Obama’s Border Scam

June 25, 2010 at 08:26 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, General Stupidity, Immigration/Illegal Immigration, News, Politics)

Sure, we’ll hire more people and send in the Guard and stuff. And by that he means hire more people but cut back on the total numbers of hours worked, which cancels out the effect of the new people, and say he will send in the Guard without actually doing it. But hey, it’s on paper and he can always say he wanted to but there was some evil plan to prevent him.

The blatant nature of this scam they are running – and I don’t just mean immigration – is truly frightening.

The U.S. Border Patrol has quietly reduced its current force of available agents along the U.S.-Mexico border by cutting the overtime hours they can work even as the Obama administration is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 1,000 new agents, and Congress and the public are clamoring for beefed-up border security.

Several rank-and-file and senior agents told The Washington Times that a new overtime directive issued at the agency’s Washington headquarters will limit their ability to get their jobs done, reduce coverage during peak smuggling periods and allow more criminals to avoid apprehension.

“By lowering the statutory overtime cap nearly 15 percent through the current administrative restrictions, top-level managers in the Border Patrol are depriving Americans of desperately needed coverage along the border at a time of national crisis,” said T.J. Bonner, a veteran agent who heads the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 15,000 of the agency’s nonsupervisory agents.

Because of the nature of the job, most Border Patrol agents average at least two hours overtime a day and the agency, as part of its ongoing recruitment effort, has promised what it called an “excellent opportunity for overtime pay.” The overtime cutback comes at a time that violence against the agents, according to Department of Homeland Security records, is up 31 percent this fiscal year.

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “The Professors Hated Him because he was Lazy, Unqualified & Never Attended any of the Faculty Meetings”

June 21, 2010 at 13:10 (General Stupidity, Gripe, Politics)

Groomed.

The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
Doug Ross reported this and more:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Gulf Spill Panel Long on Poilitics, Short on Experience

June 21, 2010 at 10:00 (Environmental, General Stupidity, News, Politics)

All about politics – they just want to find a way to demonize and distance themselves from oil.

The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about “America’s addiction to oil.” One member has blogged about it regularly.

Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard’s engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background — but it’s in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.

The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.

The White House said the commission will focus on the government’s “too cozy” relationship with the oil industry. A presidential spokesman said panel members will “consult the best minds and subject matter experts” as they do their work.

The commission has yet to meet, yet some panel members had made their views known

Environmental activist Frances Beinecke on May 27 blogged: “We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America’s addiction to oil.”

And on June 3, May 27, May 22, May 18, May 4, she called for bans on drilling offshore and the Arctic.

“Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn’t just an accident. It’s the result of a failed energy policy,” Beinecke wrote on May 20.

Two other commissioners also have gone public to urge bans on drilling.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama to Kyl: “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.'”

June 21, 2010 at 08:01 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Immigration/Illegal Immigration, News, Politics, Society, Video)

Sad state of affairs.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Hillary and Obama Admin Add US to List of Slave Nations

June 16, 2010 at 14:45 (General Stupidity, News, Politics)

Nice. What a pathetic, self-loathing bunch these are.

Secretary of State Clinton included the U.S. for the first time on the State Department’s list of nations “trafficking in persons” for forced labor ranging from farm workers to pole dancers and prostitutes.

“There are Americans, unfortunately, who are held in slavery,” Clinton said in releasing the annual report on nations who promote or permit the international trade in human beings for profit.

The report said the main source countries for forced labor in the U.S. were Thailand, Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti and India.

“The obvious reality is that we, too, are a source country,” said Luis C. de Baca, ambassador-at-Large for trafficking in persons.

In the report, the U.S. was singled out as “source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically forced labor, debt bondage, and forced prostitution.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Even The Left Saw Through Obama’s Speech

June 16, 2010 at 08:24 (Environmental, General Stupidity, Media, News, Politics)

Video clips at the link.

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Tries to Silence Opponents

June 15, 2010 at 09:34 (Guns, News, Politics, Society)

Orwellian indeed.

When Obama says “disclose,” what he really means is “disclose gun group membership lists.”

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don’t apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions. They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama’s wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

* Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists.

* Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175. This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

Permalink Leave a Comment

How the Black Panthers Got Away With Voter Intimidation

June 15, 2010 at 09:31 (General Stupidity, News, Politics, Society)

I bet you knew before you read this didn’t you? Yep, it was the Obama people.

The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.

The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.

Permalink Leave a Comment

What REALLY Happened with Dem Candidate Green

June 14, 2010 at 09:47 (News, Politics)

From perusing local talk shows, it appears this was a democrat plan that backfired. Bear in mind, this was all info from callers on the show and is not necessarily the whole truth, but I think it makes sense, and says a lot about the state of the electorate and the left’s opinion of the black community in general.

As we all know, the left stays in power by the sheer ignorance of the masses. A black preacher called in to one of the talk shows and says that two democrat candidates in the state, whose last names begin with A (Allen, and I forget the other one), were circulating flyers at local black churches and telling them to vote for ‘the first name on the ballot’ (hey, where’s the separation of church and state, dems??). This preacher says that his congregation just doesn’t know how to vote and tends to just take what people tell them at church as the gospel truth – literally! Apparently these people did just what they were told to (and this is a side story that tells volumes about not only how the country got where it is, but why the left tries so hard to keep the status quo in the black community).

So anyway, they do what they are told, but there was another plan by another guy named Ford. Apparently Ford wanted to get out the black vote to help his gubernatorial bid, right, so he arranges to have Mr. Greene on the ballot as a sort of incentive. Apparently since he saw the success Obama had in getting the black community to vote for him (I guess for no other reason than he is black and said he would give them stuff) he figured a black candidate on the ballot would get out the vote. Maybe it worked and maybe it didn’t, but everyone that went to church knows to vote for the first guy on the list, and Mr. Greene was first on the list. So… there you go.

A South Carolina lawmaker on Sunday suggested that new Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene may be intellectually incapable of participating in the general election race.

State Rep. Todd Rutherford told Fox News that he went to Greene’s house to discuss with him how Greene succeeded last week in becoming the candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the November election, but he found it difficult to decipher an answer.

“About two questions into a conversation with him, it would become apparent that he is not probably fit to answer the questions befitting a Senate candidate,” said Rutherford, a Democrat. “If he was put into this, then it is a joke that is funny to all the rest of us, but he doesn’t get it — because I don’t know that his mental status is such that he can get it.”

On Friday South Carolina authorities launched a formal investigation into Greene’s unlikely win. The campaign of his vanquished opponent, Vic Rawl, said it too is looking into reports across the state from voters and poll workers who “experienced problems with voting for whom they intended.”

A Rawl campaign spokesman said he believes that the outcome of Tuesday’s election is “statistically impossible” and “South Carolinians would rather be 100 percent right than 90 percent uncertain.” Greene won with about 60 percent of the vote.

Permalink Leave a Comment

NC Congressman Assaults Student on Sidewalk

June 14, 2010 at 09:04 (General Stupidity, News, Politics)

This guy is just creepy. Now, I know these guys were there to ask irritating questions and get some clips, but that’s the way the world works. El-creepo here should be prosecuted for assault. There was no reason for physically attacking these guys.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama: The Man Who Would Be King

June 11, 2010 at 10:23 (Politics)

Insightful.

Over the heads of some of the sycophants in the mainstream media there appears to be the proverbial light bulb turning on. After sixteen months of the Obama presidency, questions are being asked about not only his competency, but what motivates this putative savior.

The current President of the United States, acting in a way that would make Nero proud, continues to fiddle while not only the United States burns, but the rest of the world begins to spin out of control. The economy and the financial future of the country are in shambles. The oil spill in the Gulf was allowed to spread with no plan, central authority, or leadership in place to prevent its destruction of the Gulf coast. American weakness and lack of resolve has sent a signal and emboldened our enemies to press their hegemonic strategy throughout the globe and to attack our allies, such as Israel.

The country is in this position because all President Obama wants to do, and is capable of doing, is half his job.

Barack Obama has been the number-one topic of conversation among many of my friends and associates in London. His incompetence and narcissism, and the danger he poses to the interests of the United States and its allies in Europe, are startling people. I was asked, “How does Obama view himself as President?” We happened to be sitting in a hotel which overlooked Buckingham Palace, and the answer to the question came to me.

In the United Kingdom and many other countries with a parliamentary system, there is a distinction between the head of state and the head of the government. In some countries, such as Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom, the monarch, either a king or queen, is considered the head of state, and with that office goes all the trappings of royalty. The mundane responsibility of running the government falls to the elected parliament and their chosen prime minister.

Of the world’s major democracies, only the United States merges both functions into the office of president.

Barack Obama views himself as the head of state only, and he has no concept of what leadership is — thus, he cannot be bothered with the day-to-day responsibility of governance. He is, in his narcissistic world, above all that; therefore, he delegates the writing of the Stimulus, health care, and other major bills to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; appoints czars with power to spend and set policy; prefers to let others, who can be conveniently blamed, solve the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; and continues to castigate the previous administration for all manner of ills, as certainly no one as preordained as he to rule could ever be truly responsible for any failure.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Liberal Misery in Santa Monica

June 11, 2010 at 10:06 (Funny, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Society)

I imagine heads were exploding. I mean how can you demonize a black woman who is an ex-Muslim turned atheist, and actually lived in and around extremists and knows first hand what she’s talking about? You can’t. They can’t think of one of their stock replies to justify their opinions. I bet they all went home in shock.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Liberals and Dems Fail Econ 101

June 11, 2010 at 09:56 (Economy, News, Politics, Society)

Not surprising really.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree.” This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer “not sure,” which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

Permalink Leave a Comment

SC Mystery Candidate Raises Questions

June 11, 2010 at 09:08 (General Stupidity, News, Politics)

Maybe he IS a plant. I’m sure the Democrats have done similar things before. Maybe it was a Democrat that planted him. Who knows? There are some things that bear looking at here, though.

First, I find it fascinating that Clyburn tacitly admits what all of us already know – only people with money can run for office. The more money you have the better you will do usually. And you can only get money by toeing the line.

Second, it’s a sad commentary on the citizens of the US that they just vote for people alphabetically instead of doing research. That’s why we have gotten to where we are now. I heard an older lady once when I was standing in line to vote, actually say that she saw a nice looking man on TV the other day, so that’s who she would vote for. Nice. Do some research people. Think.

The man nominated as Democrats’ candidate for Senate in South Carolina might have been a “plant,” a high-ranking Democrat suggested Thursday.

House Majority Whip James ClyburnHouse Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called for South Carolina to investigate the circumstances that led to Alvin Greene winning the Democratic Senate primary in his state earlier this week.

“There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,” Clyburn said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show. “I don’t know if he was a Republican plant; he was someone’s plant.”
RELATED ARTICLES

* S.C. Dems ask candidate to withdraw after felony charge

The third-ranking House Democrat said he found it strange that Greene, a relative unknown prior to Tuesday, was able to produce the money to register and run for Senate despite being unemployed.

Greene allegedly tried to pay the registation fee in cash, and Clyburn said he wondered whether an outside party might have funded both the fee and Greene’s campaign, in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Despite having no real campaign or prior political support in the state, Greene won the primary to face Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) this fall with nearly 59 percent of the vote — almost 100,000 votes.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Surprise SC Senate Democrat candidate has charge pending

June 9, 2010 at 15:30 (General Stupidity, Politics)

Sad.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina’s surprise Democratic nominee to challenge U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint is facing a pending felony charge.

Court records show 32-year-old Alvin Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.

Greene said he had no comment when asked about the charge Wednesday and hung up on a reporter.

The unemployed veteran posted bond after his arrest. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.

Records indicate Greene showed photos to a woman and talked about going to her room at a university dorm.

On Tuesday, Greene stunned state Democratic Party leaders by winning the nomination. He raised no money and put up no campaign website. He beat former four-term state lawmaker Vic Rawl, 64, who had raised about $186,000 and had to abruptly scrap a late-week fundraiser for the fall.

Permalink Leave a Comment

BP Being Repainted as Tool of Capitalism

June 9, 2010 at 13:54 (General Stupidity, Politics)

vs the tool of big government before.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. Theymade out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.

Lobbying records also show BP lobbying on Obama’s stimulus bill and Bush’s Wall Street bailout. You can guess the oil giant wasn’t in league with the Cato Institute or Ron Paul on those.

BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant. Other BP troops on K Street include Michael Berman, a former top aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; Steven Champlin, former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus; and Matthew LaRocco, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Interior Department and whose father was a Democratic congressman. Former Republican staffers, such as Reagan alumnus Ken Duberstein, also lobby for BP, but there’s no truth to Democratic portrayals of the oil company as
an arm of the GOP.

Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.

Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Klavan: Imagine There’s No Border

June 9, 2010 at 10:22 (Politics, Video)

Permalink Leave a Comment

More Guns = Less Crime

June 9, 2010 at 09:31 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Guns, News, Politics, Society)

Filed under obvious.

The increase in sales continued well beyond November 2008. From November 2008 to October 2009, almost 2.5 million more people bought guns in the 12 months after the election than in the preceding 12 months. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, doesn’t tell us how many guns each person bought just the number of people who bought them. Most likely though, gun sales rose by more than the number of people who purchased them.

At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999, when President Bill Clinton and Columbine occurred, was another time when gun sales soared. With people such as Elena Kagan serving as Mr. Clinton’s deputy domestic policy adviser were pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming. And in response gun sales soared.

Just as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, or the more frequent use of the death penalty reduce crime, so does letting victims defend themselves with guns. More certain or greater penalties make it more risky for criminals to commit crime. Victims who can defend themselves can also make committing crime more dangerous and deter criminals.

Americans living in the District of Columbia and Chicago have seen this phenomenon themselves. After the ban went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically. After the Supreme Court threw out DC’s ban and gunlock laws in 2008, the District’s murder rates plunged by 25 percent in 2009. Indeed, my research in the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that every place in the world that we have crime data for has seen murder rates climb when guns were banned.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obamacare Claims First Victim?

June 8, 2010 at 14:16 (Health, News, Politics)

Not surprising. The plan behind the scenes is no doubt to just overload them until they are forced to quit or are so expensive we end up with government run healthcare as a default.

A Virginia-based insurance company says “considerable uncertainties” created by the Democrats’ health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year.

The firm, nHealth, appears to be the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business. “We don’t know what the rules are going to be, and, as a start-up, our investors need certainty,” nHealth CEO and President Paul Kitchen told POLITICO. “The law created so much uncertainty that is beyond our control.”

Last week, in a letter to the company’s 50 or so employees, Executive Vice President James Slabaugh said nHealth has stopped accepting new group customers and will terminate all business by Dec. 31.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Advice From Spike Lee Turns Out Just Like You Would Expect

June 8, 2010 at 14:05 (General Stupidity, News, Politics)

Pathetic.

Becky Quick, who co-hosts Squawk Box with lead anchor Joe Kernen and co-host Carl Quintanilla, slapped Obama for using unpresidential language in an interview he knew would be aired as children prepared for school.

“If you’re the president of the United States and you go on the Today Show which is a morning show, where you’re going to have a lot of kids sitting around watching this, I think you choose your words more carefully,” said Quick. “Using the A word when you are on the Today Show talking with Matt Lauer, yeah, that disturbs me. But I also think that this is a way of trying to prove that I’m mad, to do exactly what everybody’s been pushing me to do, and it doesn’t ring true.”

Obama has been under pressure in the media and even among his friends, notably film director Spike Lee, to air more passion when addressing the oil crisis. But Quick, who said she likes the president, said he sullied the office on the Today Show.

“When you are the president of the United States, you should speak of the office and there are events and time and places where maybe you get fired up about things. It sounded like he was using this to try and prove that he was mad and I think that’s silly,” she added.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »