.
By Friday North Korea had conducted its 6th short range missile test since doing a nuclear test last Monday. It has also renounced it's truce with South Korea - the one that has kept peace since the Korean War ended in 1953.
Over half the Chinese fishing boats, which had been in the area earlier in the week for crabbing season, have left without finishing the season.
But U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters on Friday, "I don't think that anybody in the (Obama) administration thinks there is a crisis."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama Admin looks the other way after Black Panthers intimidate Voters
.
FOX News reports that "Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department."
Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged after an incident in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, where they had threatened voters, hurled racial slurs. and blocked poll and campaign workers. Prosecutors said Shabazz held a nightstick or baton and pointed it at people and tapped it.
Bartle Bull, who was a 1960's civil rights lawyer as well as a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. He wrote in an affidavit obtained by FOX News, "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said that they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," and one turned toward white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The wimp Obama Department of Justice told FOX News that they had obtained "an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again." Claims were dismissed against the other defendants. Oooh. That was a harsh wrist slap. Well, as long as they were there to support him and keep other voters away, all's good. Let's dismiss all those nasty accusations against the Acorn crew as well.
One has to wonder how the Obama administration would have handled it had it been white Supremists doing the same thing.
Further, now that Obama and followers have gotten away with it this time - what will the next election be like? I can only guess that it will be worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/
.
FOX News reports that "Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department."
Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged after an incident in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, where they had threatened voters, hurled racial slurs. and blocked poll and campaign workers. Prosecutors said Shabazz held a nightstick or baton and pointed it at people and tapped it.
Bartle Bull, who was a 1960's civil rights lawyer as well as a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. He wrote in an affidavit obtained by FOX News, "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said that they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," and one turned toward white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The wimp Obama Department of Justice told FOX News that they had obtained "an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again." Claims were dismissed against the other defendants. Oooh. That was a harsh wrist slap. Well, as long as they were there to support him and keep other voters away, all's good. Let's dismiss all those nasty accusations against the Acorn crew as well.
One has to wonder how the Obama administration would have handled it had it been white Supremists doing the same thing.
Further, now that Obama and followers have gotten away with it this time - what will the next election be like? I can only guess that it will be worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/
.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor and “Making Policy”
.
May 27th, 2009 by Rob Natelson
.
"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era" Read more...
"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era" Read more...
.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blackwell: Obama Divides to Conquer
.
May 14th, 2009 4:53 PM Eastern
KEN BLACKWELL: Why Is Obama Going to Notre Dame? To Divide and Conquer American Catholics
Many ask why Notre Dame would invite President Obama to speak at their graduation. Ken Blackwell, former vice president of Xavier University (a Jesuit institution) and presently a fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., asks why Notre Dame extended the invitation to a pro-abortion president in the first place.
He reports that Fr. James Schall, a highly respected professor at Georgetown University, (another Jesuit institution) offered this judgment on a Catholic Web site.
Our president wants the government to run all health care in America - but he and his group don't recognize the human right to life. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS and self-described Catholic, says inalienable rights do not apply in utero. She is in charge of the health care of millions of Americans whose right to life can be taken away through government’s decisions to fund or not fund certain medical care. When Congress passes the new health care bill, she and Obama will even more say in our right to health care.
Another reason Blackwell sees for President Obama going to Notre Dame is to divide and conquer. Look at the debate currently going on within the Catholic community over his speaking at the Notre Dame granduation. Catholics against Catholics, and Obama seems to be enjoying every minute of it. Blackwell notes that Catholic intellectuals, even law professors, are publicly hailing Obama as a way to get past the “toxic debate” on human life. Why do they see the standing up for human lives as a "toxic debate" that must be gotten past by - gotten past by submitting in defeat to the side that condones the killing?
Divide and Conquer. Look around, Obama has been doing that within many groups. But ram-rodding the opposition isn't the way to bring people together and make us all "one" as he likes to pretend. It may have the temporary appearance of having solved the debate, but people of conscience and conviction aren't going to just roll over and go away. We may be in shock right now, but we aren't going to quit on what we know to be true and right.
Obama is exporting abortion around the world, has slashed funding for abstinence education, and intends to strip doctors and nurses of their right to not take part in abortion. I used to be a nurse. I will never return to nursing if it would mean being forced to participate in abortions. I know many in the health care field that will resign rather than be forced to murder. This debate is not over. It will never be over.
When Obama is through, this country will be more divided than it has ever been. I pray it won't be divided to point of destruction. But I'm guessing that there is no turning back. We are two different people's, the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives, and our visions for the nation are polar. On many of the issues dividing us, there simply isn't any room for compromise. Obama, Ayers, and the rest of their buddies already know that. That's why twenty years ago, Ayers and his friends were talking about what to do with people like us - the unrepentant conservatives.
.
May 14th, 2009 4:53 PM Eastern
KEN BLACKWELL: Why Is Obama Going to Notre Dame? To Divide and Conquer American Catholics
Many ask why Notre Dame would invite President Obama to speak at their graduation. Ken Blackwell, former vice president of Xavier University (a Jesuit institution) and presently a fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., asks why Notre Dame extended the invitation to a pro-abortion president in the first place.
He reports that Fr. James Schall, a highly respected professor at Georgetown University, (another Jesuit institution) offered this judgment on a Catholic Web site.
Blackwell states that if we define human rights in these terms, they are no longer inalienable rights, "They become through intellectual sophistry alienable by government edict.""So when President Obama goes to Notre Dame this week, we should be sure what is at issue. He goes there for one reason, namely, in this symbolic place, to convince the vast majority of Catholics that his operative definition of “human rights,” not that of the Church, is the correct one.
“Rights” mean precisely what the government defines them to mean. The president is the government."
Our president wants the government to run all health care in America - but he and his group don't recognize the human right to life. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS and self-described Catholic, says inalienable rights do not apply in utero. She is in charge of the health care of millions of Americans whose right to life can be taken away through government’s decisions to fund or not fund certain medical care. When Congress passes the new health care bill, she and Obama will even more say in our right to health care.
Another reason Blackwell sees for President Obama going to Notre Dame is to divide and conquer. Look at the debate currently going on within the Catholic community over his speaking at the Notre Dame granduation. Catholics against Catholics, and Obama seems to be enjoying every minute of it. Blackwell notes that Catholic intellectuals, even law professors, are publicly hailing Obama as a way to get past the “toxic debate” on human life. Why do they see the standing up for human lives as a "toxic debate" that must be gotten past by - gotten past by submitting in defeat to the side that condones the killing?
Divide and Conquer. Look around, Obama has been doing that within many groups. But ram-rodding the opposition isn't the way to bring people together and make us all "one" as he likes to pretend. It may have the temporary appearance of having solved the debate, but people of conscience and conviction aren't going to just roll over and go away. We may be in shock right now, but we aren't going to quit on what we know to be true and right.
Obama is exporting abortion around the world, has slashed funding for abstinence education, and intends to strip doctors and nurses of their right to not take part in abortion. I used to be a nurse. I will never return to nursing if it would mean being forced to participate in abortions. I know many in the health care field that will resign rather than be forced to murder. This debate is not over. It will never be over.
When Obama is through, this country will be more divided than it has ever been. I pray it won't be divided to point of destruction. But I'm guessing that there is no turning back. We are two different people's, the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives, and our visions for the nation are polar. On many of the issues dividing us, there simply isn't any room for compromise. Obama, Ayers, and the rest of their buddies already know that. That's why twenty years ago, Ayers and his friends were talking about what to do with people like us - the unrepentant conservatives.
.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Did Perez Purposely Set Miss California Up with Gay Question?
.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, while competing for the Miss USA crown, answered a question honestly. By doing that, royally ticked off the Miss California USA Directors and many others and might have thrown the contest. Did Perez Hilton, asking this stupid question, purposely cost her the Miss USA title?
Pageant judge and blogger, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to her: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean answered, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Gay advocates in the crowd made sure people knew they were offended. A Miss California director Keith Lewis is quoted in a statement as saying, "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman." "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." His felllow co-director, Shanna Moakler, agreed.
Excuse me? If the Pageant organizers don't want politics or religion in the pageant, they shouldn't have allowed such a politically charged question. It's not Prejean's fault The question was asked. It's the pageant's fault for having allowed the question. I applaud her for an honest answer.
Then there was Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner and was shouting in the lobby afterwards. "It's ugly," he said. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Wake up, Scott. Miss California represents California, not the pageant audience. Most of the people in California do not support gay marriage. That's why gay marriage lost at the polls, remember? If the pageant organizers don't want honest answers, they shouldn't ask questions. In my mind, Miss California should have won due to her courage and conviction.
But Scott's statement begs additional questions. What qualified a gay blogger to judge the Miss USA contest? And why WERE lots of gays attending the event? I guess many of us don't pay as much attention to pageants as others do. There are many more important things to do - and more important issues to pay attention to. Economy, Iraq, world hunger...to name a few.
But if you can't win at the California polls...cause controversy at televised events in order to give the appearance of populous angst.
You don't think so? What kinds of questions did the other contestant get? Were their questions equally politically charged? If not, was it a fair contest? Why was Miss California targeted with this particular question? Did Hilton know her background and how she would answer?
Be on the look out for this type of gimmick to happen again and again.
.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, while competing for the Miss USA crown, answered a question honestly. By doing that, royally ticked off the Miss California USA Directors and many others and might have thrown the contest. Did Perez Hilton, asking this stupid question, purposely cost her the Miss USA title?
Pageant judge and blogger, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to her: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean answered, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Gay advocates in the crowd made sure people knew they were offended. A Miss California director Keith Lewis is quoted in a statement as saying, "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman." "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." His felllow co-director, Shanna Moakler, agreed.
Excuse me? If the Pageant organizers don't want politics or religion in the pageant, they shouldn't have allowed such a politically charged question. It's not Prejean's fault The question was asked. It's the pageant's fault for having allowed the question. I applaud her for an honest answer.
Then there was Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner and was shouting in the lobby afterwards. "It's ugly," he said. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Wake up, Scott. Miss California represents California, not the pageant audience. Most of the people in California do not support gay marriage. That's why gay marriage lost at the polls, remember? If the pageant organizers don't want honest answers, they shouldn't ask questions. In my mind, Miss California should have won due to her courage and conviction.
But Scott's statement begs additional questions. What qualified a gay blogger to judge the Miss USA contest? And why WERE lots of gays attending the event? I guess many of us don't pay as much attention to pageants as others do. There are many more important things to do - and more important issues to pay attention to. Economy, Iraq, world hunger...to name a few.
But if you can't win at the California polls...cause controversy at televised events in order to give the appearance of populous angst.
You don't think so? What kinds of questions did the other contestant get? Were their questions equally politically charged? If not, was it a fair contest? Why was Miss California targeted with this particular question? Did Hilton know her background and how she would answer?
Be on the look out for this type of gimmick to happen again and again.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)