1. Obama's Top VP Choices: Jim Webb, Ted Strickland
The two leading candidates for the vice presidential slot if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination are Jim Webb and Ted Strickland, a Washington source close to Democratic party circles tells Newsmax.
Webb, a first-term senator from Virginia, agrees with Obama regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Like Obama, Webb opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, predicting that it would lead to a protracted guerilla war, and later called the invasion “the greatest strategic blunder in modern history.”
Webb is considered strong on foreign policy and the military, two areas in which Obama lacks experience. A highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, Webb served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan.
As a former Republican, Webb could help balance the Democratic ticket and demonstrate Obama's desire to "reach out." And he could swing Virginia — a Red state that usually votes for the GOP — into the Democratic camp.
On the downside, a ticket with two U.S. senators might be seen as undesirable. In that case, the Democrats could turn to Strickland, the popular first-term governor of Ohio.
Strickland, who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor, won the 2006 election by garnering 60 percent of the vote against three opponents.
And a Quinnipiac University poll last year showed he had an approval rating in Ohio of 61 percent and a disapproval rating of just 15 percent.
As governor, Strickland has emphasized education and healthcare reform, two issues important to Obama supporters.
He has also been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and appeared in a TV ad in Ohio touting her campaign. But that could prove beneficial to the Obama ticket because it might help bridge the gap between his supporters and the Clinton machine.
Most important, Strickland could prove to be the deciding factor in determining the outcome of the presidential vote in Ohio, a crucial battleground state.
Editor's Note:
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
'NUFF SAID?
I add this without further comment....
RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Unconvinced by Obama�s Wright Speech
Monday, March 24, 2008 2:28 PM
By: Edward I. Koch Article Font Size
Barack Obama�s speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.
Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, �There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?�
Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.
Many of Rev. Wright�s incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright�s sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS, and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy.
He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a �dirty word� and �racist country.� He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing �Zionism.� His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government �wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people.�
Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are �inexcusable,� but stated, �I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.�
Before we discuss his grandmother, let�s examine the impact of Rev. Wright�s statements on the senator�s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical �South Pacific,� to wit, �You have to be taught to hate and fear�You�ve got to be carefully taught.� Few dispute that Rev. Wright�s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn�t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister�s rants.
Now to Obama�s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70�s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama�s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, ��We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.� Then Jackson told the audience, �There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,� he said. �Just to think we can�t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.��
Isn�t that exactly what Obama�s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson�s, with Wright�s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today�s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.
What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America � foreign and domestic � and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.
What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric.
Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn�t do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright�s hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.
It is also disturbing to me that Obama�s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, �For the first time in my adult lifetime, I�m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.�
Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn�t she feel proud to be an American?
When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn�t she feel proud of her country?
Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn�t think so, and certainly not of those who weren�t already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy.
We will soon know.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Unconvinced by Obama�s Wright Speech
Monday, March 24, 2008 2:28 PM
By: Edward I. Koch Article Font Size
Barack Obama�s speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.
Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, �There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?�
Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.
Many of Rev. Wright�s incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright�s sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS, and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy.
He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a �dirty word� and �racist country.� He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing �Zionism.� His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government �wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people.�
Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are �inexcusable,� but stated, �I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.�
Before we discuss his grandmother, let�s examine the impact of Rev. Wright�s statements on the senator�s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical �South Pacific,� to wit, �You have to be taught to hate and fear�You�ve got to be carefully taught.� Few dispute that Rev. Wright�s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn�t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister�s rants.
Now to Obama�s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70�s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama�s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, ��We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.� Then Jackson told the audience, �There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,� he said. �Just to think we can�t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.��
Isn�t that exactly what Obama�s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson�s, with Wright�s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today�s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.
What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America � foreign and domestic � and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.
What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric.
Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn�t do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright�s hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.
It is also disturbing to me that Obama�s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, �For the first time in my adult lifetime, I�m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.�
Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn�t she feel proud to be an American?
When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn�t she feel proud of her country?
Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn�t think so, and certainly not of those who weren�t already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy.
We will soon know.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sauce for the goose???
I am tempted an old and probably politically expression, something about the pot calling the kettle something. I won't, but I am tempted. I read things like this and I am just amazed at how afraid the liberals are over the thought that John McCain might be elected President. McCain is far from perfect as a candidate but he beats the hell out of the other two combined.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
Article published Mar 23, 2008
Outsiders shower Obama with funds
March 23, 2008
By Jim McElhatton - Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show.
The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.
The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat.
Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.
“It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
The Obama campaign, which had been vocal in criticizing such expenditures earlier in the race, says it asked groups not to mount independent political efforts on Mr. Obama's behalf.
Citing money from “big interests,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters last year, “Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
“Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs,” he wrote.
Mr. Plouffe also reportedly told reporters in December that Mr. Obama faced a “blizzard of outside money” from groups supporting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who has since dropped out of the race.
In response to questions about the latest SEIU expenditures, the campaign released a letter from Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member union. Dated Feb. 26, the letter asks SEIU to devote its “time and energies in full partnership with the official (Obama) campaign, in place of any current or planned independent activities.”
The message went unheeded.
Since last week, the SEIU reported spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past month.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton criticized the Obama response regarding outside money being spent on his behalf.
“The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination.”
Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.
The partners — who often share in a law firm's overall profits — gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.
The SEIU accounts for more than half of the outside political money directly supporting Mr. Obama, while a new California political group called Powerpac.org has spent more than $300,000, according to a review of late independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission since last year.
The liberal group MoveOn.org spent more than $60,000 supporting Mr. Obama.
“The work that we do ... is funded by janitors, nurses and school bus drivers, who are giving a few dollars a paycheck,” SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. “I don't think that our members have ever thought Barack Obama wasn't grateful for the support they've been giving him.”
Three groups, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the pro-choice Emily's List, have spent more than $1 million each in support of Mrs. Clinton.
The independent political expenditures are just a fraction of what groups such as SEIU and AFSCME are spending in the campaign, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance specialist and professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
“They're spending millions more in terms of communicating with their own members,” he said. “I think the candidates are more wary of this type of activity than is generally thought. It can produce a mixed message. Given the fact the candidates have so much money to spend, the candidates would probably rather be in control of their own message.”
So far, no groups have reported any expenditures on behalf of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has clinched the Republican nomination, through Mr. Corrado said that will likely change during the general election.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
Article published Mar 23, 2008
Outsiders shower Obama with funds
March 23, 2008
By Jim McElhatton - Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show.
The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.
The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat.
Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.
“It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
The Obama campaign, which had been vocal in criticizing such expenditures earlier in the race, says it asked groups not to mount independent political efforts on Mr. Obama's behalf.
Citing money from “big interests,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters last year, “Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
“Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs,” he wrote.
Mr. Plouffe also reportedly told reporters in December that Mr. Obama faced a “blizzard of outside money” from groups supporting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who has since dropped out of the race.
In response to questions about the latest SEIU expenditures, the campaign released a letter from Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member union. Dated Feb. 26, the letter asks SEIU to devote its “time and energies in full partnership with the official (Obama) campaign, in place of any current or planned independent activities.”
The message went unheeded.
Since last week, the SEIU reported spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past month.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton criticized the Obama response regarding outside money being spent on his behalf.
“The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination.”
Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.
The partners — who often share in a law firm's overall profits — gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.
The SEIU accounts for more than half of the outside political money directly supporting Mr. Obama, while a new California political group called Powerpac.org has spent more than $300,000, according to a review of late independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission since last year.
The liberal group MoveOn.org spent more than $60,000 supporting Mr. Obama.
“The work that we do ... is funded by janitors, nurses and school bus drivers, who are giving a few dollars a paycheck,” SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. “I don't think that our members have ever thought Barack Obama wasn't grateful for the support they've been giving him.”
Three groups, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the pro-choice Emily's List, have spent more than $1 million each in support of Mrs. Clinton.
The independent political expenditures are just a fraction of what groups such as SEIU and AFSCME are spending in the campaign, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance specialist and professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
“They're spending millions more in terms of communicating with their own members,” he said. “I think the candidates are more wary of this type of activity than is generally thought. It can produce a mixed message. Given the fact the candidates have so much money to spend, the candidates would probably rather be in control of their own message.”
So far, no groups have reported any expenditures on behalf of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has clinched the Republican nomination, through Mr. Corrado said that will likely change during the general election.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN
The following was lifted from an for Human Events magazine. I hope that they don't mind.
Keep in mind, all of these revelations appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the regular media...
* True or False: "The GOP is the party of Big Business." (Answer: false. Fortune 500 now give more money to the Left by a factor of 14.5 to 1)
* Exposed: the Hollywood hypocrites who drive most of the way in from Malibu in Lincoln Navigators … but arrive on camera at the Academy Awards in hybrid, eco-friendly Priuses
* 45% of British Muslims believe the U.S. and Israel planned the 9/11 attacks. (This clearly does not square with the media view of Islam as a gentle, rational faith.)
* Liberals claim that "political correctness" on campus a figment of conservatives' imagination - but a recent national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology
* American companies recently did $1 billion worth of direct business with Cuba. (This story gets no play because the press want you believe a "cruel U.S. business embargo" is the cause of Cuban poverty.)
* The segment of the American public most devoted to unlimited abortion rights is young women, right? Wrong. Surveys reveal that young single men aged 18 to 34 favor unlimited abortion more than any other segment
* "Sharia Chic" - how the European fashion industry is featuring outfits inspired by Islamic dress, including clothing worn by jihadists, to rich fashion-conscious Westerners
* High energy prices are NOT all bad. (For the first time in 15 years, the number of new U.S. oil wells drilled tops the 1,000 mark -- and exploration is up 35% over last year.)
* The Kyoto Treaty can't alter climate -- period. (That's what treaty backers admit. Nevertheless, the global press bends over backwards to cover this up.)
* The North Korean missile launch was helpful -- for Red China. (Chinese military leaders got a detailed look at U.S. missile defenses -- sea, air and land-based detection systems and frequencies used.)
* Since 9/11, Islamic jihadists have perpetrated not 500, not 2,500, but more than 5,000 terror attacks. (Liberals hush-up this number, claiming the truth would provoke "reprisals" by "violent" Americans against "peaceful" Muslims.)
Now, does all this make you feel as if the real "endangered species" these days are truth and common sense?
Good! That tells me HUMAN EVENTS will be a welcome breath of fresh air for you. And that you
Keep in mind, all of these revelations appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the regular media...
* True or False: "The GOP is the party of Big Business." (Answer: false. Fortune 500 now give more money to the Left by a factor of 14.5 to 1)
* Exposed: the Hollywood hypocrites who drive most of the way in from Malibu in Lincoln Navigators … but arrive on camera at the Academy Awards in hybrid, eco-friendly Priuses
* 45% of British Muslims believe the U.S. and Israel planned the 9/11 attacks. (This clearly does not square with the media view of Islam as a gentle, rational faith.)
* Liberals claim that "political correctness" on campus a figment of conservatives' imagination - but a recent national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology
* American companies recently did $1 billion worth of direct business with Cuba. (This story gets no play because the press want you believe a "cruel U.S. business embargo" is the cause of Cuban poverty.)
* The segment of the American public most devoted to unlimited abortion rights is young women, right? Wrong. Surveys reveal that young single men aged 18 to 34 favor unlimited abortion more than any other segment
* "Sharia Chic" - how the European fashion industry is featuring outfits inspired by Islamic dress, including clothing worn by jihadists, to rich fashion-conscious Westerners
* High energy prices are NOT all bad. (For the first time in 15 years, the number of new U.S. oil wells drilled tops the 1,000 mark -- and exploration is up 35% over last year.)
* The Kyoto Treaty can't alter climate -- period. (That's what treaty backers admit. Nevertheless, the global press bends over backwards to cover this up.)
* The North Korean missile launch was helpful -- for Red China. (Chinese military leaders got a detailed look at U.S. missile defenses -- sea, air and land-based detection systems and frequencies used.)
* Since 9/11, Islamic jihadists have perpetrated not 500, not 2,500, but more than 5,000 terror attacks. (Liberals hush-up this number, claiming the truth would provoke "reprisals" by "violent" Americans against "peaceful" Muslims.)
Now, does all this make you feel as if the real "endangered species" these days are truth and common sense?
Good! That tells me HUMAN EVENTS will be a welcome breath of fresh air for you. And that you
Friday, March 21, 2008
Your tax dollars at work
When Birds Attack
Episode Number: 2028
Publication Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
*
*
* digg this story
* Listen to Audio (MP3)
* PDF Version
Categories: Government Gone Wild!
If you’ve never seen Hitchcock’s The Birds, you’ve probably seen a few chilling out-takes. People running. Birds swooping. People screaming. Glass shattering.
Could the scenario be even scarier? Well, yes: if, say, it were illegal for the victims to defend themselves.
This is not a movie remake. That’s what the beleaguered citizens of Bartow are currently facing. This is a small town outside of Orlando — a quiet community says the Orlando Sentinel. Well, except for the screaming.
Migrating turkey vultures have turned into quite a nuisance there. They rip shingles off roofs. They chew rubber from car windows. First pecking a little. Then a lot.
And the people? Screams. Of frustration.
They’re not allowed to do much about this. They may blow a shrill whistle to try to scare off the vultures, or tactically position stuffed toys that resemble dead vultures. But the beleaguered residents may not kill or even capture the birds.
The birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Apparently we’ve signed an agreement with the birds which makes it a criminal offense for anybody to ruffle their feathers. Too bad such well-meaning edicts don’t also make it illegal for birds to harass innocent villagers.
Once again we see the tyranny of well-meaning politics, un-tethered by even the tiniest amount of thought about the consequences.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
View Full Version
Episode Number: 2028
Publication Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
*
*
* digg this story
* Listen to Audio (MP3)
* PDF Version
Categories: Government Gone Wild!
If you’ve never seen Hitchcock’s The Birds, you’ve probably seen a few chilling out-takes. People running. Birds swooping. People screaming. Glass shattering.
Could the scenario be even scarier? Well, yes: if, say, it were illegal for the victims to defend themselves.
This is not a movie remake. That’s what the beleaguered citizens of Bartow are currently facing. This is a small town outside of Orlando — a quiet community says the Orlando Sentinel. Well, except for the screaming.
Migrating turkey vultures have turned into quite a nuisance there. They rip shingles off roofs. They chew rubber from car windows. First pecking a little. Then a lot.
And the people? Screams. Of frustration.
They’re not allowed to do much about this. They may blow a shrill whistle to try to scare off the vultures, or tactically position stuffed toys that resemble dead vultures. But the beleaguered residents may not kill or even capture the birds.
The birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Apparently we’ve signed an agreement with the birds which makes it a criminal offense for anybody to ruffle their feathers. Too bad such well-meaning edicts don’t also make it illegal for birds to harass innocent villagers.
Once again we see the tyranny of well-meaning politics, un-tethered by even the tiniest amount of thought about the consequences.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
View Full Version
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)