Pro-Choice Democrats Freak Out

I thought Democrats were pro-choice.

But now that Virginia Governor and DNC chair Tim Kaine has approved a new “Choose Life” license plate, pro-abortion groups are freaking out.

“It is surprising that Governor Kaine would do this, but it’s all the more surprising that he would do it as chair of the DNC,” said Paulette McElwain, the president of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood.

I see no difference between the Democrats’ support of abortion (called free choice) or slavery (then called states rights or property rights). Like the slave owners who advocated their right to control their personal property, Democrats cite a mother’ right to control her own body. In both cases, the slave and the child are wholly irrelevant.

At the same time, women who choose to not kill their babies do not have the choice of schools that vouchers would deliver. And they say Republicans are fascist? (more here)

LA Dog Trainer Examines Police Chief Term Limits

Whenever reasonable people begin to question the wisdom of letting someone of Antonio Villaraigosa’s integrity control police chiefs who hail from corruption-ridden cities like Boston and Philadelphia, the Democrats are sure to exhume Warren Christopher's 1991 report to reiterate the value of its neutered police department.

Between 1938 and 1991, civil service protections and police chiefs like William Parker prevented the kind of activities that have, since 1991, turned Los Angeles into one of America’s fastest declining cities. Instead of explaining LA’s corrupt history or why LA now has the worst crime, pollution, public schools, highest taxes, and worst roads in America, they hawk Christopher’s report.

The problem with the Christopher Commission Report was that it was written by then-Mayor Tom Bradley’s personal friend and attorney, Warren Christopher. Christopher was directed not to investigate the Rodney King arrest in 1991, but to help his client (Bradley) convince voters that the LAPD Chief’s civil service protections had caused the Rodney King beating. Had an investigator like Dan Walker examined the arrest, he would have likely arrived at the same conclusion made by the Ventura County jury – that officers who arrested King had followed the same brutal use-of-force policies that were required by Mayor Bradley since 1983.

Had Bernie Madoff’s own attorney investigating the alleged pyramid scheme, Madoff would not be in jail today – which brings us to today’s LA Times editorial regarding proposed changes of term limits for LAPD Chief William Bratton. Presented below is the Times opinion (italics), with my comments.

A proposal to do away with term limits on the police chief ignores L.A.'s history.

LA’s history begins much earlier than 1991 – even before LA Mayor Frank Shaw ordered LAPD Captain Earl Kynette to bomb Harry Raymond’s car in 1938. Without civil service protections, corrupt mayors controlled their police chiefs as easily as Villaraigosa now controls his. Unlike the period between 1940 and 1990, LA’s politically-appointed ethics commissioners (Democrat lawyers) handle what were once known as criminal corruption charges.

At the height of his influence, Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis was asked whether he would consider running for mayor. Why, the chief responded with characteristic mischief, would he give up all his power? Years later, Davis, by then retired, testified before the Christopher Commission and recommended that the city's police chief, whose job was protected by civil service rules, instead be limited to two five-year terms as a way of recalibrating the balance of power between the chief and his civilian bosses. His proposal was accepted by the commission and approved by voters the following year, earning Davis the gratitude of the city and the everlasting enmity of Chief Daryl F. Gates, who was forced out by the reforms of that period.

While Davis recommended limits of two five-year terms, he did not suggest that LAPD’s chiefs should lose civil service protections that protect them from political influence or corruption.

The term limit for the position of police chief has since served the city well. After Willie L. Williams' first term, the Police Commission chose not to reappoint him to a second. Same for Bernard C. Parks, Williams' successor. By contrast, the commission was satisfied with William J. Bratton's performance and offered him a second term, which he accepted. Each transition was controversial but orderly and professional. Decades of contentious relations between City Hall and Parker Center gave way to relative calm and police acceptance of civilian oversight.

Police commissioners are appointed by the Mayor. When LA cops begin to uncover unsavory activities related to the Mayor or his friends, Chief Bratton’s there to resolve problems they way they did in New York and Boston. In those cities, you don’t get to be chief of police unless you are willing to play along.

Now comes City Councilman Herb Wesson with a proposal to upend that progress by eliminating the term limit. His motives are at least partly understandable: We like Bratton too. And we don't think much of term limits, at least for elected officials. But rules should not be designed to suit individuals. Rather, they should protect the city over the long term, and the term limit for the chief grows out of Los Angeles' troubled history, not just its recent past.

Term limits are problematic for corrupt officials – especially when they find a chief they can trust. Why change a chief who already knows how to roll over on command?

As Davis' impish observation underscored, the police chief has held a position of extraordinary influence in Los Angeles life.

For good reason.

That man -- there has never been a woman in the office -- commands an armed force of thousands, the largest of all city departments and the most visible. Some chiefs have been admirable, some corrupt or racist.

Being a pro-segregationist Democrat-controlled city, racism was rampant throughout LA’s history. The progeny of LA’s pro-segregationist politicians now control LA’s public schools, where half of all black 9th graders will not graduate, go to jail, or get shot. LA’s corrupt chiefs of police ended with civil service protections and William Parker in 1950, and resumed with Bernard Parks after civil service protections ended.

Some have protected the city; others have ravaged it. The Christopher Commission properly recognized that history with its recommendation for a term limit.

Once again, the Times earns its reputation as LA’s premier dog trainer.

Has Obama's European Honeymoon Ended?

From the April edition of Prospect Magazine:

... Even the sympathetic press is starting to speak of an “incompetence” crisis. Abroad, North Korea, Russia, China and Iran have all turned up the heat, as have Hamas and Chavez. At home, Obama’s Trojan horse agenda—using the economic crisis as an excuse to advance radical social change in areas unrelated to returning growth to the economy—threatens to pull his government into ideological quicksand when all the public really want are jobs. Centrist Democrats are deeply concerned about what Obama’s poor start means for the long-term, moderate Democratic majority whose possibility was glimpsed in the Clinton years. A president with historic ambitions was never going to be content with tackling a mere recession. Thus in his televised address before both houses of congress in February he delivered a special history lesson: “Our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.” The current recession and housing and financial problems have deeper causes, he said. What are these underlying maladies that so badly need the shaman’s touch? The president named four: energy, healthcare, education and debt.

The “day of reckoning” for ignoring these issues—and for exacerbating this failure with excessive borrowing—has arrived, he said. Americans who concentrated on the president’s words rather than on their characteristically sonorous delivery found the diagnosis baffling. Education, energy and healthcare policy in the US, as almost anywhere, all need help. But are America’s flaws in these areas really the causes of the housing bust and the paralysed banking system? What about the cyclical contractions that follow all economic booms? What about a decade and more of absurdly cheap money? How about all that Fannie and Freddie-fuelled lending to inappropriate borrowers? What happened to lax oversight? What about greed, that comforting straw man? No, according to Obama, we are losing our jobs and being kicked out of our excessively mortgaged houses because America lacks universal healthcare, federally sponsored nursery school, university for all, and a progressive emissions-oriented energy policy.(more here)

What's DNC's Beef with Free Speech?

The Washington Times explains:

The left now recognizes that the attack on Rush has turned out to be a massive political misjudgment. Huffington Post commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote that it is time to “raise the white flag” in the Limbaugh war. Gibbs has admitted that baiting Limbaugh was “counterproductive.”

Meanwhile the White House was embarrassed when it was revealed that the White House packed its “online town hall” with political supporters asking softball questions. Prominent Democrats in Congress have groused about the influence of conservative radio voices and threatened to impose a new “fairness doctrine” to drive them from the airwaves. The Obama team has even protested the use of the new, more accurate “portable people meter” Arbitron ratings service. (more here)

Earth Hour Not Celebrated at the Al Gore Residence

The Washington Examiner reports that Al Gore's lights were on all night last Saturday - at least the lights on his house were on. No one vouched for the Global Warming King's personal incandescence...

Revolutionary Common Sense

Rules for the Right

Andrew Breitbart has written about how "the radical left" operates and, more importantly, how conservatives can respond, adapt, and adopt those rules as their own.

A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance.

Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power. We must not let that go unanswered. Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush. Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its “idealism” in a most cynical fashion. The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever. Much of Mr. Obama’s vaunted online strategy involved utilizing “Internet trolls” to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that’s called “vandalism.” But in a political movement that embraces “graffiti” as avant-garde art , that’s business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people’s property in pursuit of electoral victory. Hugh Hewitt’s popular site shut off its comments section because of the success of these obnoxious invaders. Breitbart.com polices nonpartisan newswire stories for such obviously coordinated attacks.

Other right-leaning sites such as Instapundit and National Review Online refuse to allow comments, knowing better than to flirt with the online activist left. During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a new group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans. They said they would never vote for the GOP again if the case against Bill Clinton was pursued. Rush Limbaugh was the first to isolate these “seminar callers,” whose mission during the Lewinsky mess was to fool the listening audience into believing they were outraged conservatives willing to cut their ties to the Republican Party if the GOP-led Congress continued Eleven years later, “seminar callers” abound and call screeners are trained in the art of weeding them out. But the filtering does not always work... (more here)

Patterico comments and lists Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Patterico adds:

Alinsky may be an ideological touchstone for both Pres. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Alinsky did not believe in working within the political system, whereas Obama and Clinton clearly do. This means that the Obama Administration’s use of these tactics will tend to be covert, rather than overt — White House talks with partisan operatives and friendly media figures, White House authorized media attacks, messaging coordinated by the Sorosphere, preemptive attacks on rising GOP stars, etc. It is a fair bet that Obama does not spend time analyzing reports on Internet trolling.

Conservatives or Republicans may be able to draw lessons from Alinsky’s rules, but the Obama example should suggest that roles can be as important as rules. For example, having constructive alternatives will be more important to Republicans working inside the system than to activists organizing “tea parties” outside the system. Ridicule will be more important to conservatives and libertarians in talk radio and the blogosphere than to Republican officeholders and party functionaries trying to appeal to the apolitical middle.

Storytelling can be valuable to a range of groups and blocs. Recognizing that there will always need to be a variety of approaches, replacing “fun” tactics when they start to lose their punch, is also important. (more here)

Does Barack Obama Want to Snoop Your Hard Drive?

More importantly, why the secrecy?

Earth Hour: Do's and Dont's

An acquaintance reminded me to turn off my lights for an hour this evening for Earth Hour. Here's my response:

My solar panels generated 45 KW and a tank full of hot water today, so I plan to light up my whole house tonight after watching The Great Global Warming Swindle. Michael Crichton also put the “intoxicating vanity” (of man-controlled weather) into perspective long ago.

Make sure you don’t light any candles (they warm the planet) and stay away from those evil flashlights – those batteries pollute our water table. If you want to slow global warming, demand nuclear power. France generates about 80% of their power from nuclear plants.

If you don’t want to stay in your dark house, don’t jump in your Prius – it’s more environmentally toxic than a Hummer. Their nickel batteries are mined in Sudbury, Ontario. Take a look at what those mines have done to that landscape.

The American Form of Government

Do you really know the difference between Democrats and Republicans? What's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic? This excellent primer answers those questions.

California’s Propositions 1A-F are a Fraud – Vote NO!

Propositions 1A-F are up for election on May 19 in California. Get out and Vote NO on ALL of them!

The measures are set up as a "family"- all measure 1, but with alphabetical sub-designations to divide distinct items as Propositions 1-A through 1-F. This listing tends to produce confusion among the voters on the various parts of the "family" of propositions, making it more difficult for voters to remember which to favor and which to oppose on a divided ballot. It is a way of getting voters to vote on the "package" without looking carefully at the contents. Unfortunately, some will fall for this calculated ruse. Taxpayers deserve more than cynical ruses from their government.

In this election, California voters are facing a barrage of unparalleled falsehoods and misrepresentations. Proponents of these bogus measures called for a May vote hoping for a low voter turnout. Do not be fooled.

Proposition 1-A: THE "RAINY DAY" BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND

VOTE NO. If politicians could be prosecuted for deceptive advertising this little item would land a bunch of Sacramento hacks in jail. According to the Secretary of State's Ballot Label for this proposition, the measure would "limit future deficits by increasing the State's 'rainy day' fund," but it would also exact "higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion." Yes, Proposition 1-A is nothing less than the authorization of a massive tax increase to deposit in a state "reserve;" but these additional reserve funds are intended to be spent when state revenues drop below the amount "needed" to fund the government. Those who decide how many dollars are "needed" to fund the government also decide when to spend the reserve. In the end, the State "Rainy Day" reserve is nothing more than another pot of money to feed the big government monster.

Proposition 1-B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN

VOTE NO on this "save now - pay later" scheme. The Secretary of State says, "Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter." Temporary cuts to education made now will be added back to the education budget later and taxpayers will receive the bill for the "repayment."

Proposition 1-C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT

VOTE NO on this shell-game gamble. If "modernizing" means increasing the public debt by writing IOU's in the name of California taxpayers to the California State Lottery, then this could rightfully be considered as a contribution to progress. The State is having problems selling its unsustainable debt instruments to investors, so why not just strongarm some more credit from one of its own public-private partnerships?

Proposition 1-D: CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING

VOTE NO on this bait and switch sham. The California Legislature imposed a tax on cigarettes a few years back on the pretence that the new tax would yield money for early childhood programs. Now, here is that same Legislature in your face telling you that it wants to move that money around in whatever way it sees fit. Make a promise. Find an excuse. Break the promise. See a pattern here?

Proposition 1-E: MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING.
TEMPORARY REALLOCATION

VOTE NO on this hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye scam. Californians voted in 2004 to provide funds for specific mental health services. It was called Proposition 63. Now comes the Legislature to undo the work of the supporters of Proposition 63 by getting what they hope is a forgetful public to take money from that purpose and give it over to another purpose. So much for public earmarks! You may get your wish today, but ultimately all forms of revenue will go to the general fund where politicians can use it to meet their own agendas. Don't fall for this undermining of the California initiative process.

Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS

VOTE NO. The measure only empowers the Director of Finance to prevent the Citizens Compensation Commission from recommending an increase when a deficit year is declared. Of course, the politicians can still pass their own increases; but even if they don't, it would be a small loss compared to the big money showered on their campaigns by the unions and other special interests.

Don't ignore this election. If you do not vote no, chances are that union workers will vote to force you to pay higher taxes. As long as you allow California's legislators and governor to spend your money, they will continue to spend your money until you go broke. Go out and vote - and VOTE NO!

Hannan Dresses Down UK PM Gordon Brown

If only Republicans could speak with Hannan's eloquence... (blog)

Philly Hiring Quotas Attract Drug Dealers

Affirmative Action is good – as long as it is balanced by Equal Opportunity. Unfortunately, when they upheld the Philadelphia Plan in 1971, the federal courts required employers to apply minority hiring goals (e.g. quotas).

Like the racial quota disasters in Miami and Los Angeles, Philadelphia police officers Alhinde Weems and Malik Snell are just the latest officers to be charged with corruption. Like the story of the Boy and the Rattlesnake, the City of Philadelphia knew Weems and Snell were drug dealers when they hired him. But because the city believed that hiring white applicants of integrity was worse than hiring black drug dealers, city officials hired these predators to meet Philly’s discriminatory quotas. And last January, an undercover ATF officer risked his life to sell a kilo of fake cocaine to Weems.

Who is helped by affirmative action? Do communities that endure the scourge of drugs, gangs, and crime benefit from black drug dealers who are hired to carry guns and badges?

"This kind of thing makes you sick," said Deputy Commissioner Richard Ross. "This man tarnished the reputation of our department and everyone else who is out there laying their lives on the line and protecting people."

The problem was not that Weems and Snell “tarnished the badge” but that city officials chose to hire criminals to meet racial quotas. If bigots had hired white criminals over qualified black men of integrity, wouldn’t the community have a case for negligent hiring and retention? If Equal Opportunity was created to end racial discrimination, why did the federal courts force employers to end it?

As America approaches its 40th year of racial quotas, isn’t it time to reconsider the role of Equal Opportunity? When will MLK’s dream of judging men by the content of their character be realized? (more here)

Released Gitmo Prisoner Now Top Taliban Operations Officer

The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan was a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for six years.

In a perverted play to keep one’s friends close and enemies closer, Barack Obama now wants to send your enemies into your neighborhood. To keep them out of trouble, maybe we could invest in their education as chemists and airline pilots. One wonders if Osama is more of a threat than Obama.

Odds R US: Two Bets, One Winner

by Steve Finefrock - Hollywood Conservative Forum

If you overhear this conversation – “Those hateful superpatriots, they are so jingoistic about the flag and the salute and the pledge and all that stuff” – the odds are, You’re hearing standard fare from the loose lips of liberals.

If you hear this conversation – “America is a force for peace and decency in the world” – the odds are, You’re hearing genuine voice of conservatives.

If you see flags and bunting in red-white-blue on a stage, odds are, It’s a republican event – or, if a democrat event, odds are the r-w-b was put there as a strategic decision to win over the middle-American vote. Odds are that on a republican stage, it’s just the way things are done for and by any ordinary, i.e. loyal American.

The word patriotic? Odds are, It’s used by conservatives with tears in their eyes; for liberals, it’s a concept of loyalty not to nation, but to party and beliefs in free-lunch legislation. Odds are, The words “traitor” and “disloyal” and “treasonous” are used by conservatives regarding their nation, and odds are also that those words are used by liberals towards ‘disloyal’ red-dogs such as Zell Miller [last decade] and Joe Lieberman [currently, and for a while yet to be] and targets of upcoming targeted TV ads.

Odds are that ‘patriotic’ is used toward faithfulness in nation and creed; odds are also that ‘patriotic’ is for dems’ belief in taxes, regulation, litigation and aggravation. To support our troops is favored by both sides: odds are, by conservatives it’s because they believe in our troops inherent mission and intrinsic decency. Odds are, by liberals that expression is to garner favor among the ‘swing voter’ who abandons the left at the ballot box in every election where the perception was otherwise.

Odds are, When a conservative votes for taxes or regulations, it’s a vote cast with a heavy heart and sad face, borne of desperation. Such as when liberals lured Bush-41 into the Andrews AFB ‘summit’ tax hike, after he’d campaigned to ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ – followed by Carville and Begala characterizing him as untrustworthy because he’d not kept a promise. Odds are, When a Begala-Carville team get into office, raising taxes will be undertaken with gleeful face and a happy heart.

Odds are, When liberals spread freely the free-lunch that comes from taxes, it’s done with joyous satisfaction, whereas the conservative does it because of the temptation of garnering votes. Odds are, a conservative agreeing to taxes and regulations is a failure of belief, tantamount to committing a sin; a liberal so acting is fulfilling a catechism of belief and advocacy.

Odds are, laughter at patriotism and religion comes from the mouths of liberals, who embrace Michael Moore and Al Franken and George Clooney. Odds are, rage at such insults is the expression of conservatives. Odds are, flag pins and draped flags on home walls and fluttering from front-yard flagpoles are the homes of conservatives. Odds are, liberals will scoff at such pretentious displays, while also insisting their yellow-ribbon and other ribbon displays of dedication to tribal causes must be respected as genuine concern.

Odds are, terms like “bible thumper” and “Jesus freak” and “red-neck” and “jingoist” and “super-patriot” as well as “breeder” are uttered freely and without hesitation by liberals. Odds are, possession of guns by someone who publicly disdains the Second Amendment is the hypocrisy – ah, the ‘h’ word used – typical of liberals.

Odds are, “investment” by a liberal is a disguise of tax-hikes and spending hikes as far as the eye can see. Odds are, a conservative sees an investment as yielding improved efficiency and greater wealth for a society, or corporation, or small business. Odds are, tax cuts are disdained by liberals, who feel all taxes are a ‘right’ of the government; odds are, tax cuts are enthusiastically embraced by conservatives’ belief that the money belongs to the person who earned it in the first place.

Odds are, when the media is tolerant of ‘nuance’ in policy expression and implementation, it’s a nuanced utterance of a liberal. Odds are, when Timmy Geithner proclaims there should be no reward for failure, he doesn’t mean the Great Society and its progeny.

Odds are, reassurances that the economy’s fundamentals are solid will be treated with great respect if it comes from Obama’s team; from McCain? You make the call.

Odds are, tears shed at the American flag passing are conservative tears; laughter among the same crowd will be from liberal mouths. Tears shed for an emotive moment of a child is one arena shared by red and blue shirts.

Not much is shared, in the political arena, between the red shirts and the blue shirts. Some similar rhetoric, and the bunting of course – but again, odds are the liberal bunting and rhetoric is cross-dressing. The most important weapon in our arsenal as conservatives is a PGM [precision guided munitions] designed to destroy the wardrobe department of the liberal pretension of love of country. First it was JFK who strategized to get to ‘the right of Nixon’ on defense, then Carter likewise pretended to care for traditional values, next Clinton, and most recently Obama.

Odds are, if they are stripped of their cloak of Americanism, they LOSE. Odds are, the GOP and conservatives are realizing that today, finally, belatedly. And the New Modern Conservative Movement is coming into its own, bearing the torch of a new generation, tested by prosperity, challenged by hostility to classic values, and ready to take the leadership.

Odds are, those new leaders will include Dana Perino, Ari Fleischer, Aaron Schock working with intellectual heft of Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz. Other lights are brightening. Including one Hollywood conservative readying for a David-Goliath fight of notable proportions.

The Odds Are: 2010 is going to be a very interesting year. That PGM factory is gearing up, if a bit behind the curve, and new leaders with new variations on an old, reliable theme – conservatism – will re-energize our base, then educate the swing voters, to see thru the cross-dressing of Ali Obama’s Forty Thieves.

Leadership is teachership – some interesting pedagogues are emerging. Repetition is the soul of pedagogy, we must remember – and keep re-igniting the fires, for the odds are, if we don’t, then WHO WILL?

The French? Al Gore? The United Nations? Rahm Emmanuel? Hillary? Oprah? Clooney? Michael Moore? Whoopi? Barbra? Maddow? Oberman? Matthews? Moyers? ABC? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? PBS? NPR?

Remember, and don’t forget, what the ODDS ARE….. they are the U.S. of A., at risk as any Vegas bet on long odds. Those Odds Are U.S.A.

Mortgage Meltdown Smoking Gun

For those who still aren’t sure who caused the US financial meltdown, this 1999 NY Times article (PDF) offers a smoking gun:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

For his part of this disaster, Fannie Mae chairman Franklin Raines was paid $90 million in the years leading up to the mortgage collapse. Jamie Gorelick, who facilitated the 9/11 attacks, received $24 million. Raines, Gorelick, and other executives were eventually forced to return $31.4 million. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd were the top two recipients of kickbacks while Barney Frank defended the scam. Now, Barack Obama wants Americans to pay $3.3 trillion to fix the problems that Democrats created.

Anyone who has operated a lemonade stand knows what's wrong with spending money you don't have. For refusing to buy into Obama’s disastrous plan, Democrats have accused Republicans of being the party of NO.

By the way, if Democrats pass Obama’s $3.3 trillion plan and taxpayers were charged (0% interest) $1 million per second to repay it, it would take over 100,000 years to repay:

$3.3 trillion ÷ 31,557,600 seconds/year = 104,571 years

Obama Weekly Address Translated

Belligerence

Chauncey Obama

As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden… In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.

Chauncey Gardner

Being There, (1979)

I think there’s always an ethical and a moral element that has to be – be a part of this. And so, as I said, I don’t take decisions like this lightly. They’re ones that I take seriously. And – and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue.

President Barack Obama

Press Conference (24 Mar 2009)

Mayor Skates to Eleven Terms

The Mayor of Mississauga could teach Americans a thing or two about governance.

Contempt of Court, or its Citizenry?

Having been a victim of a racially corrupt judge and prosecutor, my heart goes out to Jesse Merrell.

After Federal Judge James Robertson dismissed his request for Barack Obama to prove his Hawaiian birth, Merrell shared his sentiments in writing with Judge Robertson:

"How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your sanctimonious door!... The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac, adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

"Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!"

Instead of celebrating Merrell’s First Amendment right, Judge Robertson dispatched US Marshall’s to Merrell’s home.

As a retired LAPD officer and licensed investigator, I’m skeptical of conspiracy theories. In this case, however, I’m confused by Obama’s apparent refusal or inability to present convincing proof of his American birth.

Birth certificates are not a new concept. When Helen Lim was born in San Francisco’s insular Chinatown in 1908, her certificate of live birth recorded the names and birth places of her parents, the attending physician, along with seals and signatures. Despite their humble beginnings, Elvis Presley’s parents were also able to secure a credible certificate.

Like Helen and Barack, I was born to parents who were born on other continents. Like Obama’s father, my mother was not a legal US resident. Like Helen, my parents were able to secure my birth certificate. While Helen and I can produce easily verifiable certificates, President Obama either cannot produce proof of his US birth, or refuses to.

Helen Lim and I were both born in California. Elvis was born in Mississippi. Were Hawaiian certificates different during the 1960s?

Apparently not. While this Hawaiian birth certificate has the same information found in my certificate, Obama’s certificate contains almost no useable or verifiable information. What clouds Obama’s birth even more is that subsequent public notices may have also been forged.

As a police officer and US Marine who once held a Top Secret security clearance, I understand the US Government’s concern about social unrest if Obama is removed from office for constitutional reasons. Obama has a much bigger profile than Rodney King – whose arrest ignited riots that cost Los Angeles residents $2 billion in damage and lost revenues. If Obama and the Democrat Party are found to have used fraud to elect America’s first foreign born US president, the LA riots could look polite by comparison.

As a career investigator, I can’t tell whether Obama was born in the United States or not. But as easy as it is for me, Helen, and Elvis to produce our own certificates, it’s hard to imagine why Obama would rather fight these lawsuits than produce his own verifiable birth certificate.

In this case, Jesse Merrell may have good reason to express contempt for Judge Robertson’s court. It’s also remarkable that Robertson would send Barney Fife to threaten Merrell with arrest for expressing his understandable (and apparently well-founded) contempt.

James Robertson may be a federal judge, but he has also sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution. Having failed in that responsibility, Jesse Merrell has a right to show as much contempt for Robertson’s court as Obama now shows to America's citizens.

Pharmaceutical Shill Gets Caught

Shortly after I compared pharmaceutical shill Scott S. Reuben to Bernie Madoff, surgeon Kate Scannell MD posted her own opinion at Inside Bay Area:

… the story of Dr. Scott S. Reuben tells the tale of one man who, in pursuit of personal gain, harmed huge segments of our nation's health care system. That he could get away with falsifying pharmaceutical research and medical publications on such a massive scale over many years also tells a larger story about our nation's medical research industrial complex.

That complex — the enormous, poorly regulated, financially incestuous and opaque system that generates and disseminates the medical information we use to determine health care for patients — is similarly structured to allow individuals and privileged industries to profit through backroom deals.

A few days ago, it was widely reported that Reuben, an anesthesiologist in Massachusetts and a faculty member of Tufts' medical school, had falsified at least 21 of his 72 published research studies. He simply made them up. Many of those fictional studies promoted the use of painkillers — like Pfizer's Celebrex or Merck's Vioxx — during orthopedic surgeries, highlighting yet another layer of his disgrace. Those drugs, known collectively as "COX-2" drugs, have been suspected of causing severe side effects like heart attacks and strokes, and Vioxx was finally withdrawn from the market in 2004.

As was reported in Scientific American, Reuben's work tried to encourage surgeons to abandon use of older and less expensive anti-inflammatory painkillers in favor of newer and more expensive ones called "COX-2" drugs. In addition to faking research, downplaying COX-2 side effects, and jacking up the cost of medical care, Reuben also profited from financial arrangements with Merck and Pfizer. Those relationships are hard to confirm in his publications, but you find evidence of them in odd places. For example, in a conference brochure (Reuben lectured widely to disseminate his "research") you discover that he not only received "grants" from Merck and Pfizer, but that he was also on their for-hire speaker's bureau.

Dr. Scannell’s report continues here.

As I described in Gallo’s Egg, Dr. Reuben’s profitable misconduct is precisely what drives HIV/AIDS policy in America and is why so-called experts like Dr. Reuben defend junk science. Other defenders of that junk science include:

• Dr. Nicholas Bennett, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse, New York
• Dr. Jeanne Bergman
• Dr. Brian Foley, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
• Nathan Geffen, Treatment Action Campaign, Cape Town, South Africa
• Gregg Gonsalves, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa
• Eduard Grebe, AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa
• Dr. Bette Korber, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
• Prof. Nicoli Nattrass, Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit, University of Cape Town
• Ken Witwer, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
• Richard Jeffreys, Basic Science Director, Treatment Action Group
• Bob Funkhouser, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
• Prof. John Moore, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, New York

As I reported last year in Gallos Egg, all of these all individuals richly profit by promoting the multi-billion dollar HIV/AIDS industry, despite never having established any proof that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS.

Dr. Reuben's exposure reassures us that the rest of those shills will eventually get caught as well.

JAMA Editor Calls Critic a ‘Nobody and a Nothing’

WSJ's David Armstrong explains how (but not why) JAMA editor Phil Fontanarosa got upset with a report critic. Seems to me that if the critic was inaccurate, Fontanarosa would explain why. Since he did not, the critic was likely attack and threatened for his veracity. And if veracity is the issue, why would JAMA be upset?

Editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association, better known as JAMA, can be a little thin-skinned when it comes to outsiders taking issue with studies published in the prestigious medical journal.

Jonathan Leo, a professor of neuro-anatomy at tiny Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tenn., posted a letter on the Web site of the British Medical Journal this month criticizing a study that appeared in JAMA last spring. The study concerned the use of the anti-depressant Lexapro in stroke patients. In addition to identifying what he said was an important omission in the paper — that behavioral therapy worked just as well as the drug when compared head to head in the study — Leo also pointed out that the lead author had a financial relationship with Forest Laboratories, the maker of Lexapro, that was not disclosed in the study.

Leo says he received an angry call from JAMA executive deputy editor Phil Fontanarosa last week, shortly after Leo’s article was published on the BMJ Web site. “He said, ‘Who do you think you are,’ ” says Leo. “He then said, ‘You are banned from JAMA for life. You will be sorry. Your school will be sorry. Your students will be sorry.” Fontanarosa referred a call for comment to a JAMA spokeswoman, who said Leo’s retelling of the conversation was “inaccurate.” (more)

LAUSD Teacher Layoffs Unnecessary

What is with LAUSD’s plan to lay off teachers? Even with LAUSD’s budget shortfall, teacher layoffs are wholly unnecessary. Since one-quarter of LAUSD’s 80,000 employees are teachers, why not dump the 60,000 that don’t teach?

While I agree that teachers that hold their fists like Che Guevara wannabes deserve to be dumped, LAUSD would have more than enough cash on hand if they got rid of half (30,000) of their non-teaching staff.

Too Big to Fail?

Who doesn’t hate Bernie Madoff?

After contributing to the collapse of the global market and defrauding investors of between $50 and $65 billion, he’s finally going to jail.

Madoff makes a great villain. For nearly twenty years, he and his family lead privileged lives while plundering the life savings of his investors. Madoff not only drove his clients into bankruptcy and suicide, but has managed to perpetuate Judaism’s ugliest stereotypes.

Sadly, the real story is not about Madoff – nor is it about the millions of people here and abroad that would jump at the chance to exploit the trust of others. Some of Madoff’s investors now admit their own suspicions, unconcerned (then) about how he delivered impressive returns through good years and bad. Whether Madoff sold short or engaged in insider trading, harming other investors wasn’t nearly as important as their own faked portfolios. Madoff’s investors knew, should have known, or didn’t want to know – which is what makes the conflict between Madoff and his class-envied investors so delicious to the unaffected. Intoxicated by our collective schadenfreude, we continue to ignore an even larger story that has remained largely unnoticed for more than 25 years.

As Sarah Rubenstein reports this week, Massachusetts anesthesiologist Scott Ruben, MD now admits that he faked 21 medical studies that were used by drug companies like Pfizer, Wyeth, and Merck to market drugs like Bextra, Lyrica, Effexor, and Vioxx.

Like Madoff’s faked statements, these pharmaceutical companies and investors profited, as did the elected officials who control our investigative agencies, while thousands of patients were injured, killed, or were prescribed drugs that did not do what those multi-billion dollar drug companies implied they would do. As America’s latest fall guys, Madoff and Ruben are supposed to make us believe that our investigative agencies (SEC, FDA, NIH, and FBI) have finally stirred from their institutional narcolepsy.

Think again.

Sixteen years after the Organization of Research Integrity (ORI) and Dingell Investigation found Dr. Robert Gallo guilty of scientific misconduct, Gallo still receives millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded research grants, while the NIH and CDC continue to enforce America’s deadly HIV/AIDS policy. The editors of Science still refuse to respond to questions from well-respected scientists, despite the mounting evidence that weigh against Dr. Gallo’s original reports (1, 2, 3, & 4).

Madoff and Ruben may fall, but some frauds are apparently too big to fail.

Accounting for California’s Suicide

Victor Davis Hanson does his best to explain California’s suicide:

…less discussed is the underlying culprit: a weird sort of utopian mindset. Perhaps because have-it-all Californians live in such a rich natural landscape and inherited so much from their ancestors, they have convinced themselves that perpetual bounty is now their birthright — not something that can be lost in a generation of complacency.

Californians count on the wealth of farming but would prefer their rivers to remain wild rather than tapped. They like tasteful redwood decks but demand someone else fell their trees for the wood. Californians drive imported SUVs but would rather that you drill for oil off your shores rather than they off theirs. They pride themselves on their liberal welfare programs, but drive out with confiscatory taxes the few left to pay for them.

America's Inconvenient Debt

McElway Basketball

This story came out in 2007 but it's worth the re-post. If this doesn't move you, check your pulse...

Same Marine Corps, Different Presidents

"Sean Penn Should Shut Up!"

Maria Conchita Alonzo worked with Penn in the movie "Colors." At a recent post-Oscar party, she was asked about Penn's friendship with Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez. Maria's courage to state the obvious about Penn only illustrates how vapid the rest of Hollywood really is. Kudos to Maria!

Italy's Motorcycle Drill Team

I served on the LAPD's Motorcycle Drill Team for about seven years but we never had more than 20 riders. Italy's team from fifty years ago wasn't so shappy either...

Living in the Age of Whatever

I never liked hippies.

Even before I turned 13 in 1970, I sensed that something was wrong with those dysfunctional baby boomers. Their dress, hair, hygiene, manners and habits were all wrong. In high school, those who emulated the hippie lifestyle smelled bad and rarely made sense. When oily hair, bloodshot eyes, and green teeth were hip, I wasn’t.

Sometime after the 1970s, hippies and their soiled offspring changed whatever from a pronoun and adjective to an interjection of indifference or begrudging compliance. This was understandable not because indifferent compliance is good for a nation, but because normal children quickly tired of the disingenuous blather coming from their parents, schools, churches, and politicians. Their well-developed narcissism didn’t have time for the real world.

Rather than question why Republicans fought Democrats for a century to guarantee rights for slaves and their progeny, students were taught that whites should be ashamed and blacks were entitled. Fuzzy math, multiculturalism, and self-esteem were in – excellence, morality, and history were out.

During the next 30 years, America’s hippie progeny had all the answers to America’s toughest questions:

Should we download music for free?

Whatever…

Should banks loan money to irresponsible people?

Whatever…

Should students cheat on tests?

Whatever…

Should marijuana be legalized?

Whatever…

Should police investigate corruption?

Whatever…

Should Bill Clinton lie during a court-ordered deposition?

Whatever…

Should prisons close to avoid overcrowding?

Whatever…

Have scientists proven that man causes Global Warming?

Whatever…

Does Islam threaten the Western World today?

Whatever…

If we close Guantanamo, where will we house America’s enemies?

Whatever…

Despite being the most corrupt mayor since the 1930s, less than ten percent of our residents will re-elect Antonio Villaraigosa.

Whatever…

Ten percent of all Californians are unemployed.

Whatever…

Americans have lost over 50 percent of its wealth since Barack Obama was elected.

Whatever…

Iran and North Korea are developing atomic weapons and building intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Whatever…

Barack Obama’s so-called Stimulus Bill contains more than 8000 earmarks weeks after he promised that his bills would contain no earmarks.

Whatever…

Despite having less executive experience than a Dairy Queen assistant manager, Americans elected, as President, an “articulate black man” whose third-world wealth redistribution scheme resonates especially well during the Age of Whatever. In my affluent Hollywood Hills neighborhood, For Sale signs pop up like weeds near unwashed Priuses adorned with Kerry/Gore and Obama/Biden stickers. People who expected to retire last year never will and people who didn’t have lost their jobs. Businesses are closing, home prices are falling, employment and our economy is shrinking and taxes are climbing. Business owners are laying off employees and shrinking their businesses to hide under Obama’s $250K/year income tax cap. Faced with few prospects, even illegal aliens are going home.

During a recent weekday ride to Newport Beach, traffic was so light that I used cruise control for most of the ride – even as I passed LAX. Depression and unemployment reduce freeway traffic, pollution, fatalities, and the need for new highway maintenance. After 40 years of being very unhip, I’m now very pleased that I washed my hair, brushed my teeth, and never attended college. I find work easily and I have guns and ammo if LA’s emergency lines are busy. Bad economies are good for self-reliant people.

For America’s hippie progeny and baby boomers who disagree, I have one word:
Whatever…

Mitt & Bobby in 2012?

Capital Commerce's James Pethokoukis caught up with Mitt Romney over the weekend at CPAC, and the former Republican presidential candidate made more sense in a few minutes than most pundits and the current Administration have in two months.

I am sure to get the "was Mitt was the "best" candidate" line now, so allow a quick response:

I gather the GOP, or those who voted in those early primaries, found Mitt "too conservative" or too "fake" or "rich" to be elected. I know my silly colleagues here -- mainly moderates -- indicated that. Then there'd be the Mormon issue. Nothing at all to fear there, but for 95% on the left and probably 20% on the right, this would turn them away, wrongly. Seeing the hatred, intolerance and violence toward well-meaning Mormons in California over gay marriage, you'd fear for Romney's life had he won the presidency, much less been the Republican nominee.

Many Republicans, such as myself, thought McCain "centrism" would help. It may have, but most Democrats cling to their party and liberalism like a religion, so they voted Democrat anyway, even if McCain resembled a true Democrat like Truman, Cleveland or Jackson much more than did Obama. And though I do know many Democrats, like my mom and others, who voted Republican for the first time in 2008, there clearly were not enough of these brave "dissidents."

That McCain risked his career to back the very successful "Surge" and had a military hero's background during a time of war apparently mattered little to most 2008 voters. This borders on Orwellian lunacy since the GWOT, aka The War to Save Liberalism , was the main issue in America most of the past seven years; and for at least the past two years, the Democrats have gotten it all wrong. (They've been trying to lose said war since 2003)

Only ten percent of us have worn the uniform and even fewer have any appreciation or knowledge of military history since universities have henceforth banned its teaching.

The economy did not officially tank until the final weeks of September. On 9/11/08, John McCain led in most national polls. The initial Sarah Palin hype, coming off her dynamic RNC speech, the patriotism and remembrance stemming from the 9/11 anniversary, and a reminder from Keith Olbermann of the agendas from our enemies within in the Obama-loving media, aided McCain.

But by the time Obama and McCain took the stage at Ole Miss in late September, the economy was in the toilet, and lazy people blamed the party in power. This even though the blame, at the very least, went both ways, and actually was just about 100% the fault of Democrats like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the rest of the bigots from the Fannie and Freddie crowd. ALL non partisan studies show this (Do a google or youtube search as the evidence and names are there for those interested in facts). But people sadly did not think that far ahead.

Michael Gerson explained what happened in mid-October, once it was common knowledge than Barack H. Obama would be the 43rd president barring a miracle.

Recall that Romney in fact bowed out at CPAC last year. He did so earlier than folks like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul --- both of whom had less chance of gaining the nomination than did he. He did so because he wanted the party to unite behind John McCain who was announced as the presumptive nominee a few weeks later on March 4, 2008. Mitt's a good man.

Should the economy stay a major issue into 2011, I have no doubt Mitt will be a leading candidate for the nomination and, with perhaps the brilliant Bobby Jindal as VP, this should be a strong ticket vs. Obama/Biden, who will not be half as popular then as now. Heck, they're far less popular now than on Jan. 20.

h/t Ari Kaufman