advice; until then, however, it sounds a bit too much like a whore complaining about the lack of virtue and morals in others.

The federal government had regulations in place regarding offshore drilling, and the federal government was supposed to be monitoring the oil companies and enforcing those regulations. Were the regulations not up to par, Rep. Cao? If they were not, then you and the rest of the federal government should be held accountable for that. Or maybe the regulations were plenty strict, but they just weren't being enforced. Again, that would be a failure on the part of a blame-shifting government that never seems to hold itself accountable.

The next time government officials like Rep. Cao and Sen. Grassley want to suggest that others kill themselves for poor performance, maybe they should take a good hard look and the abysmal performance of the very government that they are a part of. And if, after that assessment, they still want to call for private sector leaders to commit ritual suicide, then I would ask that they please lead by example.

USMC 9971 OUT

P.J. Crowley Didn't Get The Memo

On election night of 2008, President-Elect Barack Obama, in his acceptance speech, asked his colleagues and supporters to avoid continuing partisanship and politics as usual.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

This past Friday, the State Department's P.J. Crowley decided to ignore President-Elect Barack Obama's election night request while commenting on President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

"From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum ... when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

It is very nice of Crowley to enlighten us on the current State Department's standpoint. From my standpoint, however, I think that it is better to be criticized for actually doing something, rather than being praised for something that one hasn't yet endeavored to execute.

That highlights a major difference between the current administration and much of the American public: The administration would rather be praised for a concept that hasn't been tried, instead of being criticized for an action taken; whereas many Americans would rather endure criticism for what they have chosen to do, rather than being praised for thinking about the things that they have never actually attempted.

It's another case of style over substance with this administration, and another case of saying one thing ("Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."), and then doing another ("From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum ... when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.")

Obama and his followers continue to keep it classy.

USMC 9971 OUT

Going Apoplectic Over AIG

There has been plenty of righteous indignation coming out of Washington, D.C. regarding AIG paying $165,000,000 in bonuses after receiving between $162,500,000,000 and $170,000,000,000 in federal rescue bailout money. If you have missed the political theatrics, here is a small sampling:

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
President Barack Obama


"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed."
President Barack Obama


"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed. But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)


"This is another outrageous example of executives -- including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG's collapse -- enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)


"It's an idea very much at the embryonic stage. You can write a tax provision targeted specifically at 98 percent of the taxable proceeds."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), referring to the idea of taxing the AIG bonuses away


"Our financial sector will never heal unless the financial companies who helped create this economic crisis begin to regain the public trust. The actions of AIG do just the opposite, and every American is justified in their outrage at this breach of public trust."
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

There you have just some of the sanctimonious politicians who are confirming that outrage over the payments of the bonuses by AIG is justified, and insisting that the government must do something to recover those bonuses. Look for any news story about AIG bonuses, and you will most likely find more of the same.

So, what could have possibly possessed the leadership at AIG to pay these bonuses, certainly knowing full-well that it would kick-off such a firestorm? Well, as CEO Edward M. Liddy noted in a letter to Secretary Geithner, AIG was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses that were agreed to in early 2008, well before any TARP restrictions on pay.

I do not participate in any AIG bonus or retention program, have never attended a single AIG sales event or conference and, before September, did not have any relationship with AIG. I was asked to serve by your predecessor in connection with the acquisition by the government of almost 80% of AIG's outstanding shares. My only goals are to have AIG repay, with interest, to the maximum extent possible, the assistance the American taxpayers have given it and to continue AIG's main insurance companies as strong, thriving businesses and contributors to the economy. My only stake is my reputation.

In the first quarter of 2008, prior management took significant retention steps at AIG Financial Products. These arrangements were designed at a time when AIG Financial Products was expected to have a significant, ongoing role at AIG, and guaranteed a minimum level of pay for both 2008 and 2009. (Due to losses at AIG Financial Products, a senior manager will receive about 43% of his 2007 expected level for 2008.) Some of these payments are coming due on March 15, and, quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied. Outside counsel has advised that these are legal, binding obligations of AIG, and there are serious legal, as well as business, consequences for not paying. Given the trillion-dollar portfolio at AIG Financial Products, retaining key traders and risk managers is critical to our goal of repayment. This is all discussed in more detail in the attached "white paper."

AIG was contractually obligated to pay, but what could be the worst possible scenario if the company had chosen not to uphold their end of the contract? The truth is, AIG (and the taxpayers) could have then been on the hook for twice as much money.

If the crumbling insurance giant didn't make good on its retention packages, employees could sue the firm for at least $330 million -- double the total size of the bonuses.

And, some say, a successful lawsuit could ultimately mean a higher tab for taxpayers, who are already footing the bill for $162.5 billion in rescue loans and investments into AIG from the federal government.

Let's recap. AIG's CEO sent a letter to Treasury Secretary "Turbo Tim" Geithner on 14 March 2009 to inform him that these bonuses would need to be paid in order to avoid serious legal and business consequences. Politicians and the media then became sanctimonious over retention packages that amount to about 0.1% of the bailout money provided to AIG so far, all the while willfully or ignorantly overlooking the fact that AIG would be legally liable for twice as much if the bonuses weren't paid.

You will notice, however, that the picture being presenting by the politicians and the media is quite different than a basic showing of the facts. The media isn't interviewing AIG's CEO for his explanation of why the bonuses were paid. Further, the media isn't interviewing any of the blathering politicians to find out if they were aware of how much it would have ended up costing if AIG had not fulfilled the retention packages. The spin is simply one of a greedy corporation that is taking advantage of large sums of bailout money, with no context, or even a full disclosure of the facts.

Strangely enough, this same level of outrage and righteous indignation was not evident when $410,000,000,000 in taxpayer money was being allocated, with somewhere between $3,000,000,000 and $7,700,000,000 being funneled into pet projects. What was being said about taxpayer money going to projects like swine odor and manure management research, a carbon neutral green campus in Nevada, the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy, theater renovations in California, and the Polynesian Voyaging Society?

"In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research," Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Senate speech last week. His defense of swine odor research and a $5.7 million earmark for school construction in Iowa covers four pages in the Congressional Record. [...]

"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, D.C., who determines every penny spent in Nevada," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. [...]

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., defended $3.8 million to help redevelop Tiger Stadium into an anchor for a redevelopment project of retail outlets, restaurants and other commercial projects in Detroit's struggling Corktown neighborhood. [...]

Appropriations Committee member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave an impassioned defense of the practice.

"Yes, I fight for funds for my state. That's what I came here to do," Feinstein said. "Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?" [...]

After Coburn scoffed at an earmark by Inouye to give $238,000 to the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which runs voyages using ancient navigation methods in double-hulled sailing canoes, Inouye made an impassioned defense. He said the program instills native Hawaiian youth pride in their heritage and helps troubled, mentally ill youth.

"The voyage is much more than one of miles," Inouye said. "It is a voyage of young people discovering that they are able to accomplish much more than they ever thought possible."

Beyond the earmarks (which were between 0.7% and 1.9% of the total bill, depending on which numbers were used), the $410 billion omnibus spending bill included an 8% discretionary spending hike, instead of keeping spending at current levels. Also, an amendment to end automatic pay raises for Congress was defeated.

So, Congress and President Obama are indignant over AIG fulfilling contracts which they are legally obligated to pay, but the same politicians defend billions in pork spending, an 8% increase in discretionary spending, and the maintaining of automatic pay raises for Congress.

Maybe Congress, the president, and the administration should all take some of Senator Grassley's advice and "come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I'm sorry,' and then ... resign." I won't suggest that our politicians commit ritual suicide, unlike what Senator Grassley suggested some executives do because they actually upheld the legal obligations of their business.

What a bunch of two-faced asses.

USMC 9971 OUT

Rep. Rangel Doesn't Like Questions

Good ol' Charlie (D-NY 15) can keep the big ol' grin going while he tells Jason Mattera to mind his "god-damned business."



Mattera ambushed Rep. Rangel, so I can understand him being upset with the set-up. That said, Charlie needs to get his head wired to his tail and remember that he is in Washington D.C. to do the business of the people.

When someone asks why Charlie is riding around in a vehicle that costs the taxpayers over $700 per month, Charlie needs to remember that that is our god-damned business.

When someone asks Charlie why he is abusing his position in order to acquire apartments in N.Y. under market value, Charlie needs to remember that that is our god-damned business.

When someone asks Charlie how come he doesn't get treated like an average American when he doesn't pay his taxes, Charlie needs to remember that that is our god-damned business.

Representative Rangel, and all the rest of the politicians out there, need to be put in their place. They work for us, and it is time that they start answering our questions when we ask them why they are abusing their positions of power instead of taking care of our god-damned business.

It is our god-damned business, and if they don't start falling-in-line and getting their acts together, then we will need to show them the door quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Don't forget, Washington, that you work for us and that we out-number you.

USMC 9971 OUT

Taxes For Thee, But Not For Me

Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, and now Ron Kirk.

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

What the hell is it with President "Everyone Must Sacrifice" Obama that he is continuously selecting people with these tax issues? Is the concept of finally paying taxes what the current administration considers "sacrifice" for their nominees?

Last year I had to pay a fine to the state because we didn't have enough withheld. I was off on withholding by four dollars, and I had to pay a damned fine. I wasn't late in paying the government. I didn't fail to pay the government. I was penalized because I didn't give the government enough of my money in advance.

Yet, while I was fined for a $4 shortage on my withholding, a privileged elitist like Ron Kirk, who is sitting before the Senate for his confirmation hearing, has the luxury to now agree to make payments on his $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade. It must be nice to be one of the more equal animals.

USMC 9971 OUT

Cartoon Kerfluffle

The cartoon above was in the N.Y. Post yesterday (18 February 2009). Some are saying that it compares President Obama to a deranged chimp, and that making such a comparison is racist.

"How could the Post let this cartoon pass as satire?" said Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists. "To compare the nation's first African-American commander in chief to a dead chimpanzee is nothing short of racist drivel."

The Rev. Al Sharpton called the cartoon "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."

First of all, President Obama did not write the stimulus package legislation. While the executive can make suggestions as to what legislation should be created by the legislature, the legislature is the organization that must write any legislation. The executive then chooses whether or not to sign legislation into law, and executes or enforces the enacted legislation. The legislature creates legislation, while the executive executes the laws; notice the etymology?

When the artist has the cartoon cop say that "they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," he must be referring to the legislature, since it is the responsibility of the legislature to write bills. It is entirely conceivable that many people will view the dead chimp in the cartoon as representative of the U.S. government as a whole, and possibly President Obama because our president is the figure-head for our federal government. The words used in the cartoon, however, clearly indicate that it is comparing those who wrote the stimulus bill to an out-of-control chimpanzee who needed to be put down. Al Sharpton and Barbara Ciara can try to spin this differently, but the words in the cartoon clearly point to the writers of the stimulus bill. Those who wrote the stimulus bill were the members of the legislature, not the president, and as President Obama told us one year ago, words matter.

Second, let's consider why the chimp was used. One reason is because a chimp or a monkey is commonly used as a metaphor for people or institutions that are clumsy, unrefined, or smelly; that create items of poor quality; or that achieve something regardless of their ineptness. Another reason for using the chimp is because a recent news item was about a pet chimpanzee who was shot by police after it attacked and seriously injured a woman. The cartoon took a current event, and spun the ineptitude of Congress' stimulus bill around it.

Third, even if the cartoon was comparing Obama to a chimp, that is in keeping with the precedence that was set over the last eight years. President Bush was repeatedly referred to as chimp throughout his presidency. Some compared Bush to a chimpanzee because of the colloquial metaphor, and others did so because they felt that the former president's physical visage resembled a chimp.

Look at the following montage.

Those images are all intended to display a physical similarity between President Bush and a chimpanzee. Is that montage racist? I believe that most would say that it is not. Is that protected speech? Again, I believe that most would say yes.

The problem here is that the real purpose of those who are crying foul is not to decry racism. Rather, those who are claiming offense seem to be attacking the messenger instead of the message. The message is about a horrible stimulus package that could be dangerous to the financial safety of many Americans. Instead of defending the merits of the stimulus package, these detractors make a claim of racism in an attempt to squelch debate and change the subject.

Well, I'm not having any part of it. Many Americans would agree that Congress could easily be compared to out-of-control chimps at times, and the country is becoming more-and-more skeptical of the stimulus bill that Congress wrote. That cartoon is protected political speech, and it makes a provocative comparison by using two recent national news stories. It is not racist, and it is not out-of-line.

Sharpton, Ciara, and the others like them seem to find racism in everything they see. And in this situation, it seems that they are using a false claim of racism to stifle any criticism or debate. Much like a candidate said back in September of 2008, "They'd much rather have the story ... about phony and foolish diversions than about the future."

USMC 9971 OUT

An Experiment In Journalism

Read the following portions of an AP article about the federal response to a natural disaster.

More than 300,000 residents remained without power Monday and some areas had yet to see aid workers nearly a week after the storm, a fact not lost on some local authorities.

"We haven't seen FEMA. They haven't been here," said Jaime Green, a spokeswoman for the emergency operations center in Lyon County.

Federal authorities insisted they responded as soon as the state asked for help and promised to keep providing whatever aid was necessary.

The governor raised the state's death toll to 24 on Monday, meaning the storm has been blamed in at least 55 deaths nationwide. It also knocked out power to more than a million customers.

The governor asked the president for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and the president issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

By Monday, FEMA officials were checking in on supply distribution points in some rural areas. FEMA official Don Daniel stopped by to ask emergency management officials in Grayson County, who had criticized FEMA's absence late last week, what they needed.

More generators, they told him, to keep essential services such as hospitals and water supplies running.

Brocton Oglesby, director of emergency management in Hopkins County, said he has seen virtually no contribution from FEMA in the county, where more than half of the 27,000 homes remained without electricity.

"They need to be here -- at least a presence, a liaison to work with us, to start feeding information and gearing up for the next stage," Oglesby said. "That's where they're going to be needed the most."

Oglesby's seen FEMA show up after other disasters to assess the damages and write checks. The governor asked for FEMA to have a role on the front end this time, though, and Oglesby said that hasn't happened.

Oglesby said he would like FEMA to bring in outside electricians to help go door to door to make sure the electricity is operational in each house once it comes back on.

"Right now, mom and pop are going to have to fend for themselves and find an electrician," Oglesby said. "This is where we're needing FEMA's presence."

My guess is that the above excerpts would make many people think of the coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The MSM provided nearly every piece of the negative information about the federal government response to that disaster, and FEMA and the administration were widely criticized.

This is not from reporting on Hurricane Katrina in 2005, however; this is from an AP article about the Kentucky ice storms of 2009. The title of the article is, "300,000 Still Without Power, But Some Praise Obama’s FEMA for Ice Storm Response." The remainder of the article is interspersed with statements such as, "In the first real test of the Obama administration's ability to respond to a disaster, Kentucky officials are giving the federal government good marks for its response to a deadly ice storm," and "[Governor] Beshear has consistently praised Obama, a fellow Democrat, for the attention he's devoted to what Beshear calls the biggest natural disaster to hit his state," and "Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said that from what she's heard, FEMA's response has been very good so far."

It is interesting that the content of the reporting seems to have changed now that we have a different president. The AP could have easily focused on everything that I presented above (over a quarter-million people without power, complaints about the federal response from at least three counties, and nothing but negative news), but they chose to also include some of the praise that the current administration is receiving for its response. In other words, they balanced the negative statements in the piece with some positive statements to give a more well-rounded presentation of the situation.

This AP piece just jumped out at me when I read it, so I decided to use it as an example of the media bias that I believe is prevalent in much of our news today.

The coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was not so much inaccurate as it was incomplete. Failures on the state and local level were glossed over, while federal errors were highlighted. Successes by local individuals and those with scarce resources were presented as some of the few steps forward in responding to the disaster, while successes by the many federal agencies (such as the Coast Guard) who responded immediately were widely ignored. Criticisms of the administration made the headlines, yet no one countered accusations of incompetence with a full presentation of the facts. When FEMA Director Brown was accused of not being qualified and lacking experience to the lead the post he was appointed to, no news agencies stepped forward to remind the public that it was Brown who was in charge of FEMA a year earlier when the agency very successfully managed four major hurricanes that hit Florida.

News organizations are often quick to defend themselves against charges of bias by noting that what they present is an accounting of the facts of the issues being discussed, disregarding that only presenting half of the facts in a slick package that provides a skewed (and often wholly incorrect) perception of the entire truth of the matter is nothing more than a repackaging of classic yellow journalism. Biased presentation does not necessarily mean that the content of the presentation is untruthful; one can use a sampling of facts to frame a completely disingenuous presentation of an issue. Further, news organizations can display a bias by choosing to discuss some issues, while completely ignoring other relevant issues.

To make matters worse, the 24-hour news channels tend to blur the line between a presentation of the facts, and the opinions of those who are discussing the issues. The facts of the news of the day are presented (usually at the top and the bottom of the hour), but they are heavily surrounded by the opinions and spin of pundits who are invited by the news channels' hosts and commentators. Further, commentators are occasionally put into a position of hosting news events (e.g. speeches, conventions, debates), and if they can't or don't take off their commentator hats, then they are very likely going to color the presentation of the event with their own opinion and bias. When such coverage is presented to a national audience that may not know the commentator and his/her political leanings (e.g. Olbermann on NBC or Barnes on FOX), many Americans can be exposed to half-truths and innuendo that is packaged as straight-forward-just-the-facts reporting.

It will be interesting to see how this administration is covered by the MSM going forward, and the Kentucky ice storms could be a good initial indicator. I've already seen some commentators on CNN questioning Obama's "ethics waiver" for Deputy Defense Secretary Nominee William Lynn. Rah-rah coverage gets boring, not only in newsrooms, but also in living rooms, so this administration will be criticized; the question will be whether or not the criticism is on the same level as the criticism of the previous administration.

USMC 9971 OUT

Homosexuals Attack Old Lady, MSM Yawns

The tolerance crowd wasn't too tolerant of a pro-marriage 69-year-old woman who showed-up at an anti-Prop 8 demonstration. She brought a styrofoam cross, which was pulled out of her hands and trampled by the "everyone must be tolerant of us" homosexual protesters.

An elderly woman bearing a cross who attended a gay marriage protest to voice her support of the California ban was attacked by demonstrators and may now press charges.

Carrying a large, Styrofoam cross, 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess showed up at a rally last Friday against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that was passed on Election Day in California.

She was there to show her belief in traditional marriage, she said.

Within minutes, however, angry protesters swarmed around the Palm Springs resident, yanked the cross from her hands and trampled on it.

You can watch the incident on YouTube here.

Now what, I ask you, would happen if a homosexual showed up with a rainbow flag at a pro-marriage rally, and the crowd pulled the flag from the homosexual's hands, trampled the flag, and surrounded the homosexual? My guess is that the media outcry would be immense, and that some dim whit anchor wouldn't be sitting back in the studio talking about "a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

It's the tolerant left, physically attacking when they can't win the argument. If they keep it up, though, they might regret the inevitable counter-punch.

USMC 9971 OUT

Unbridled Misogyny Amongst Obama Supporters

Hey, if what some random individual shouts out at a McCain/Palin rally is portrayed in the MSM as representative of all McCain/Palin supporters, then the same goes for Obama/Biden supporters, right?


This picture was taken this past weekend in Pennsylvania (not by me, see here). See the class? See the acceptance? See the tolerance? Yes, those shirts do say, "Sarah Palin Is A C***" (the last word is what you think it is; it does rhyme with runt).

If some McCain supporters showed up at Obama or Biden's hotel wearing shirts that said, "Barack Obama Is A N*****" (yes, the N-word that I was thinking of is newbie; what were you thinking?), how do you think that it would be portrayed in the MSM?

No double-standard here. Just even-handed coverage. You all saw the Obama-supporters-are-gripped-by-insane-rage stories on all of the MSM morning shows today, didn't you?

Certainly it was on The View, right? Those ladies would surely expose such explicit misogyny, wouldn't they?

Well, at least you find a little something over at AoSHQ.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Angry Liberals

In keeping with the theme of my last two posts, I thought I'd point everyone to Michelle Malkin, who has a great post with examples of liberals who have been "gripped by insane rage."

I'm sure that the MSM will be all over this shortly. Any time now. It's just around the corner. They will present this all fairly. Definitely.

USMC 9971 OUT

Connecticut's Unholy Union

In 2004, eight homosexual couples were denied marriage licenses, and they then filed a lawsuit claiming that their equal protection and due process rights were violated. Today, in a 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with that argument and has forced all of Connecticut to join California and Massachusetts as one of the states that permits same-sex marriage.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

I say horse-hooey!

Let's think about this for a moment. Palmer says that "...gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." If the desired partner is otherwise qualified, then that would indicate that there are other qualifications than simply the need for the people joining in marriage to be of the opposite sex. So what are those other qualifications?

There is the consanguinity or incest qualification (CGS § 46b-21). That's the one that says that people wanting to get married may not marry their mother/father, grandmother/grandfather, daughter/son, granddaughter/grandson, sister/brother, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, stepmother/stepfather, or stepdaughter/stepson. While I think the principle of preventing problems caused by genetic disorders than can arise when procreation occurs between two closely related individuals is still considered sound, will this need to apply to homosexual unions? After all, a homosexual union cannot bear children, so I'm sure that Justice Palmer would have to concede that the genetic disorders from procreation wouldn't apply to homosexual couples; and that would most certainly lead him to find that closely related people of the same sex are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex relative of their choice. Heterosexuals would still be on the hook for most of that as well, but stepparents and stepchildren will probably need to be no longer restricted for anyone. Those aren't blood relations, and as the homosexual lobby loves to point out, you can't help who you love.

Then there is the bigamy qualification (CGS § 53a-190). That's the one that says that a person who wants to get married can't marry someone else while they are still legally married. That's all fine and good until Tom wants to marry Sally, while still married to Ann, and both Ann and Sally are fine with the arrangement. The bigamy qualification is what keeps polygamy (the Tom, Sally, and Ann marriage) from occurring. If bigamy is permitted when all parties agree, then polygamy becomes fully legal. Again, as the homosexual argument goes, you can't help who you love, and in this case some people may have more love to give. Who is the state to interfere with that love and tell them no?

Sure, there are other qualifications, but those two give a couple of basic examples of requirements that most states have for marriage.

If sexual preference is enough to change the standing law in order to be in accordance with equal protection principles, then how could the state not also find religious beliefs to be enough to invoke the same? After all, the freedom to exercise one's religion is protected in the constitution, whereas sexual preference is never mentioned once. And, to be honest, cultural mores would seem to be more established than just one's sexual preference, so the law may need to embrace all cultural customs regarding marriage in order to be in accordance with equal protection principles.

I understand that some may scoff at this slippery slope argument, but the arguments above really are not all that much different than what the homosexuals have been arguing in order to get their special privilege exemption for marriage. Make no doubt about it; gay marriage is nothing more than a special group exemption to the existing laws.

See, what it comes down to is that they can all get married as it is right now. A person from a culture that says that she may marry a relative can still get married if she would like; she just needs to follow the law and not marry those from a group of a few specific family members. A person who follows a religion that permits polygamy can marry as many women as he likes; he just needs to follow the law and not be married to more than one woman at the same time.

And a person who has a sexual preference towards those of the same sex can marry as well; it's just that the homosexual will also need to follow the law like everybody else and marry someone of the opposite sex.

USMC 9971 OUT

All That Fits Their Agenda They Print

The New York Times refused to publish McCain's response to Obama's "My Plan for Iraq" op-ed. Because the New York Times won't print it, I'll be one of many who presents it in blog form. I'm still not a fan of McCain, but If the New York Times is going to publish Obama's op-ed, then they should at least publish the rebuttal op-ed of the Republican candidate that they endorsed in January.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City - actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war - only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

You stay classy, Shipley.

USMC 9971 OUT

Jesse Jackson: What A Nut

And what will happen to the professional race baiter for his comments that he'd like to cut off Obama's "nuts?" Most likely nothing. From CNN:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for "crude and hurtful" remarks he made about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama after an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

The remarks came Sunday as Jackson was talking to a fellow interviewee, UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson. An open microphone picked up Jackson whispering, "See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off." [...]

Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois -- co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign -- publicly blasted his father's comments Wednesday.

"I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Rev. Jackson's reckless statements about Sen. Barack Obama," the younger Jackson said. "His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee -- and I believe the next president of the United States -- contradict his inspiring and courageous career."

If Imus said it, he'd be fired again. If anyone white said it, their career would likely be over. Not with ol' Jesse, though. He will still rake in the money to blame whitey for all of the problems in the black community.

And people will be more than happy to let whitey continue to take the blame for the black community's woes, while Jesse continues to do to the black community what he said that he wanted to do to Obama.

USMC 9971 OUT

Boys Given Detention For Not Praying To Allah In UK

Good ol' political correctness. From the Daily Mail:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped. [...]

"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention. ... But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

That last quote really does put the double standard of this P.C. B.S. into perspective.

USMC 9971 OUT

SNOBama

The great and eloquent orator, B. Hussien Obama, chose his words poorly again at a fundraiser in San Francisco about a week ago.

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them -- like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they've gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It's not the bitter part that I have a problem with. I just paid my taxes, so I know bitter. My problem, however, is Obama's assertion that many Americans end up "clinging" to beliefs that comfort them simply because they are reasonably dissatisfied with the way the government intrudes upon their lives (although BHO would say that they are bitter because the government hasn't done enough, as opposed to sticking their collective noses in too much). It is very condescending for Obama to essentially say, "Small town folks need a crutch to cope with some of the hardships in their lives; and you fine, enlightened people here in San Francisco surely realize that the crutches that those rubes tend to hold tightly to are guns, religion, and bigotry."

When Obama voted against CAFTA, was his bitterness causing him to cling to an anti-trade sentiment?

When Obama voted for building a fence along the Mexican border, was his bitterness causing him to cling to an anti-immigrant sentiment?

When Obama chose to continue to attend Trinity United Church of Christ, was his bitterness causing him to cling to religion and antipathy toward people who aren't like him?

I'm sure that he and his supporters would say no to any of those questions, and then proceed to explain that Obama did those things due to personal beliefs and concerns for his family and nation. Yet Obama didn't seem to give the same credit to a wide group Americans while addressing a very exclusive group in San Francisco, and that is what is making many people look at him now as an elitist snob.

It is part of our national culture when any American, from a small town or otherwise, chooses to own a firearm for hunting and/or self-defense, attends a church because they feel that God really is important, or has an opinion on any issue of the day, including opinions about people who don't follow the rules when coming to or remaining in our country, the affect of trade agreements on local jobs and economies, or anything in general that the government does or imposes upon us. Those things can be done because of rights secured to us by our Constitution, and exercising those rights is done by Americans every day because it is part of who we are, not because of any level of bitterness.

Obama comes across as a snob on this one, and truly out of touch with many Americans.

USMC 9971 OUT

Al-Aqsa TV Airs Sick And Twisted Puppet Show

Al-Aqsa Television aired a puppet show as children's programming in which a child goes to Washington D.C., kills President Bush with the "sword of Islam, the Prophet's Al-Battar sword," and turns the White House into "a great mosque for the nation of Islam." Oh, and the same kid brought "thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan" with him to whom the American people have apparently surrendered.

Try to imagine, if you will, what would happen if anyone in the West put together a similar puppet show, where Western children went to Saudi Arabia, killed off the ruler for September 11th, and turned his palace into a church for Christendom. Don't you think that such an airing would be hitting the nightly news?

Considering that, and also considering all of the furor over "Fitna," why hasn't this five minute production been a topic of discussion on all of the cable and network news programs as well?

Child Stabs President Bush to Death and Turns the White House into a Mosque in a Hamas TV Puppet Show

Following is an excerpt from a puppet show, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on March 30, 2008.

Bush: Who are you? What brings you to my home? How did they let you in, boy? My guards! My soldiers! Get this boy out of here.

Child: Nobody will take me out of here.

Bush: Who are you to come here and threaten me?! You are on my own turf, you little child, you! Get out. My dear, bring your father, your grandfather, or your mother, so I can talk to them. Get somebody older and smarter than you. What, you came here on your own?

Child: You killed daddy in the Iraq war. It's true, you killed him in the Iraq war. As for my mom – you and the criminal Zionists killed her in Lebanon. You and the criminal Zionists also killed my younger and older brothers in the Gaza holocaust. I'm an orphan, you criminal!

Bush: What are you talking about? Where did you come from? Don't I have enough troubles already? Where did you come from?

Child: I have come to take revenge with this sword – revenge for my mother and my sisters. You are a criminal, Bush! You are despicable. You made me an orphan! You took everything from me, Bush! I must take revenge on you, with this sword of Islam, the Prophet's Al-Battar sword.

Bush: No... No, my dear. I give you my word that this is it. I repent, just don't kill me. Where are my guards? Where are my people? Help! Help! He wants to kill me. Help!

Child: There are no guards, and your people have surrendered, Bush. I have not come alone, Bush. I have brought thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. You have denied all these children their fathers and mothers. That's why I have come to take revenge on you and on all the criminal traitors who collaborated with you.

Bush: Okay, fine, that's enough. I will give you whatever you want from me.

Child: What can you give me? All I want is one thing. Bring back my father and mother. I don't want anything from you. I don't want anything from you, just bring back my father and mother. I place my trust in Allah. I need to kill you.

Bush: No, my dear. Enough. I will give you anything you want. I also... Enough with that. Come with all your friends to the White House. I will give you food and toys. We will sit in the White House and talk. You will get whatever you need.

Child: You are impure, Bush, so you are not allowed inside the White House.

Bush: What are you saying?! Why am I not allowed into the White House?

Child: Because it has been turned into a great mosque for the nation of Islam. I will kill you just like Mu'az killed Abu Lahab. I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate.

[Child stabs Bush repeatedly]

Child: Ahhh, I killed him.

Where is the outrage of the MSM? Where is the outrage of the Muslim community? Is this their outrage right over here? Oh, wait, no; that's just their double-standard again.

USMC 9971 OUT

What's A Christian To Do?

Christine Lutz was removed from a bus in Fort Worth, Texas for reading the bible to her children.

Christine Lutz says she was reading her Bible to her children when the bus driver asked her to stop or get off the bus.

Lutz, a Seventh Day Adventist, and her children were on their way to church.

Lutz claims the driver told her it wasn't the time or place to read the bible. "I said, 'Oh, but it's the perfect time and the perfect place since it is our Sabbath and it is the time with the Lord and therefore I'm going to continue.' And I continued," Lutz said.

A supervisor came aboard the bus. Lutz also told him that she would not stop reading. She and her family were escorted off the bus.

Well, Christine, maybe you should look to the religion of peace for some pointers on how to proceed. A few Muslims were praying loudly here in Minnesota a year ago before they were also removed from a form of mass transportation.

"They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.

The six Muslim scholars were returning from a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, said Shahin, president of the group. Five of them were from the Phoenix-Tempe area, while one was from Bakersfield, Calif., he said.

Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.

So, a mother on her way to church with her children is kicked off of a bus because she would not stop reading the Bible to them. That, according to Fort Worth's public transit, is just a case of policy.

Six Muslims, on the other hand, are praying loudly before boarding a flight out of Minneapolis, they get on the aircraft and take seat positions similar to the 9/11 terrorists, some ask for seat belt extenders, and they have conversations in Arabic that raise concern amongst some passengers. That, according to the suing imams, is due to "ignorance about Islam."

We'll see where this one goes, but I wouldn't hold my breath that Lutz gets more than a one-way bus pass, whereas the imams have a good chance of getting a large settlement in their lawsuit.

Odd, isn't it, that the follower of the religion that hasn't killed thousands in a single terror attack in the past six-plus years is the one that is least likely to be treated with any semblance of tolerance?

USMC 9971 OUT

Casualty Rates DROP In Iraq

Odd, isn't it, that this is not getting any big-time MSM fanfare? An actual Fox News article (not one of the AP reprints on the Fox News website) describes a drop in violence in some of the most dangerous places in Iraq. Most notable was that there was not one Iraqi or U.S. military casualty in Al Anbar over the course of last week. I say again, there was not one Iraqi or U.S. military casualty in all of Al Anbar over the entirety of last week. Other stats from Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Major General Richard Sherlock:

• Violence in and around Baghdad is down 59 percent.
• Car bombs are down 65 percent.
• Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs are down by 80 percent.
• Casualties from enemy attacks down 77 percent.
• Operations against Iraqi security forces are down 62 percent.
• Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons are down 72 percent.

No military casualties in Al Anbar for a week, violence down in the Baghdad area, car bombings are down, car bomb and roadside bomb casualties are down, casualties from enemy attacks are down, and sectarian assassination attempts are down; yet the MSM is suspiciously quiet.

Now, I know that there are those who will say that the California fires are taking the majority of the MSM time and headlines, but I don't buy that excuse. If the terrorists get off a big hit in Iraq while the California fires are still burning, do you think that the MSM will be too busy with California, or do you think the MSM will plaster that carnage without pointing out the significant decrease in violence that has continued in Iraq prior to the attack?

I think that it would be the latter, and that such coverage is indicative of the way the MSM cherry-picks what image of Iraq to show the American people.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Double Standards For Islam

Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who drew a sketch of Mohammed as a dog, has been in trouble with Islam since a Swedish newspaper published the cartoon in August of this year. Al-Qaeda has put a $100,000.00 price on Vilks' head, $150,000.00 if Vilks is killed by slitting his throat. And, not surprisingly, there are Muslims in Sweden who would love to collect the prize.

One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.

"I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah," says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.

She adds, "If I get the opportunity."

Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman -- a wife and mother -- says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.

Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.

She's been fined for issuing death threats, though there will be nothing more done to her unless she attempts to make good on the threats. The police in Sweden have suggested that Vilks abandon his home for the sake of his own safety.

It would be interesting to see the reaction if some Swedes decided to play the same game with Islam. Imagine if Amatullah was told that she and her family are targets for death due to her decision to accost a Swedish citizen. What would the reaction be if pork products ended up on Amatullah's front steps, or in her children's desks at their school, or on the steps of any mosques that failed to condemn the death threats on Vilks?

But that won't happen in the West; not yet, at least. CNN even reflects this in their article.

Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist's depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist's life.

See, Vilks should have known better. When it comes to Islam, the West still blames the victims, not the backwards, seventh century cult that is threatening to kill more people over a drawing.

Do you think that CNN would take the same attitude if some members of the military decided to threaten to assault Code Pink for the insults that the so-called peace group has hurled at the military in the past? I don't think that you would be seeing an article in which any MSM entity would suggest that Code Pink should have known better. Instead, the MSM would vilify the military en masse as violent, mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.

Double standards remain for Islam in the West. How many more of us will they need to kill before the West starts suggesting that, instead of Westerners needing to know better, Islam needs to behave better?

USMC 9971 OUT

Stop Making Concessions To Muslims

The Indianapolis International Airport is looking at installing foot-washing sinks for Muslim taxi drivers. They claim that the proposal is for safety and health reasons.

Airport officials said they are considering installing a [foot-washing] sink because of safety and health issues, not religious ones.

More than 100 Muslim taxi drivers currently use a traditional sink at the airport, leaving the floor wet and increasing the possibility of passing germs.

The Indianapolis International Airport is not the only place dealing with this issue. Three schools (New York University, University of Michigan-Dearborn, and Minneapolis Community and Technical College) have recently discussed installing special facilities for Muslim prayer rituals.

There are some people who are opposing the special sinks, and not surprisingly, some Muslims are saying that the only reason that the sinks are being contested is due to bigotry.

That is the opinion of Shariq Siddiqui. He said, "This is an issue of Islamophobia. This is not about sinks. The only difference between me and my neighbor is that we may follow different faith traditions."

B.S. Shariq. People are ticked-off because a publicly funded entity is considering giving you special facilities for your religious rites. The fact of the matter, Shariq, is that you and your fellow Muslims don't need special sinks installed.

I've got a simple solution to this issue. Muslims who use the existing sinks in bathrooms to wash their feet, and in the process create a fall risk or health hazard, should be fined for creating a public hazard or nuisance. It's that easy, and it isn't discrimination.

Muslim taxi drivers who feel that they must wash their feet before praying can bring a wash basin, towel, and water with them to perform that ritual. The same goes for students at any school. We don't need to spend public funds to add special foot washing sinks in order to accommodate Muslims who, for whatever reason, don't make basic preparations on their own for their religion's prayer rituals.

This isn't an issue of Islamophobia. It's an issue of not wasting public funds to accommodate a single faith when the members of that faith could easily bring dollar store items with them to perform the rite without creating a public nuisance or health hazard. The Muslims need to bring the materials with them to wash their feet, rather than expecting the state to provide special facilities for their religion's rituals.

USMC 9971 OUT