Tremoglie's Tea Time

Racial Profiling OK

2010-12-07T06:12:00.000-08:00

The half black, half Hispanic president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers said racial profiling is ok by him. He was quoted in the New York Post after a shooting of another NY taxi driver. Click on title for the link to the NY Post.

Assange Arrested

2010-12-07T06:09:00.000-08:00

Julian Assange turned himself in to Scotland Yard today. He was wanted on an Interpol warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor in Gothenburg Sweden. Click on the title for the link.

Liberals Sound Like Nazis - Definitions of "blackness" Disturbing

2010-06-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

The spate of pronouncements by liberals of who is a "traitor to their race" or class or group causes one to think of how the Nazis defined who is a true Aryan.

Juan Williams, an African-American journalist who is a Fox News contributor, is routinely called an Uncle Tom - by not only blacks, but, laughably, liberal whites.

Bill Cosby was called an Uncle Tom in 2004 because he said black parents should be investing in education rather than sneakers for their kids.

Rev. C. L. Bryant, a former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he speaks at Tea Party rallies.

Michael Myers, another former NAACP official, is called an Uncle Tom because he has criticized President Barack Obama.

Even President Barack Obama was called a "magic negro" by a black LA Times columnist because there were questions of his blackness.

Singer Elton John, who is gay, was called a traitor because he performed at the wedding of noted conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.

This trend of defining who is a true black or a true gay and who is a traitor is disturbing. How can we, as a nation, accept someone defining a black person as a "real black" or not a real black without realzing how analogous this is to the Nazis defining who was a true Aryan?

What are the liberals going to do - show us films of the exact anthropometric proportions of the ideal black like the Nazis did with Aryans?

Will the liberals define who is the "pure" black just as Nazis defines the pure Aryan?

The idea that there is someone who can define which African-Americans are real blacks and who are not is chilling. It is just as ominous to define who is really whatever the group is.

But there are those in the African-American community who are going against this purity campaign. Harvard Law professor, Randall Kennedy wrote a book called "Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal."

During an interview Kennedy said that using the Uncle Tom or Oreo or Sellout label is a way to eliminate dissenting viewpoints. He said, "...it's great weapon of demagogues."

Obama's Zeal to Divide America for Political Gain

2010-05-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama spent much of his campaign talking about unifying the country. But he has spent much of his administration dividing the country.

The most recent manifestation of this has been his reaction to the new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. He has already pronounced it a possible violation of civil rights. He has claimed it is totalitarian.

His Attorney General Eric Holder has already stated the possibility of legal action by the Justice Department. He claims that the law might lead to racial profiling and other similar violations.

But Eric Holder has not yet read the law. He is so anxious to make a political issue of this law by appealing to prejudices - and to tar Republicans, conservatives, law enforcement and the citizens of Arizona as racist - he did not bother to read the law.

Democrats know that they will have a potentially disastrous election for them in November. The only thing they can do is fearmonger and hatemonger. They are lacking any ideas that are positive.

So they do what they always do - cry racism.

Arizona Recognizes Real Racism

2010-05-12T03:34:00.001-07:00

The Arizona legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer recognize real racism when they see it. She signed a bill prohibiting school districts from conducting courses that promote resentment of a particular race or group. The bill states Arizona school students "should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.''

Unfortunately many "ethnic studies" and "gender studies" programs in schools are nothing more than courses that are tendentious scholarship designed to stoke hatred of one group.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_10fb594b-cca6-5a3f-a65e-9689f1e963bb.html

Liberal Fearmongering and Hatemongering Part I

2010-05-12T03:26:00.000-07:00

Regarding all the criticism by liberals about the Arizona illegal immigration law, I would like someone to call this criticism what it really is:

Typical liberal,leftwing Democratic Party hatemongering and fearmongering.

The critics say if one supports the law one is racist.

They say that if an Hispanic is walking down the street going to the grocery store, the police will come, scoop them up and cart them off to jail, forever, just because they are Hispanic.

Such lies and deceit. This is nothing more than hatemongering and fearmongering which is what liberal Democrats always do.

Yet, no conservative commentator or politician has labeled this as such.

This is why Republicans have a tough time winning the debates.

Watch this video and listen to the Hispanics in the audience essentially say the police are racists and that they will lose their liberties because they are Hispanic.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2010/05/11/video-frank-luntz-focus-group-on-arizona-immigration-law/

Beck and Olbermann Get It Wrong

2010-05-06T08:33:00.000-07:00

Miranda not Constitutional Right, Americans Can Be Tried by Military Tribunal
By Michael P. Tremoglie

Anytime MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox News’ Glenn Beck agree on an issue, then one must examine said issue very critically. Because it is very likely they are misinforming the American public.

Such is the case regarding the controversy of providing Miranda warnings to Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad. Both claimed Shahzad was obligated to receive the warnings because he is an American citizen. They both claimed that not providing Miranda warnings was the denial of Constitutional rights.

This is not true.

Apparently both watch too many police television dramas. Ironically, as a former police officer, one with a graduate degree in Criminal Justice and one who has been writing about law enforcement issues for the past fifteen years, I know that the Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right.

But ignorance is bliss and Keith Olbermann is a very happy man. Olbermann’s clownish antics have drawn ridicule from other liberals – most notably comedian Jon Stewart.

During his May 4, 2010 show Olbermann, a journalistic Elmer Gantry, chastised Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), a man who heroically served his country, by saying McCain was shaming those who served their country.

Why?

Because Sen. McCain objected to Shahzad receiving Miranda warnings after being arrested. He felt the terrorist suspect should have been interrogated more before providing him counsel.

The righteously indignant Olbermann said this was un-American. He said, loudly, Shahzad, as an American citizen, could not be denied his Miranda rights.
According to Olbermann, a failure to do so means that one day McCain could be arrested and imprisoned without warning in an America that has suddenly become a totalitarian state.

Olbermann’s assertions are not true. He displayed his ignorance and a lack of faith in, and contempt for, American law and the American political process. His “slippery slope” argument is a well-known fallacy.
But the leftwing Olbermann was not the only one who was part of the misinformation campaign. Many on the right are just as clueless.
Glenn Beck, that same day, passionately beseeched his listening audience to listen to our Founding Fathers and not stray from the Constitution just because of the fear of terrorism.

Beck invoked the Founders to implore Americans not to let fear infringe on civil liberties. Shahzad is an American citizen; he said and therefore entitled to all the rights of American citizens. This includes being given Miranda warnings.

During a Fox news interview Beck also said, “He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.” He also went on to say that Miranda warnings are a right in the Constitution.

Once again these assertions are totally false.

Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey went one step further. He said that since Shahzad is an American citizen arrested on American soil, military tribunals “are out of the question.”

This too is not true:

Let me provide some clarification about Miranda warnings.

No less an expert on the Constitution than Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda is not a Constitutional right in his majority opinion deciding the 1984 Supreme Court case New York v. Quarles.

Rehnquist said, “Miranda warnings therefore are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.”’ (Emphasis added).

There are also three exceptions to Miranda warnings. One of them is applicable in this case.

If there is a question of public safety – in other words if there are exigent circumstances – Miranda warnings need not be immediately provided. They will be required later.

But under no circumstances would Shahzad have been denied Constitutional rights had he not been Mirandized. Indeed President Obama had the authority to declare him an unlawful combatant and that would be all that it took.

So, all the ringing of hands and mashing of teeth, about the concern for violating the Constitutional rights of a terrorist suspect, is mere ignorance and fear mongering.

Let me also clarify this assertion that military tribunals are prohibited.

Prof. Jeffrey Addicot, is a professor of law at St. Mary’s University Law School in Texas. He is also the Director of the Counterterrorism Center at St. Mary University in Texas.

An active duty Army officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps for twenty years (he retired in 2000 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel), Professor Addicott spent a quarter of his career as a senior legal advisor to the United States Army's Special Forces. He is an internationally recognized authority on national security law, terrorism law and human rights law, Professor Addicott not only lectures and participates in professional and academic organizations both in the United States and abroad.

He said there is plenty of law, sanctioned by the courts, and certainly Constitutional to deny Miranda warnings and Constitutional protections to terrorist suspects. This is true even if the suspect is an American citizen captured in the United States.

Addicott cited the case of Ex Parte Quirin. This involved an American citizen, Herbert Haupt, who was executed, after being tried by a military tribunal, during World War II. Haupt was convicted of being a Nazi German saboteur when he returned to the United States in 1942 planning to destroy war industries.

Americans must be careful that in their zeal to protect civil liberties, their paranoia about slippery slopes to totalitarianism, they do not trample on common sense and the Constitution of the United States.

The next time Beck wants to invoke the Founding Fathers maybe he should heed the words of the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who wrote in Federalist Number 3, “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.”

Liberal Hypocrisy: Taking Our Country Back

2010-04-16T19:51:00.001-07:00

They need to ask Howard Dean.

Chris Matthews wants to know what the phrase "take our country back" means when Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers say it. The Washington Post says it shows how angry and dangerous the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin are. Judy Woodruff says it is "anger like this"

Liberals and Democrats are outraged when Sarah Palin and Tea Party speakers use the phrase "Take our country back." They imply that it is "divisive." It shows that Republicans and conservatives are nothing but haters. They say it means Republicans are racist.

So all the white liberal commentators at MSNBC want to know what "Take our country back means" do they? All the black liberals of the Congressional Black Caucus and the white liberals at the Democratic National Committee say it is code for racism and if it is not what does it mean.

Well maybe they should ask the former head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, who first used the phrase when he dropped out of the Democratic Party primary presidential race in 2004. Later that year wrote a book with that title.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Power-Country-Democracy/dp/0743270134

Liberal Democrats and their propagandists like Chris Matthews are the most hypocritical people on the face of the planet.They try to demonize conservatives and Republicans by asking what they mean by saying they want to take our country back. They say it means that Republicans are engaging in hate speech.

Unfortunately, Republicans are too ignoratnt to remember that Howard Dean used this phrase before any Tea Partiers or Sarah Palin. If they did they would call Matthews and the other liberals on it.

The Liberal Media and the Pope

2010-04-11T19:08:00.001-07:00

Fervent Marxist and atheist extraordinaire, journalist Christopher Hitchens wants to arrest Pope Benedict for crimes against humanity. This is the same Christopher Hitchens who defended Noam Chomsky's Cambodian holocaust denial.

It is interesting that Stalin was directly responsible for killing tens of millions and the world media was silent.

Pol Pot killed millions and a leftwing liberal icons Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda denied it and the media backed them.

Roman Polanski committed the very same crime these priests did and admitted it but the world media and the entertainment industry stood behind him.

The New York Times - in a story I broke - spiked information they had about possible election law violations committed by the Obama campaign because it would adversely affect Obama's chances of being elected - but excoriates Pope Benedict.

School teachers abuse kids and teacher's unions back them and the media is silent

But let the Catholic Church do something similar and now the world media wants to hang the Pope.

It couldn't be the world media's double standard is the result of their pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-socialism could it?

NY Times' Selective Scandalmongering

2010-04-06T04:36:00.000-07:00

The NY Times, which refused to publish scandalous information about the Barack Obama campaign

( http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt),

is more than willing to act as a propagandist for a lawyer suing the Vatican.

This piece from the Wall St. tells the tale, The Times article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

The Barack Obama Myth

2010-03-24T12:42:00.000-07:00

I was recently reminded how prescient I was in predicting in Aug 2004 that Barack Obama was a future star in the Democratic Party and very liberal. Now if I can only do as well in the stock market...

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950

Obama Most Divisive President Ever

2010-03-23T19:20:00.001-07:00

Has there ever been a more divisive president than Barack Hussein Obama? He has tried to divide Americans by race, by class and by religion and now he is challenging the states to sue the federal government by saying " bring it on."

When George W. Bush used that phrase to challenge the terrorists, the Democrats said he was being belligerent to **terrorists.**

NCAA Predictions

2010-03-18T14:11:00.000-07:00

Sweet 16

Kansas, MSU, Georgetown, OSU, Syracuse ( which I spell correctly unlike the smartest president ever Barack Hussein Obama), Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Kansas St, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Clemson, Duke, Texas A&M, Baylor, Villanova

Elite 8

Kansas, OSU, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kentucky, New Mexico, Duke, Villanova

Final Four

Kansas, Pitt, Kentucky, Duke

Final

Pitt, Duke

#1

Duke

Dems Having Orgasms about Palin's Hand

2010-02-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

A Republican turned Democrat friend of mine sent me a video of the Daily Show ( for which his son is a producer). The clip shows the host Jon Stewart ridiculing the Tea Party convention and Palin's hand crib notes.

I sent him this reply:

"Check this out! The brilliant Ivy Leaguer, Obama, can't pronounce corpsman correctly - even with a teleprompter. Maybe he should borrow Palin's hand - ROFL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4&feature=related

(For you intellectually superior liberal Democrats out there, the 'p' in corpsman is silent. Barack the Brilliant pronounced the 'p' three times during his speech with the teleprompter).

Speaking of serving in uniform, Obama was never a member of any uniform service (unless you count ACORN). Yet, he sends people off to war. Don't liberal Democrats have a name for people like that? Oh yeah, Chickenhawk. That's what they called Republicans who were like Obama.

So let's review:

Obama is lauded by liberal Democrats as brilliant. Yet he cannot pronounce the word corpsman correctly ( not to mention his 57 states remark and some other gaffes). But nothing was said by Stewart.

Obama sends people to war and never served in the military; liberal Democrats call that being a "chickenhawk." Still nothing said by Stewart.

Mmmm could Stewart be a hypocrite? Nah liberal Democrats are never hypocrites LOL. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

No wonder Democrats are getting their clocked cleaned. ( I say this as a registered Democrat)."

"Birthers" Like "Truthers" are Looney

2010-02-03T06:27:00.001-08:00

I have always believed that the idea that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president because he is not a citizen is lunacy. After spending a couple of hours yesterday arguing the merits of this with some birthers I'm now thoroughly convinced I am correct. The people who subscribe to this theory are misguided, woefully misinformed have too much leisure time and/or have some mental or emotional obsession.

The arguments they offered were:

1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.

This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.

2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.

This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.

3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.

The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."

Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.

However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.

None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'

4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.

Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.

So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.

They are simply chasing moonbeams.

Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.

You tell me who you trust.

Birthers:

1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.

2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.

So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.

Anti-Birthers

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

This was also the opinion of Factcheck.org, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.

American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship.

Snopes.com a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.

I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.

Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.

Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.

Who would you believe?

The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?

The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?

Bonfire of the Elites

2010-02-01T06:17:00.001-08:00

By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE

'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.

Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.

The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.

The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.

The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.

The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.

When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?

WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?

Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."

If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.

No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.

Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.

In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.

This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.

The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.

We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.

Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at Barnesandnoble.com and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement

Hearing Set for New Black Panther Case

2010-01-29T12:05:00.001-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

The United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC) announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010, regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.

The CRC wants to know the reason the DOJ dismissed voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) after they had already won a default judgment in the civil suit filed in January.

Two members of the New Black Panther Party, one armed with a nightstick, stood outside a poll on Fairmount Avenue in North Philadelphia. According to some who were present, they made racial slurs and intimidating gestures. Police were called and the two, Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz were questioned.

Mr. Shabazz, the person carrying the nightstick, was removed from the scene. Mr. Jackson, who is a member of the Democratic Party's 14th Ward Committee and is a credentialed poll watcher and he was allowed to remain. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office did not file criminal charges.

The incident was filmed by a University of Pennsylvania student affiliated with Electionjournal.org and Fox News Channel. The videos can be seen on youtube.com. Electionjournal.org, according to their website, is "an online community dedicated to raising public awareness of vote fraud and election irregularities.... (ABC News') Jake Tapper called Election Journal “an organic melange of media, citizenry, community and watchdog."

One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the Republican poll watchers felt intimidated.

“He was inside the building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black Panthers,” he said.

There will be other witnesses who can testify to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be shown.

One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J. Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.

The DOJ has taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.

The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.), as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.

He said, “I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation.”

Mr. Wolf will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media.

1995 - Time Magazine Called Limbaugh Rejection of Bailout "Populist"

2010-01-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

From Feb 1995 edition of Time magazine.

"The phone call reached Rush Limbaugh at his studio shortly before he went on the air at noon, but this time the person on the other end of the line was not Bob, a machinist from Dayton, Ohio, or Dorothy, a housewife from Tucson, Arizona. It was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second most powerful man in Washington, calling Limbaugh to lobby for Bill Clinton's $40 billion rescue package for Mexico. The 10-min. chat, which took place four weeks ago, was cordial enough but left the folk hero of the kilohertz unmoved. As Limbaugh advised his 20 million listeners last week, ``President Clinton is very decisive in giving away our money and taking away our rights.''

It was this kind of populist blast--a picture painted by Limbaughs and cartoonists across the U.S. of a President extending a hand to Wall Street and ailing foreign countries--that convinced Clinton he had to bypass Congress altogether. With the Mexican peso sliding, only $3.5 billion left in Mexican currency reserves and financial markets throughout Latin America on the brink of collapse, the President last week invoked his executive authority to grant Mexico $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees as the centerpiece of a coordinated bailout. Following Washington's lead, the International Monetary Fund agreed to provide Mexico with a further $17.8 billion, and the Swiss- based Bank for International Settlements kicked in an additional $10 billion.

By the time Clinton acted, the political paralysis in Washington had become almost as threatening as the economic trouble in Mexico. If a plan supported by the President, the Fed chairman and the heads of both houses were rebuffed, the result ``would be perceived in the rest of the world as leadership anarchy,'' in the words of Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of international operations for Goldman Sachs. For Clinton, the overriding goal was to prevent a financial crisis whose victims could have included up to 700,000 Americans holding jobs tied to exports to Mexico. In the past six weeks, U.S. manufacturers have already sharply pared their forecasts for Mexican business; Ford chairman Alex Trotman conceded last week that his company's plans to double exports to Mexico in 1995 were now just ``a pipe dream.'' Instead, the industry expects total Mexican sales to fall by one-third from last year's total of 600,000 vehicles.

In the short term, the U.S.-led rescue saved Mexico from defaulting on $26 billion of the government's Tesobonos bonds that come due this year--a disaster that would have driven the vast majority of foreign investors out of the country and much of the rest of Latin America. With the threat of default averted, the Administration argues, Mexico can begin to restore itself to health. Says Treasury Under Secretary Lawrence Summers: ``The success of Mexico's economy now rests on Mexico.''

But that's just what disturbs many critics of the bailout, who regard Mexico as a stumble-prone country that will inevitably be back for another tourniquet. ``We're bailing out a Mexican government that has mismanaged its economic affairs for as long as I've been an adult,'' says Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, a leading opponent of the rescue plan."

Geithner Gets Hammered from Both Sides

2010-01-27T08:28:00.000-08:00

Mica Calls for Resignation
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Rep. John Mica (R.- Fla) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D.-Mass.) berated Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during his testimony this morning before the House Oversight Committee. Mica called for his resignation.

Geithner is being questioned from both Democrats and Republicans about his relationship to Wall Street. Mica and Lynch zeroed in on the AIG bailout.

Geithner's opening statement and his responses to a sympathetic Paul Kanjorski (D.-Pa.) contained a great degree of righteous indignation. It reminded one of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli's angry denial of wrongdoing when he was accused of corruption in office, allegations for which he was subsequently convicted.

However, Mr. Mica was not so sympathetic. He said he never wanted Geithner to be Treasury Secretary because he did not "pay his taxes."

Mica wanted Geithner to answer why they should not "ask for his resignation." He questioned Geithner's actions concerning the role of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - of which Geithner was president - in bailing out AIG.

Mica said believed that Geithner's responses " defied credulity."

Mr. Lynch said that he was convinced that Geithner did not act in the best interest of the American people. He cited that when Bear Stearns was going bankrupt the government negotiated a bailout of giving Bear Stearn shareholders " two cents on the dollar." Yet, AIG was given "one hundred cents on the dollar" and that this money was merely a " pass through" to Goldman Sachs, which was the ultimate recipient of the funds.

Geithner repeated that he acted in the best interest of the public. However, Lynch was not buying it and said that Geithner's actions were more indicative of someone working for the interest of wealthy influential people.

Unequal Protection Under the Law

2010-01-26T04:47:00.001-08:00

Obama's Opaque Justice Department
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

President Barack Hussein Obama promised a transparent government. Thus far, he has delivered an opaque one. Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has led the way in this obscurity.

According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), Holder is “stonewalling” his efforts to learn why a voter intimidation case was mysteriously dropped after DOJ already won a civil suit they already filed.

This case involves alleged voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. DOJ had already won the lawsuit filed while President Bush was still in office. Yet, mysteriously, inexplicably, the Obama DOJ dropped the case against two of the three NBPP members and the New Black Panther Party.

What bewilders many is the blatant double standard in the application of civil rights laws by DOJ. Some sources have alleged that there are those in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who do not believe in racial neutrality in enforcing civil rights laws. They feel white racism is more egregious than black racism. So while they will pursue cases involving whites, they will not against African-Americans.

Evidence of this exists by recent actions of the DOJ. Last week it monitored an election in Texas for violating minority language requirements and filed suit against a country club for alleged racial discrimination. Yet, this same DOJ refused to proceed with a voter intimidation case against African-Americans.

What is even more disconcerting is that Holder has done everything he could to avoid supplying elected officials and the US Civil Rights Commission they requested. He has consistently refused to furnish Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), both duly elected representatives of the people, with the information they legally seek regarding his decision for the dismissal. He has also instructed his staff to ignore lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is also investigating this case.

This is very reminiscent of the stonewalling done by the Clinton administration during the Lewinsky investigation. This, however, is much more dire than a President of the United States committing perjury - as serious as that was.

The obfuscation committed by his Attorney General Eric Holder in this case is the most deleterious of all of those committed by the Obama administration. It is more important than not informing the public who visited the White House or who Mr. Obama consulted about banking reform.

It is because without being able to vote - nothing else really matters.

Almost one hundred fifty years ago, President Grant suspended the right of habeas corpus in South Carolina in 1871. He did so to combat the Ku Klux Klan's terrorism, a terrorism that prevented blacks form voting.

How things have changed.

Today the president gives terrorists lawyers instead of suspending habeas corpus and protects violations of the right of whites to vote .

GOP Shouldn't Take Credit for Brown

2010-01-21T02:45:00.000-08:00

RNC Did Little for Him
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

I do not know why the Republican Party leadership is being interviewed by the media, mainstream or "new," about Scott Brown. It seems he won despite the GOP not because of them. The Republican National Committee (RNC) apparently waited until two weeks before the election to start helping him.

Several weeks ago, a couple of weeks before Christmas, I received an email from a friend asking if I could do something to help Scott Brown. I replied that I never heard of Scott Brown.

He then told me that the RNC was doing nothing to help his election. This was interesting because if my friend thought Brown was a worthy candidate then surely Brown had merit. Why is it the RNC does not want to pitch in to help the candidate?

A December 29, 2009 Boston Herald column by Hillary Chabot confirmed the email. Titled "GOP Let's Scott Brown Fend for Himself," the piece stated, "GOP U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown has been all but abandoned by the same national Republican committees that pumped hundreds of thousands in campaign cash to former governors Mitt Romney and William Weld during their long-shot bids for U.S. Senate."

Chabot quoted a former Massachussetts GOP chairman,Peter Torkildsen, bemoaning the fact that Brown was not being helped by the national party. “It’s one of those rare opportunities that a Republican has a good shot in Massachusetts," he said.

According to the Herald, one reason the GOP was so stingy with Brown was that they thought he did not have a chance. Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics,who is always appearing on cable news networks like CNN, told Ms. Cabot, “The Republicans have a good chance to pick up several or more Senate seats in November, which would eliminate the Democratic 60-seat edge. They’re not going to go on any kamikaze missions.”

Seems like all the experts were wrong - including those at the RNC.

What is appalling about the GOP is that they are trying to take credit for Brown's monumental historic election. The fact is that Brown's support was grassroots. The Internet helped Brown more than any organization.

Even the Tea Party Express waited until two weeks before the election to endorse Brown. I wonder what that says about them.

Yet,according to the Wall Street Journal, the RNC is trying to take credit. They quoted from a memo to RNC staff from Michael Steele. He said that the RNC helped Brown by furnishing "phone lines and computers" to the Massachussetts GOP, as well as, "multiple staffers."

Steele's attempt confirms a trend I have noticed in the conservative movement for the past few years. I noticed this trend among the "conservative new media." However, judging from the Brown election, it apparently exists is among conservative politicians too.

What is this trend? It is the proclivity for conservative politicians and for conservative media stars to take credit for the work of others. I noticed it in talk radio five years ago after news story I broke was used by some conservative talk radio hosts and television pundits without attribution.

This type of thing destroys innovation and creativity. Needless to say, very little of these two things exist in the Republican Party and it is starting to disappear from conservative talk radio and Fox News. (The liberal media departed from it long ago. CNN was their last innovation. Democrats have not used anything new since Carter.)

The fact that the John Boehners, Mitch McConnells, Michael Steeles, Newt Gingriches of the world are commenting about Brown's election to the Sean Hannity's, CNNs etc is indicative of a bureaucratized movement. The same old people asking the people they know to explain something they know nothing about.

These are all establishment figures who have lost touch with the electorate. This is the reason they were voted out of power in the first place.

The only thing that is certain right now is that Scott Brown owes no organized movement anything. He can be his own person.

Will being Inside the Beltway change him? Stay tuned.

It’s Marcuse, Not Alinsky

2010-01-19T10:07:00.000-08:00

(The Originator of the Double Standard)
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

This past year Saul Alinsky replaced David Ayers as the radio talk show host’s favorite radical liberal professor. They inveigh against his ideas repeatedly during their monologues.

I would like to proffer the name of another liberal college professor – Herbert Marcuse.

His philosophies, his ideas, are particularly relevant because of the actions by the Obama Justice Department to drop prosecution for voter intimidation of white voters, in Philadelphia, by members of the New Black Panther Party.

Herbert Marcuse was a German – Jewish immigrant who came to the United States in 1934. He taught at Columbia University and Brandeis University among others. His teachings were quite the fad at one time.

He believed that oppressed minorities could never have parity with the majority unless they had superior rights. He once said, “If the worker and his boss enjoy the same television program and visit the same resort places, if the typist is as attractively made up as the daughter of her employer, if the Negro owns a Cadillac, if they all read the same newspaper, then this assimilation indicates not the disappearance of classes, but the extent to which the needs and satisfactions that serve the preservation of the Establishment are shared by the underlying population.”

Marcuse proffered a similar concept about free speech. He felt that free speech only served to reinforce the status quo since the Establishment had better access to the media then progressive groups.

For this reason Marcuse believed that whites in America should not have the same rights of free speech as minorities because that would just ensure the maintenance of the status quo.

This philosophy of Marcuse evolved among academics as the intellectual rationale for these liberal tenets:

• First, government neutrality in speech is a myth.

• Second, politically powerful groups are granted exceptions to free speech.

• Third, resources are unequally allocated so only the powerful are heard.

Marcuse’s ideas are manifested by the modern double standard that exists in the media about conservative speech. They are also manifest – as we have recently learned – by attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), who do not believe in race neutral enforcement of voting rights laws.

According to an article in National Review Online, a DOJ attorney who worked in the Civil Rights Division, was astonished that some of his colleagues believed voting rights cases should not be brought against blacks accused of violating the rights of whites because of the socioeconomic differences between blacks and whites.

The attorney, who purportedly said this, was involved in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia as well as a similar case in Mississippi.

I was once furnished, by a Philadelphia high school teacher, an instructional course in racism to be used by him in a course about racism. The course was developed by a civil rights organization. This was in 1996.

It was called "Understanding Racism." The thesis of this text was remarkable. It stated that a white person experiencing racism was not seriously affected by it. However, a black person or other minority would be.

My response to this was that a white person shot dead by a black person because he was a white person walking through black neighborhoods, as occurred in Philadelphia, experiences just as much suffering as a black person shot dead by a white for racist reasons.

Fortunately, the teacher rejected the proposal to include it as part of the curriculum.

Since then, I have often heard liberals state that blacks cannot be racist because they have no power. Again, my response is that maybe among the white, Americaphobic, limousine liberal, penthouse Bolsheviks, blacks do not have power. Maybe among those who refer to blacks as Sen. Harry Reid would this may be true.

However, for the survivors of the white cable television salesman who was shot dead by a black person because he was “a white person walking through a black neighborhood” black people certainly do have power.

Besides the definition of racism as a function of power is a fallacy. Racism is the belief in superiority because of one’s race.

Racism is not a function of power. After all, one does not have to be the CEO of a corporation – or even the President of the United States - to be a racist.

Those Evil Greedy Capitalist Americans

2010-01-16T08:13:00.003-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie

Once again America comes to the rescue of a nation in need. This time it is Haiti.

America sends in its Marines to help the Haitians. They are there to restore order, to heal the afflicted, to comfort the victims, to feed the hungry.

America sent Marines, not journalists.

America sent Marines, not civil rights lawyers.

The United Nations is depending on the United States to control the aid effort. They are not asking Castro's Cuba, not Chavez's Venezuela, not China.

Yet, we Americans are hated by the world. Journalists say Marines are babykillers. Civil rights attorneys say Marines torture and kill innocent people.

So why aren't the journalists and newspapers providing the manpower? Where is the ACLU? Where is the Communist Party?

Why depend on capitalistic corporations like Microsoft or Coca-Cola? Or that greedy antiworker Wal-Mart? Or the exploitive ITT?

So far those evil greedy multinationals have supplied $48 million of aid. This is more than the entire oil rich, socialist nation of Venezuela has provided.

How could this be? Capitalists, conservatives, Marines and Republicans are not compassionate people - at least this is how the Communists, liberals, Democrats and civil rights organizations characterize them.

If America and capitalists are the selfish, greedy people Europeans and South Americans say, then why would we, at a time we are already in debt and our military personnel are already fatigued (isn't that right Congressman Murtha, Sen. Kerry, the New York Times?), should we spend money and deploy soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines to Haiti?

Next time some ignorant, bigoted,leftwing lunatic or a liberal journalist says what a rotten country this is remind them of what we did in Haiti (and Yugoslavia and Thailand and ....).

A Tale of Two Philly's- U.S. Department of Justice for Some

2010-01-16T07:34:00.000-08:00

This Tea Needs to be Dumped in the Harbor

Tale No. 1

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case
Obama Administration Abandons Voter Intimidation Lawsuit
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, The Bulletin
Friday, May 29, 2009

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election.... http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

Tale No. 2

Justice Sues Pa. Swim Club, Charging Race Bias

The Valley Swim Club, a private club outside Philadelphia.

The Justice Department accused a suburban Philadelphia swim club of race bias in a lawsuit filed Wednesday, six months after the club barred a group of mostly black day campers from their pool.

The civil-rights suit charges that the Valley Club of Huntingdon Valley engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination in canceling its $1,950, eight-week contract with the Philadelphia-based Creative Steps program after the children's first visit.

"I'm sorry that it's come to this. I suggested so many ways (to club officials) that this could be resolved," said Alethea Wright, the camp's founder and chief operating officer. "I am so glad that forces are united to make sure that this, never ever happens again."
http://cbs3.com/topstories/Justice.Department.Valley.2.1424369.html

Justice Department Only Interested in Justice For Some?

I think that everyone would concur that racial discrimination in any form - including threatening white voters at a polling booth - should never ever happen again.

However, apparently, this is not the opinion of those at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is according to an article by Hans von Spakovsky, in The Corner section of the January 12, 2010 edition of the National Review Online.

The piece paraphrased a speech by one of the attorneys at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division (DOJCRD). He was involved and criticized by colleagues for wanting to prosecute the New Black Panther Party case. It was a farewell speech of sorts, because the attorney was being transferred.

This longtime veteran attorney of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, according to the National Review Online, said that protecting voting rights of white people is not important to Justice Department attorneys.

He was quoted as saying:

"I have had many discussions concerning these cases. In one of my discussions concerning the Ike Brown (a voting rights) case, I had a lawyer say he was opposed to our filing such suits. When I asked why, he said that only when he could go to Mississippi (perhaps 50 years from now) and find no disparities between the socioeconomic levels of black and white residents, might he support such a suit. But until that day, he did not think that we should be filing voting-rights cases against blacks or on behalf of white voters."

Is this true? If so, it is a serious problem.

Currently, it is an allegation and an informal one at that – made in private. It needs to be substantiated. Yet, some actions by the DOJCRD seem to substantiate it now.

The behavior of the DOJCRD in the New Black Panther Case certainly leads one to believe that federal rights attorneys use a different standard when it comes to voting rights violations of whites as opposed to blacks. They will eagerly enforce civil rights laws when the rights of African-Americans are violated, yet not when the rights of white Americans are.

Eric Holder needs to comply with the requests of Rep. Frank Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith, as well as, comply with the subpoenas of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

President Obama and Eric Holder are not above the law. The fact that the House Judiciary Committee rejected Wolf's request to investigate means Congress will not investigate them. The people must ensure their right to vote is protected. Without this right, all else is meaningless.

Tea Partiers it is time to dump this tea(Congress)into the harbor.

Above the Law? Eric Holder Thinks He Is

2010-01-14T18:53:00.000-08:00

He May Be Right
Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

The House Judiciary Committee voted against a measure, yesterday, that was previously introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R.- Va.) that would have required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to explain to Congress why it dismissed a voter intimidation case involving members of the New Black Panther Party at a polling place in Philadelphia in November 2008.

Wolf, the top Republican on the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds DOJ, introduced a “resolution of inquiry” in December. The measure, H. Res. 994 was defeated 15-14 on a party-line vote.

“I am deeply disappointed that Judiciary Committee defeated my resolution of inquiry on a party-line vote. There has been no oversight, no accountability and certainly no transparency with regard to this attorney general and this Department of Justice," Mr. Wolf said in a written statement.

Mr. Wolf noted that the Obama administration promised "unprecedented transparency" and has provided the exact opposite. The American people deserve better he said.

Attorney General Holder has ignored seven letters over seven months from Mr. Wolf. He has also failed to comply with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The attorney general continues to thwart all efforts to compel an explanation for the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. DOJ is claiming broad privileges – which many legal scholars question – in order to avoid disclosing any new information regarding this case.

“The Justice Department has gone as far as to claim ‘privilege’ and redact seven pages of a letter that I sent to the attorney general and released publicly on July 31, 2009," Mr. Wolf said. "It failed to provide the commission with many of my other letters that it said it was prepared to share. I sincerely question the judgment of the Civil Rights Division leadership – both in its dismissal of this case and its stonewalling of this Congress and the Commission on Civil Rights.”

Comrade Toms

2010-01-12T10:16:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Nine years ago, in July 2001, I coined a term to describe the Democratic Party's African-American lackeys - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.,(http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23935). I called them "Comrade Toms" because they are African-Americans who are dependent on white liberal Democrats for power.

This was in reaction to the mainstream media and the Democrats calling Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas et. al., "Uncle Toms." I said if they are Uncle Toms, then Jackson, Sharpton and the rest are "Comrade Toms."

Now, that the comment made by Sen. Harry Reid (D.- Nev.) about Barack Obama is in the news, I thought that this was probably a good time to reuse this term. Reid referred to President Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

The hypocrisy of the black notables who are coming to Reid's defense is patently disgraceful. If a white Republican had said such a thing that would have caused them to scream racism.

However, Harry Reid is the leader of the Democrats in the Senate and the second most powerful Democrat there is. His African-American apologists: the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP and others do so because they are protecting their white bosses. They are dependent on white Democrats for power.

If you think this is not true, then do two things.

First, listen to the condemnations of two prominent African-Americans who are not dependent on white Democrats for power. One is the nation's first African-American governor, Doug Wilder of Virginia. The other is Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The second you need to do is look at the Facebook page "African-Americans for Harry Reid." The pictures of the first ten members of this group show white people.

Is There Religious Freedom in America or Has Establishment Clause Been Manipulated ?

2010-01-12T05:48:00.000-08:00

The View from Italy
By Rosa Anna Tremoglie

The legal squabbles in America about the separation of church and state is at once, disconcerting, perplexing and amusing to Italians. It is with a sense of irony that we view this continuing argument.

Italians were outraged November 3 when the European Court of Human Rights (known as the Strasbourg Court) ruled that crucifixes displayed in Italian classrooms violated religious and educational freedom. Nearly every politician, even some from the leftwing, rejected this edict.

Italy’s Education Minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, said, “No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out (Italian) identity.”

The leader of Italy’s opposition Democratic Party, Pierluigi Bersani, an ex-communist, said the verdict “lacked common sense.”

Italians believe that religion and the state are not mutually exclusive.

Our constitution enshrines the secular state. Yet, in Italy, the crucifix is more ubiquitous than our flag. It is in government offices, in classrooms and courtrooms. It, like our flag, is the symbol of our history and culture.

It is such an integral part of the Italian consciousness that some mayors - in defiance of the Strasbourg ruling - established fines for those who remove the crucifix from classrooms. Also, contemptuously, some senators introduced legislation that would make the removal of the crucifix a criminal offense.

Because of our beliefs, we observe with trepidation, how secularist ideas are spread via judicial fiat in lieu of the democratic process – especially in America. We have watched as some judges have perverted the ideas of America’s Founding Fathers with their rulings.

This is dangerous. It means that your constitution is easily mutable by judges. This is what happened in Germany; Nazi judges re-interpreted the German Constitution to justify their genocidal policies.

Italians lived under Fascism and Nazism. My own father was a prisoner of the Nazis. We know all too well the menace of straying from our conventions in the name of “progressivism.”

Mussolini was an atheist. He detested the Church because it interfered with his influence. Hitler wanted to extinguish Christian thought. The Nazis planned to destroy the Christian church. According to a January 2002 New York Times article, a Nazi leader said, “The destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement.”

Do Americans not understand the correlation between totalitarianism and fanatical secularism?

An example of a militant American secularist idea is that fire departments should not extinguish fires in churches because churches do not pay taxes. This concept, taken to its logical conclusion, means churches need not be loyal to the state.

Americans would find this idea repugnant – as they should. It is not the tax exemption to which secularists object. It is religion itself.

Some Americans might say that Italy is not a good model because Catholicism was the state religion. Yet, we have established a balance between the political and the religious.

The Strasbourg ruling is purportedly to protect religious minorities, among Italian students, from discrimination. Yet, Italian school students already have the right not to participate in religious instruction, free from discrimination.

Natalia Ginzburg, writing in the Communist newspaper "L'Unità" in 1988, said the crucifix does not generate discrimination. Instead, it represents the Christian revolution that gave the world the idea of equality among all men.

The principles of the Catholic religion embodied by the crucifix coincide with our constitutional principles of civil rights, individual freedom and regard for fellow humans. The Cross means to my people what libertè, egualitè, fraternitè, means to the French.

The Italian Constitution delineates the difference between state and religion. Article 7 states: “The State and the Catholic Church are, each in its own order, independent and sovereign.” It also explicitly recognizes the pluralism of religions. The rights of religious minorities are safeguarded.

Italy, in some ways, provides greater religious freedom than the United States, a nation which believes to be the world’s most democratic and liberal society. By prohibiting prayer in any place, by any person, remotely linked to the government, the state ignores the freedom to manifest one’s religion, when and where one wants.

Americans should seek to cease the manipulation of their constitution. Secularists, quite simply, are attempting to impose their minority beliefs on the majority of Americans – and ultimately the rest of the world. They know democracy will not produce the results they desire. Bowdlerizing religious expression using the guise of protecting minority rights is a ploy.

Religion is the moral origin of all nations’ laws - particularly American law. It is implicit in your motto, "In God We Trust."

Rosa Anna Tremoglie is an Italian lawyer. She is also a member of the Federalist Society. However, the views expressed here are her own and do not represent the views of that organization. She can be contacted at r.tremoglie@tiscali.it

Italy the Antidote for Political Correctness

2010-01-11T18:51:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Who would have believed it? Of all the nations in the world the most anti-politically correct one is Italy.

A few months ago, Italians rejected the European Court of Human Rights ruling that Italian classrooms would have to remove crucifixes. The crosses are commonplace in public schools, as well as other governmental buildings, in that very Catholic nation.

Not only did the Italian government refuse to remove the crosses, some municipalities mandated crucifixes be displayed!

Now Italians are combatting against illegal immigrants from Africa.

Predictably, some of the Italian media - and all of the American media, including the Wall Street Journal - are calling Italians opposed to illegal immigration racists.

So far, the Italian people have not been dissuaded.

Who would have believed that Italy would be the cradle of the anti-politically correct movement. Then again, why not. Italy was partly responsible for the American Constitution. Even the name "America" is from an Italian.

Rep. Wolf Takes Voter Case to Judiciary Committee

2010-01-11T11:18:00.000-08:00

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) continues to try get answers from the Obama Justice Department about a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. The incident which occurred during the 2008 presidential election was summarily dismissed by Eric Holder's office. He has stonewalled efforts to learn why ever since.

Mr. Wolf took his case to the House Judiciary Committee. He has introduced a measure that would require the committee to deal with the issue.

He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.

Mr. Wolf introduced a Resolution of Inquiry on Wednesday and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Under House rules, committees must take action on resolutions of inquiry within 14 legislative days. Wolf’s resolution directs the U.S. attorney general to provide Congress will “all information” relating to the decision to dismiss the case. The committee must vote the resolution up or down.

Despite writing six requests to the attorney general six times Wolf has yet to receive a response. He also has written DOJ’s inspector general seeking answers.

Holder has also ignored repeated inquiries from the U.S Civil Rights Commission. The Commission's Chairman is outraged by Holder's actions.

Mr. Wolf's said that he did not want to take such a drastic measure. However he was forced to do so since Attorney General Holder is flouting the law.

"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case," Mr. Wolf said in a written statement, "but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted....This House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general’s obstruction. He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission. It is imperative that we protect the right of all Americans to vote -- the sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.”

Is Avatar Racist?

2010-01-11T06:51:00.000-08:00

Liberal Racism in Movies Has Been Around Since Tarzan.
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Is the record setting movie by writer/director James Cameron, "Avatar," racist?

According to the AP, some think so. Avatar is said by some to contain racist ideas. Why? Because a white hero saves the natives - people of a different skin color.

Although, I haven't seen the movie, from what I have read about it, this seems plausible. Avatar seems to be propagating the same liberal racism that has existed in movies for years. From what I have observed this has been the case since at least the Tarzan movies of the 1930's. Indeed, that is why I call it "The Tarzan Syndrome."

The Avatar movie seems to be very much like the old Tarzan movies. The Avatar protagonist is like Tarzan. Tarzan is a white man who protects the blacks from the evil white supremacists who come to exploit the African native's land and people. (It was a perfect metaphor for the white abolitionists in the American South after the Civil War.)

Avatar's hero, a white man, protects the blue skinned natives from white industrialists. They are trying to exploit the land and people as well.

So Cameron, isn't trodding new ground here.

This, after all, is how liberals see themselves. They think they're more enlightened on racial and humanitarian issues then the average white person - the rest of us - who are essentially benighted, ignorant racists.

Cameron probably doesn't realize he is doing this. He is a liberal. His movies contain liberal stereotypes.

His other blockbuster, "Titanic," was rife with antiquated liberal stereotypes. There were the obligatory classist scenes of wealthy and privileged people saving themselves at the expense of the poor classes.

It didn't matter to Cameron that some of the wealthiest people in the world were killed on the Titanic. It also didn't matter that according to the data - and to a board of inquiry - there was no evidence that poorer people were kept from abandoning the ship.

However, demonizing wealthy people sells more movie tickets than telling the truth. Besides, it comports with limousine liberal worldview.

Returning to Cameron's Avatar, according the AP, "Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have made claims such as that the film is "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people" and reinforces "the white Messiah fable."

The AP cites Anna lee Newts, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Web site io9.com, comparing "Avatar" to the recent films in which a white men become alien Messiahs.

The AP quotes Newts, who is white, as writing, "Main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color ... (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed...When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?"

Writer/director Cameron, who is white, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that his film "asks us to open our eyes and truly see others, respecting them even though they are different, in the hope that we may find a way to prevent conflict and live more harmoniously on this world. I hardly think that is a racist message."

Mr. Cameron, you can't see the forest because of the trees.

Chase Bank Credit Card - Something Strange, Definitely Terrible Service!!!

2010-01-06T12:13:00.001-08:00

I have a Master Card issued through Chase Bank. Twice in the past week it was denied. I called today to determine why.

After contacting the Customer Service Department, I was told I had a past due balance.

No problem, said I, I will pay the balance online. The Customer Service Representative said that he could make the payment for me by phone. I declined his offer. I told him I would prefer to do it myself online.

The Customer Service Representative repeated his offer and I repeated my refusal.

I then went to make the payment online. Only to be told that a payment was already made.

Since I did not authorize one, this was disconcerting. I called Customer Service told them I wanted to know who authorized this payment. They told me I did.

I told them I did not. I demanded that this payment be reversed and wanted to know who authorized it and why.

They said the payment could not be reversed. I demanded to know why and to speak to a manager.

After being transferred several times and being on the phone for 45 minutes I was told that I would have to call back tomorrow to get this payment reversed!!

This is the most incredibly inefficient, bureaucratic organization I have yet to deal with and I've dealt with quite a few. Some have even resulted in me suing the companies.

The moral of this story is be very careful in your dealings with Chase Bank Master Card. Needless to say I will pay off the balance and cancel the card.

Has anyone else had such a problem with Chase?

TCU - Who? Number What? Playoffs! Are You Kidding Me?

2010-01-05T12:15:00.000-08:00

For all those TCU fans who have been chomping at the bit insisting that the Horned Frogs were the true number one college football team - or at least they should be participating in the BCS Championship game - last night's Fiesta Bowl should render them silent.

Not only did they not win against BSU, in a critical game, they became the first Mountain West Conference team to lose a bowl game this season.

Once again, this proves that the current BCS system, while not perfect, is adequate for the task of major college football. Were there a playoff system TCU and BSU would have been playing in some off-peak television time slot on ESPNU.

BSU has a more credible claim to playing for the BCS title. However, let's be real here, BSU like Cincinnati, has not played an exacting schedule (I love the Big East and think it a stronger conference than the WAC. Yet, even I didn't think it should have been ranked ahead of Florida.)

I mean a 14-0 BSU season against, Fresno St., Idaho, La. Tech, New Mexico St and other similar football powerhouses (satire here) is not going to excite anyone.

So all you TCU fans who yelled and screamed at me about a playoff system being the only true way for America to see that TCU is the greatest team in college football this year, do me a favor, contact me when you have a real football team.

How Liberals Control Popular Culture

2010-01-04T04:28:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

While watching the C-SPAN History Channel last night, I heard two programs dedicated to political history. One was a symposium by the Smithsonian about presidential biographies. The other was a conference at the Arizona Historical Foundation about Barry Goldwater and the Conservative Movement. Both were repeat broadcasts from months earlier.

During both presentations Conservativism and Republicans were linked to racism and segregation. It was laughable how the speakers totally and completely ignored the Democratic Party's historical and true role as the American political party of segregation and slavery.

(This history has been chronicled in depth by Frances Rice's National Black Republican Association website. Ms. Rice is a retired lawyer and Army Lieutenant Colonel).

Yet, somehow Republicans were blamed as perpetuating segregation and attempting to block the passage of civil rights legislation. Now keep in mind these talks were given by college professors and dignitaries. People who are seen as being authorities.

Because of past seminars like these, the idea that Republicans are racist and conspired with southern segregationists, took root in the popular culture. These current offerings merely help to perpetuate the myth. One can easily find in books, television programs, movies and music this notion of Republican/conservatives as racist.

Such seminars are one vehicle how liberals spread their misinformation. Liberal academia conducts symposia mentioning Republicans=racist idea. The liberal media communicates it.

It is eventually repeated in fiction and music. The next thing you know Republican presidential candidates are apologizing for being racist. (Please refer to the 1996 Bob Dole presidential campaign).

Conservatives do not respond. Even is they did, there are only a few media available to conservatives and they really are not all that committed.

They can roughly be divided into three axes - New York, Washington and Los Angeles.

New York consists of News Corp.(i.e. Fox News, NY Post, and the Weekly Standard), talk radio, the Wall St. Journal and the National Review.

Fox News is Fox News. It will be conservative as long as there is money to be made. If anyone doubts this, imagine this scenario: Sean Hannity is called into Roger Ailes office one day. Ailes, the Fox News honcho, tells him that Rupert Murdoch has determined that liberal commentary will be more profitable than conservative. Therefore, Hannity must start praising Obama.

Who out there thinks Hannity will resign in protest?

The Wall Street Journal is another conservative medium, however, it is nearly exclusively business oriented. WSJ is the "fiscal conservative."

National Review has drifted libertarian over the years.

Talk radio has made tremendous inroads into the popular culture. Limbaugh has been a veritable genius.

However, talk radio has its limitations. It rarely originates news, preferring to merely repeat what other media such as the WashTimes or my own old paper The Bulletin reported. Also talk radio is evanescent. You can't easily refer to what was said on a prior show, the way you can turn to a newspaper's archives.

The Washington axis is the Washington Times and Regnery Publishing, a printer of conservative nonfiction books.

The WashTimes is going broke. Some have mentioned that it will close soon.

Regnery has had its own problems. Two years ago it was sued by its own writers: Bill Gertz, Jerome Corsi, Buzz Patterson, Joel Mowbray and Richard Minniter for "deceptively concealed and self-dealing scheme to divert book sales away from retail outlets and to wholly owned subsidiary organizations within the Eagle conglomerate.” Eagle owns Regnery.

The Los Angeles axis consists of people like Matt Drudge. They have minimal impact without the other two.

So, given these obstacles the conservative movement either cannot or will not respond to slanderous allegations. Instead these allegations become part of the conventional wisdom.

The so-called "new media" cannot and will not replace the old media. It can't for no reason other than the fact that organizations like the New York Times have more resources than any conservative blog or forum. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply masturbating mentally.

Liberals dominate the popular culture. As long as they do, liberalism will dominate the political culture as well.

PC & the NBA

2010-01-03T10:28:00.000-08:00

Once Again, Importance of Popular Culture is Revealed
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

I have begun writing a book about political correctness in national security. My knowledge stems from my training, education and experience in law enforcement and journalism. What is occurring today in national security has been the bane of law enforcement for years.

As I am writing this book, I hear the ironic, no ironic is not the word, more appropriate is hysterical; the hysterical news that two players for the Washington Wizards, Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton, drew guns on one another. They were arguing about a gambling debt.

Why is this risible you may ask? Does anybody remember the name of the Washington Wizards before they became the Wizards?

If you said Bullets you get 1000 bonus points.

Do you remember why the name of the team was changed from the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards in 1997?

If you said because the owner of the team thought Bullets had a negative connotation to it - you get a 10,000 points. The idea was that the name Bullets glorified gun violence. There was a lot gun violence in Washington DC at the time (still is).

This just shows you that being rich does not make one intelligent. It also shows that a lot of influential, wealthy people are influenced by politically correct thought.

So despite the myth that conservatives/Republicans are wealthy, the fact is that many Fortune 500 corporate executives or billionaire entrepreneurs are affected by politically correct thought. Because PC is supposed to represent the thinking of the American intelligentsia.

I have been saying this for years. Conservatives can try to control the political scene all they want. However, unless conservatives control the popular culture it will not mean a thing.

We have all scene the results of the 1994 election and what happened to those Republicans elected to Congress. They assimilated the culture. They were more worried about being liked by the liberal mainstream media than the people who elected them - in other words, they wanted to be accepted by the popular culture.

Remember these words and remember I told them to you:

"It's the culture stupid."

SEC Going South

2010-01-01T15:17:00.000-08:00

The SouthEastConference is going south in the bowls. The interconference bowl record thus far is:

Mountain West 4-0
Sun Belt 1-0
Independent 1-0
Big East 2-1
Big 12 3-2
ACC 3-3
Big 10 2-2
SEC 2-3
CUSA 2-3
PAC 10 2-4
WAC 1-2
MAC 0-3

Mountain West Cleaning the Bowls

2009-12-31T16:28:00.000-08:00

The Mountain West Conference is now 4 and 0 in bowl games. Meanwhile the PAC 10 is 2-4 and the Big 12 moves to 2-1.

If there were a playoff system the MWC wouldn't have a chance to shine as they do.
So for all those TCU fans who are complaining think of it this way. The current system gives the whole conference a chance to draw new fans.

College Bowl Status Update

2009-12-29T19:24:00.000-08:00

Thus far, there have been 12 college bowl games played - about one third of the total. The conference comparisons, how each conference fared in the bowl games against another conference, may provide an insight as to how the remainder will go.

So here are the results for the first third of Bowlmania:

Mountain West Conference: 3-0 ( 2-0 vs the PAC 10 and 1-0 vs the WAC)

Big East Conference: 2-0 (1-0 vs ACC and 1-0 vs CUSA)

Sun Belt: 1-0

CUSA 2-2

PAC10 2-2

SEC 1-1

ACC 1-2

Big 12 0-1

MAC 0-2

Finally for all of you BSU fans out there who insist that the WAC is competitive-

WAC 0-2

Bowl Games I'd Like to See

2009-12-23T18:15:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

The past several years there has been a proliferation of football bowl games with sponsors of one sort or another that lead to awkward sounding names. For example, the Menicke Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl or - my personal favorite- the GMAC Bowl ( shouldn't this really be called the Stimulus Bowl or the Bankrupt Bowl).

Since our esteemed Congress has assigned importance to these college football bowl games(ahem) and since they are in session today, I felt it appropriate to give them my Christmas wish list of college bowl games.

Here are some bowl games I would like to see. These would be sponsored by entities that would provide smoother sounding names:

The Kellogs'& General Mills Cereal Bowl - This would be limited to teams from Michigan and Minnesota

The Plumbers and Pipefitters Toilet Bowl - This would be reserved for the last place teams from the Western Athletic and Mountain West Conferences.

The Uncle Ben's Rice Bowl - This would be affiliated with a Lousiana team and, of course, Rice University.

The Wishbone Salad Bowl - Florida and California teams go to this one.

The Environmentalist Wacko Ice Bowl - For all of the global warming freaks. Alaska's North Slope would be the perfect location and Sarah Palin could be the Grand Marshal for the parade.

The Campbell Soup Bowl - Since Campbell's is just across the river in Camden, N.J., that would be the perfect place for this. Of course, being the USA's most dangerous city attendance could be a problem.

The Hand Surgeons Finger Bowl - This is a natural since the players could go right to the doctors watching the game from the corporate suites.

The Hormel Chili Bowl - This could be located in Mexico to balance out the International Bowl in Toronto. Like Camden, however, attendance could be a problem. After all, no one wants to see a Shotgun Formation with a real shotgun.

The STD Flower Bowl - San Francisco would be the obvious location for this one.

These are just some possibilities. I am sure you will have your own favorites. Just think of the combinations and permutations that could be added to the existing 34 bowl games.

Sen. Graham: " Sleazy" Deal Made to Get 60 Votes

2009-12-20T11:10:00.000-08:00

Today, December 20,Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) said that a "sleazy" deal was made to get the 60th vote in the Senate to pass the health reform bill. Mr. Graham also described the estimates and accounting methods in the bill as "Enron" accounting.

Graham spoke during a Senate session with Senators John Cornyn (R. -Tx.), Saxy Chambliss (R.-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R.-Ga.).He was referring to the "backroom" arrangement made by the Senate Democratic leadership with Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-NE.) to get his vote for the reform bill.

Mr. Nelson was able to get more Medicaid funding for his state of Nebraska. This is necessary because the pending bill lowers the Medicaid eligibility. States will have to pay more for Medicaid which will include more people.Or as Mr. Graham said, "Every state except one" meaning Nebraska.

Sen. Nelson also obtained an exemption from the insurance tax for his home states insurance giant, Mutual of Omaha.

All the senators expressed their outrage how this deal - and other deals - such as the "Louisiana purchase" of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) and the federal money, given to the self-appointed spokesman for the average person, Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders, for his vote.

They noted how it was the polar opposite of what President Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership promised when they said there would be transparency in government.

Rep. Wolf: “Congress …Being Stonewalled by the Attorney General”

2009-12-18T07:58:00.000-08:00

Also Mentions Judiciary Chairman Conyers, “Shameful Failure to Provide …Congressional Oversight”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), issued a public statement December 17 saying that the President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s pledge for transparency in government.

“We understand that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas,” Mr. Wolf said. “ The nation’s chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general’s obstruction. At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.”

Mr. Wolf has written the attorney general six times seeking answers as to why the Justice Department (DOJ) dismissed a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving members of the New Black Panther Party. He also has written DOJ’s inspector general seeking answers.

He has yet to receive a response from him. The CRC has had a similar experience. They subsequently issued the aforementioned subpoenas for the information and to interview the career attorneys that handled the case.

Because of this Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.

Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.

“I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted,” Mr. Wolf said in a statement.

Mr. Wolf wants the House Judiciary Committee to demand the attorney general answer the questions surrounding this case. He believes that the protection of Americans right to vote without intimidation is paramount.

“This House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general’s obstruction,” Mr. Wolf concluded. “He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission.”

The commitment by Rep. Wolf towards insuring voting rights is substantiated by his past record. Many Republicans have been reluctant to pursue this issue because they are fearful of being labeled racist by liberal Democrats. Mr. Wolf’s record discredits such an accusation. He has over the years demonstrated a commitment to minority rights and is currently involved in an effort for human rights in Sudan.

Phillies-Mariners-Blue Jays Trade

2009-12-16T05:08:00.000-08:00

Feast or Famine
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

A complicated three way trade was completed yesterday among the Seattle Mariners, Toronto Blue Jays and the National League Champion Philadelphia Phillies. Only the Phillies portion of this trade is of concern here.

The Phillies traded Cliff Lee to Seattle and received some talented minor league prospects. They traded their own minor leaguers to Toronto to obtain Roy Halladay.

Earlier, in July, Lee had been obtained by the Phillies from Cleveland. They traded some minor league prospects to the Indians for Lee and a reserve outfielder, Ben Francisco.

Needless to say there are a lot of talented minor league prospects being shuttled around - several of them from the Phillies farm system.

Lee performed magnificently. He was in large part responsible for the team winning a consecutive National League title for the first time in its 125 year history. He was almost soley responsible for the Phillies winning two World Series games against the Yankees for the first time in the teams history.

So, since July 2009, the Phillies have traded two five-star minor league prospects; pitchers Carlos Carrasco and Kyle Drabek, as well as pitcher Jason Knapp, catchers Lou Marson and Travis D'Arnaud, shortstop Jason Donald and another blue chipper in outfielder Michael Taylor.

They received Roy Halladay, reserve outfielder Ben Francisco, blue chip pitching prospect Phillipe Aumont, pitcher Juan Ramirez and blue chip outfielder Tyson Gillies. They also got Cliff Lee for one half of a season, which as previously stated, is not insignificant, since he was a major reason the team obtained their second consecutive NL pennant, and two World Series games against the Yankees,for the first time ever. They also obtained $6 mm - again not insignificant.

That's a net of -4 minor league prospects and +1 reserve OF, for one season and postseason of a Cy Young award pitcher, as well as 2 or 3 seasons of another Cy Young award winner plus $6mm.

Will the Phillies-Seattle-Toronto trade benefit the Phils or will it be another Von Hayes debacle?

It'll depend on how well the traded prospects produce and how steep the Phillies farm system is. Remember, Arbuckle, the guy who signed Utley, Howard, Rollins etc is no longer the scouting director for the Phillies. So the Phillies may not have the infrastructure to replace Drabek, Taylor et al.

Also, while the consensus opinion is that Halladay is a shade superior to Lee, one stat no one has mentioned is that Lee's flyball to home run ratio was second in the league. Halladay will be pitching in a home run friendly stadium half the time. He was not among the top ten in this category.

Will Halladay be plagued by home runs at Citizens Bank?

Will Happ continue his almost-2009-rookie-of-the-year pitching performance next season or will he be a one season wonder?

Will Cole Hamels regain his 2008 form - or is 2009 a typical season for him?

Can Ben Francisco produce more than a .263 BA next season?

The answers will determine Ruben Amaro Jr.'s future as the Phillies GM.

Sophisticated Sarah

2009-12-14T08:11:00.001-08:00

Palin is Part Hepburn, Part Loren, Part Thatcher - Part Annie Oakley
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog

Watching the video of Sarah Palin’s appearance with William Shatner on the Conan O’Brien Show, the one word that came to mind was style. Yet, there was more to it than that.

After all, she entered the arena of late night television, a stage that has excoriated her routinely - the “enemy camp” as Chris Matthews might say. She has been scoffed at before by O’Brien. The show has featured William Shatner mocking Palin’s tweets by reading them as dramatic recitations.

Still, Palin handled her appearance with the aplomb of Beyonce at the Video Music Awards. She exuded the charm of Sophia Loren; the dignity of a Katharine Hepburn.

The blend of these qualities, with the feistiness and intellect of Margaret Thatcher and the forty-something feminine beauty of a Demi Moore, is what makes Palin so dangerous to the political establishments of both parties.

She has a certain manner, an allure, a je ne sais quoi, about her that has endeared her to a wide swath of the American public in a short period of time. She is upsetting a lot of apple carts and the entrenched politicos resent it. They have directed their fire at her.

Indeed, Palin has weathered a torrent of vitriol. While her primary critics are liberal Democrats, the bien-pensants of both parties fear and loathe her.

This was evinced recently by Michael Petrilli’s hortatory article in the December 14 Wall Street Journal. Petrilli’s haughty piece titled, “Whole Foods Republicans,” had this to say about Gov. Palin, “…there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.”

Petrilli’s remarks about Palin’s supporters echoed what liberals have said about military personnel in Iraq (Kerry: “you get stuck in Iraq”) and the audience of the Limbaugh show. It repeats what the left claims is a characteristic of conservative Christians (“uneducated and easily led”) or Middle America (“clinging to their guns and religion”).

It must be noted that Mr. Petrilli is a researcher at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Although he appears to be a Republican, he is obviously one who has been victimized by the Democrats’ tried and true class warfare propaganda. They have succeeded in dividing Republicans along cultural lines.

Yet, Gov. Palin has run the gauntlet of ridicule from David Letterman – moral icon that he is – to Michael Petrilli. Despite the scorn hurled at Palin’s intellect and that of her advocates, she continues to be poised. She exhibits the grace and sophistication of many famous women, past and present.

There is no denying it. Palin is part Hepburn, part Loren, part Moore, Thatcher, part Condoleeza Rice and a little Annie Oakley throw in for good measure.

The power elite compare Sarah Palin to a famous woman as well. However, the famous woman they think of when they think of Palin is Joan of Arc. If they have their way, Palin will end up burned at the stake – politically speaking that is – just like she did.

Will There Be a Special Prosecutor in Voter Intimidation Case

2009-12-11T07:54:00.001-08:00

Members of Congress and the US Civil Rights Commission say Justice is Stalling
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

As I have reported since May,members of Congress and the US Civil Rights Commission have been asking for an explanation by the Holder Justice Department Civil Rights Division why they dropped a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt
http://tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/09/civil-service-commission-demands.html
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:_5uF9fMydAIJ:tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-holder-stonewalling-new-black.html+Tremoglie+new+black+panther+party+voter&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/11/15/top_stories/doc4b004bfa562e2430282949.txt

Despite repeated requests from Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.) and Gerald A. Reynolds the Chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission, Justice has not provided the information they reuqested.

Recently an official of the NBPP said the requests were merely a "political witch hunt" by Republicans.

This was followed by a report in the New York Times that Democrats were going to release some GAO report on December 10 that the Bush administration did not enforce civil rights laws. I have not yet been able to get a copy of this report.

However, the fact that the New Black Panther Party and the New York Times are acting as defenders for the Holder Justice Department is strange. The New York Times in particular has a credibility problem because they chose to withhold relevant information they had about communications between the Obama campaign and ACORN, according to Congressional testimony.

Furthermore, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation, wrote in the National Review Online that the DOJ attorneys who were investigating this case have been prohibited by DOJ's assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez of complying with the US Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.

He wrote, "Perez has even ordered them not to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite the fact that the authorizing statute for the Commission specifically directs all federal agencies to “cooperate fully with the Commission.”

This would be very disconcerting if true. It would lead one to conclude that an investigation of the investigators is in order.

Until now Congressional Republicans and the US Civil Rights Commission has been reluctant to call for a special prosecutor. If there is active resistance by the Justice Department commanders to resist lawful subpoenas then they have a duty to call for one.

Obama: "War is Necessary"

2009-12-10T08:50:00.000-08:00

Rebukes the Antiwar Protestors of Two Generations
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

There has been no call by the leftists of the world protesting his war. No Code Pink, International ANSWER, Not In Our Name or other similarly reprehensible group calling President Obama a "chickenhawk," "war criminal," or "murderer," as they did President Bush.

No, on the contrary, President Obama received a prize for peace. Indeed he received the most famous such distinction - the Nobel Prize.

For his part, President Obama refuted the antiwar mob. Whether he did so knowingly or not, he provided those who went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those who ordered those wars - the intellectual and moral ammunition against those who opposed the war by engaging in the most outrageous and despicable conduct.

Their gratuitous slurs of President Bush, Colin Powell, John McCain and all those who served in the Bush administration, and who favored the war in Iraq, will always be remembered by Americans. This is particularly true of the members of the media who did so - especially those who characterized combat soldiers as cretins or failures.

President Obama refuted the anti-war crowd, the mean-spirited, hate-filled leftwing, during his acceptance speech in Oslo. He told the truth about war and presented a sophisticated rejoinder to those gullible, artless people who populate the left, those hypocrites.

First, Mr. Obama expressed the feeling of grave responsibility he feels,"I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed." Bush did too, the only difference is the absence of the liberal/leftist mainstream media vitriolic criticism.

He continued by recognizing the pragmatism of armed conflict, "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms."

He acknowledged America's role in preserving peace in the world despite the invective of his leftist/liberal brethren both here and abroad:

"I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower. Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world.”

He then rebuked the antiwar protestors of two generations. He said, “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."

Then Mr. Obama provided the most memorable quote of his speech. The one that should be enshrined in bumper stickers to counter those fatuous “War is not the answer" bumper stickers and peace signs one sees driving along any thoroughfare in the United States.

President Barack Obama, the antiwar candidate, said during his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Peace, "War is sometimes necessary."

Nobody likes this idea. Nobody wants it to happen. Americans would prefer it were not the case. However, the average American knows it to be true.

Only the callow and sciolistic, only the supercilious and sanctimonious among us believe that war is not the answer.

Just as the anticommunist Nixon validated the existence of Communist China, the antiwar Obama has validated the righteousness of America’s wars.

Ugly Americans Part II: Fox News, CBS News and Sen. Cantwell

2009-12-09T05:08:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

The American liberal mainstream media, ordinarily lauding European culture, has been in overdrive trying to discredit the guilty verdict of Amanda Knox, a Seattle college convicted, by an Italian court, of murdering her British roommate in Perugia, Italy. They present the defense case in detail with only a cursory rendering of the prosecution's case - and then only in a negative light.

However, it is not only the liberal mainstream media defending the convicted killer. Conservative media icon Fox News Channel has entered the fray.

The December 7 edition of the Bill O’Reilly show featured Peter Van Sant, a CBS news reporter, who is most zealous in his desire to clear Knox.
Van Sant – who, coincidentally, is also a native of Seattle - said unqualifiedly that Knox was innocent.

Yet, his investigation, complete with private detective and DNA experts, is still nothing more than a recitation of the defense claims. What he told O’Reilly, who believed him completely, was that: the prosecutor is overzealous and corrupt; the DNA evidence was corrupted and the chain of custody broken; the circumstantial evidence is unreliable; the jury is prejudiced against his client; the interrogation by the Carabinieri was brutal and the confession coerced.

By the way, this last claim – about the Carabinieri - is inaccurate. Knox was not interrogated by the Carabinieri. She was interrogated by the police.
One has to wonder if O’Reilly and Van Sant know the difference between the police and Carabinieri.

Inaccuracies about the Italian criminal justice system have been routine in the reportage. Media keep referring to jurors. Italian courts do not have jurors, such as those used here in America. Indeed, with the exception in the Corte D’Assise, which was the one used in this case, there are no juries in Italy.
The Corte D’ Assise is more of a mixed tribunal. The “jurors” in the Knox case were the two judges and six “Giudici Popolari,” who are lay people. Together they decide the guilt or innocence – as opposed to America, where the jury determines guilt or innocence independent of the judge.
The Knox lawyers are simply practicing Criminal Defense Attorney Tactics 101. They are formulaic. They have been used before. For example:

1- The defense attorneys in the O.J. Simpson case said the DNA evidence was corrupted and unreliable – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
2- The defense attorneys in the Scott Peterson case said that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
3- The defense attorneys in the Mumia Abu Jamal said the prosecutor and the jury were bigoted against Abu Jamal – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
Not only is the American media trying to interfere in this case, so are liberal politicians.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, (D. –Wash.), is getting Hillary Clinton involved. She said, “The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Knox was guilty.”
When asked if she read the transcript, her press aide replied that they have been communicating with the Knox defense team. They also admitted they have not contacted the prosecution nor have they read the transcript.
Cantwell’s office did say they are pursuing this through the European Union. Their claim is that the “trial procedure did not follow the strictures of the European Union due process aspects - regarding jury sequestration.”

Professor Marco Ventoruzzo is member of the faculty of the Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law. He is a legal scholar in Italy and the United States.

“There is nothing about this trial that impressed me as being unfair,” he said.

Regarding the issue of sequestration he said, “Italian courts have sessions spread out over a period of time to lessen the heat of the moment, unlike American trials, which are done in a short period of time. Italian trials - because of their long duration, of sessions being months apart - incorporate safeguards against the effects of emotions. So sequestering is not that important.”
Cantwell’s intervention is unnecessary. Italian judges are required, unlike their American counterparts, to write their reasons for conviction. These reasons can be appealed. If the appeal is granted, the whole trial is redone – again different from an American appellate process.
By some metrics, the Italian system is vastly superior to the American. The Italian crime rate is a fraction of what America’s is. This is due, in part, to their criminal justice system – which contains mechanisms that we should consider adopting here.

The interference by American journalists and politicians in the Amanda Knox case is reprehensible.

Italy is a sovereign nation. Liberals have complained vociferously about American jingoism and cultural imperialism. They should not violate their own standards and impose American legal culture on Italy.

If the court erred, then the appeals process will determine that it did. The Italian system is perfectly capable of dispensing justice – for everyone including the victim.

Something we here in the United States have not quite figured out how to do.

Hillary Clinton and the Ugly Americans, Part I

2009-12-07T13:13:00.000-08:00

Once Praised, Liberals Turn Against European Justice
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Hillary Clinton says she will confer with Sen. Maria Cantwell,(D- Wash.) about the conviction of American student Amanda Knox, of Seattle, for the murder of her roommate in Perugia, Italy. Cantwell believes the Italian justice system to be substandard.

Her ignorance of Italian criminal justice - and that of the American media, incapable of accurately reporting it - is most revealing. I have chronicled, in my Philadelphia Bulletin pieces, the factual errors about the Italian justice system, made by the Associated Press and the BBC, among others.

Two of the most common misperceptions were:

1- The media repeatedly referred to "jurors" in the news reports. There are no jurors in the American sense. There is a mixed tribunal more akin to an American military tribunal.

Two trial judges and six lay people, who are called "popular judges" vote on guilt or innocence. It is not determined independent of the judge.

2- The media also said Knox was denied bail. There is no bail in Italy.

Not only has the liberal mainstream media proven to be ignorant, they have revealed their hypocrisy – again.

Liberals love to point to Europe as the paradigm to use for reform of the American criminal justice system. Capital punishment abolitionists routinely mention “America is the only industrialized democracy (i.e. Europe) that uses capital punishment.”

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has referred to European law in his Constitutional rulings.

Now, suddenly, according to Hillary Clinton, Sen. Cantwell and others, European criminal justice is suspect. Why?

Because Knox has been convicted of murder by an Italian court and they do not like the idea of American college students being convicted of crimes in foreign countries.

Knox, an American student studying in Italy, was convicted for the gruesome murder of her British roommate. She, her Italian boyfriend and an African immigrant, brutally killed the woman after a night of sex and drugs.

Predictably, the mainstream American media - the same media that expressed concern about America's image in Europe during the entire Bush administration - criticized the Italian justice system. Numerous reports in American newspapers and magazines second-guessed how the Italians mete out justice.

The media presented Knox has being persecuted for being an American. They completely ignored the fact that the two others convicted for the crime were Italian.

Time magazine published, in June, what was effectively the defense attorney’s case. "Questions remain" about the prosecutions case they said rhetorically.

The implication being that there were no questions about the defense's statements.

Newsweek wrote in July, "It is not uncommon in Italy to give equal weight to circumstantial evidence." As if this is something unique to Italian courts.

Apparently, Newsweek forgot the Scott Peterson murder trial. He was convicted almost completely on circumstantial evidence.

The New York Times commentary piece called Knox an "Innocent Abroad." Is it not interesting how liberal journalists, who profess to believe in due process, always, pronounce guilt or innocence before a trial? They love to pronounce police guilty immediately.

The media is not alone. Liberals of all stripes have turned against Europe.

Academicians, quoted in the New York Times, have called the Italian criminal justice system “not among Europe’s most distinguished.” Hypocritically, some of these same academicians have praised Italy’s criminal justice system in the past because of its prohibition of capital punishment.

Liberals always criticize America for "cultural imperialism." What more egregious example of cultural imperialism is there than to interfere in the judicial process of a sovereign nation simply because one does not like the results of the verdict.

Annual BCS BS

2009-12-05T06:13:00.000-08:00

Sportswriters Show They Are Not Bright Lights
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

College football is a game -- a very profitable game - played by unpaid college kids. The kids play for pride and a chance to go onto the pros. The universities, the television networks like ESPN, the bowl organizations and others reap the profits by exploiting them.

So lets stop the annual whining about the necessity of a college football playoff system. The present one works just fine.

I found a 25 year old television guide piece about the approaching college football bowl games on television. The writer said there were too many bowl games (16 then as opposed to the 34 now). The author said then that there should be a playoff system.

Well, now there is a playoff system in major college football. It involves the top two seeded teams.

Still the sportswriters, politicians and those who are not taking in the bucks they think they ought to be, whine. They say this is not much of a playoff, that it is not fair. They say ask why it is not like the NCAA basketball tournament -- which provides 64 teams a chance at the championship.

OK fair enough, let's examine the "fairness" of the college basketball tournament. 64 teams are seeded -- just as the two major college football teams are.

Why should there be 64?

The lowest seeded college basketball team ever to be champion in the 70 years of the tournament was Villanova. This did not occur until 1985! Villanova was seeded #8 seed that year.

So why should there be 64 teams? Think about it -- -- only one team not seeded in the top seven has ever won the college basketball championship - in the seven decade history of the tournament.

Now some people (especially sportswriters many of whom are as clueless and doctrinaire leftist as their newsroom brethren) say the bowl games are about greed. They postulate the only reason there is no playoff is because the bowl games will lose money.

There is no greed in the NCAA basketball tournament? How ingenuous can you get!
If they believe this then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska they might want to buy.

The NCAA basketball tournament started in 1939 (37 years after the first bowl game by the way). It consisted of only eight teams then. It expanded to 64 in 1985.

Why do you think that was? Money!

Before “March Madness” came along (the advertising moniker television networks gave the tournament) the public was not very concerned about who the college basketball champion was.

Indeed, most teams played in the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) until about the '70's.

Do you think the NCAA, the universities, the television networks - and yes even the sportswriters - make more or less money because of “March Madness?”

The same thing can be said about small college football. No one was interested whether Podunk State, Coal Cracker College or Sunset Beach U. was the number one small college team in the nation. However, make small college teams determine their champion by a playoff and now there is some suspense for a TV audience. Now networks can sell commercial airtime.

The major college teams do not need to generate interest. They do not need the gimmick of a “playoff.” They already have an audience.

If the small college football teams, college basketball teams or college baseball teams want a playoff that is their business. Just do not say it is for righteous reasons.

Let major college football alone.

If Widget Inc. -- maker of the best paper fasteners in the world -- wants to sponsor the Paper Clip Bowl; the city of Osh Kosh, Wisconsin wants to host it; Middle Tennessee State and North Dakota State want to play in it; ESPN wants to broadcast it; and a few million people want to watch it; why should the federal government, the courts, or the sportswriters of America complain?

The current system is fine. The games -- for the most part -- are fun to watch. Players get a chance to be on a national stage -- for most their only chance to do so.

Even the marching bands have an opportunity to showcase their talents. Their efforts work and their desire are seen by thousands of people. Normally they would not be.

The bowl games are a blast for these kids. It is the only compensation they get.

Leave them alone.

Pro-Iraq-war statements by Clinton and leading Democrats

2009-12-03T14:25:00.000-08:00

Also Hans Blix and David Kay about Iraqi WMD's

(Liberals aren't very smart and need to be reminded again and again and again)

1. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Pres. Clinton quoted in the Washington Post 2-4-98

2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton 2-17-1998 Speech at the Pentagon

3. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat ?

Clinton administration Secy of State Madeline Albright Feb 1998

4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Clinton administration Nat. Sec Adviser Sandy Berger Feb 1998

5. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi Dec. 1998 (Currently Speaker of the House)

6. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions ? to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter signed by Sen John Kerry October 1998 ( Kerry was the Democratic Party’s antiwar presidential candidate in 2004)

7. 'Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance . . . the disarmament which was demanded' Report of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as reported by the Washington Post January 27, 2003

8. “Finally, despite damage inflicted by Operation DESERT FOX strikes, Iraq has not forgone its missile and WMD programs and continues to resist the reintroduction of United Nations arms inspectors.”

Feb. 2000 testimony of Gen Anthony Zinni before the US Senate Armed Services Committee (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229az.pdf) :

9. "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. ...I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

David Kay, Director of the Iraq Survey Group testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 2004

Political Science: Liberals Love Scandals Except..

2009-12-03T10:26:00.001-08:00

Political Science: Liberals Love Scandals Except..
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Liberals love scandals. When the institutions they despise, such as religion, capitalism and marriage are racked with scandal they are ecstatic. They cannot contain their joy.

For the past several years there have been many reasons for their rapture.
One by one, the great institutions of this country have been scandalized.

Molestation and infidelity were rampant in religious institutions. There were instances of abuse by Catholic priests. There were unfaithful, adulterous evangelists.

Financial institutions and formerly great manufacturers were led by charlatans and fools into economic turmoil. Wall Street became synonymous not with greed, worse, with incompetency and whining.

Conservative leadership was not spared. Limbaugh was addicted to drugs, Bennett the virtues czar was a gambler losing millions in Las Vegas. Miss California’s proclamation of Christian faith is at odds with her nude photographs.

Everytime the military, the police or anything else that represents or is admired by the bourgeoisie the liberals despise were scandalized they were gleeful.They were delighted that conservative institutions were falling one by one.

Now, however, one of their own institutions is engulfed in a scandal. One that makes the others tame by comparison.

The great bastion of American liberalism is academia. The great bulwark of American liberalism is the mainstream media. The great sacred cow of American liberalism is environmentalism.The mother of all scandals has swallowed up all three.

Several days ago hackers gain access to emails from scientists at the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It is one of the preeminent institutions for global warming research. The emails revealed that the scientists had been, apparently, altering and falsifying information about global warming.

They cooked the books so that studies showed there was global warming when in fact there was not. Moreover they worked with other environmental scientists around the world to do this. They also tried to suppress dissenting opinions and doubts about global warming from appearing in academic and scientific journals.

Simply put, if the evidence presented is true, these environmentalists corrupted the scientific method for their own gain. Academicians, scientists, have breached ethics and morality to fraudulently further the cause of environmentalism.

Yet, the mainstream media, academic organizations and "green" groups act as if it never happened.

The corruption of the three great institutions of the American left; academia, environmentalism and the media have been exposed. Their hypocrisy is blatant.

If Climategate does nothing else it has accomplished this.

More Murdered Cops, Another Paroled Murderer, Another Government Failure

2009-12-01T06:21:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

For the past several years I have written extensively about the deadly problem of repeat violent offenders who are let loose from prison by our political representatives or the institutions for which they are responsible.

My articles have been met with approval and, in some instances, were responsible for motivating some action. I received communications from both police officers and parole agents who told me how the system is abused.

When I wrote for the Philadelphia Daily News in February 2006 how Philadelphia's "gun court" sentences 55 percent of those convicted to probation or how two thirds released from pre-trial custody never show for trial, there were expressions of outrage.

When I wrote in the November 2007 Philadelphia Bulletin that cops receive the death penalty while their killers get life sentences, many were similarly indignant.

My piece titled " Who Freed the Cop Killers" for the May 8, 2008 Philadelphia Daily News, spoke of the lenient parole and probation procedures that led to violent offenders being released who in turn killed police officers. This piece was referenced by nationally syndicated columnist Walter Williams. It generated many responses, from those within and outside of law enforcement, questioning why this has been allowed to continue.

"Patterns in Killings of Police Officers Ignored," an article which appeared in the Sept. 25, 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Bulletin, reiterated the abuses of the parole and probation that led to officers (and civilians) being murdered. Soon after this was published, the governor of Pennsylvania ordered a review of parole procedures. It was largely a whitewash.

Yet, these circumstances are not unique to Philadelphia. A murder spree of three Oakland California police officers last March was conducted by a parole violator.

Studies have confirmed this. According to data complied by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ):

"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. "

The amount of crimes these paroled felons were arrested for is staggering. According to the DOJ:

"The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide. "

These offenders wreak havoc and murder not long after being released from prison.

So it comes as no great revelation that this recent mass murderer of police officers in Seattle Washington was, allegedly, by a paroled violent offender, Maurice Clemmons. It may come as a shock that he was paroled by Republican governor and former, as well as possible future, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

It should not.

Huckabee possesses all the characteristics of politicians who are so anxious to redeem the guilty they forget to protect the innocent. He was very ambitious in letting as many out of prison as possible. The Clemmons case is not the first prisoner released by Huckabee who subsequently committed a horrendous crime. He actively promoted the release of a violent offender who went on to kill someone else on at least one other occasion that has been made public.

So this recent case brings to a total of five the number of people killed by violent offenders that Mike Huckabee was responsible for releasing from prison. For his part Huckabee has tried to distance himself from the results of his policies.

Instead, he should heed the words of former counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who said in his public apology to the family members of the victims of the 9-11 attack, "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."

These words should also be emblazoned on the doors of every parole and probation office in the United States.

During the next several months I will be working on a book about the deleterious effect of political correctness in law enforcement. A segment of this book will be written with a distant cousin who is a judge in Italy. The differences in recidivism between the Italy and the U.S. are stark.

I have yet to find a publisher, however, I guarantee that this book will be published - one way or the other. Because the problem of probation and parole - and more importantly the culture that fosters this problem needs to be revealed for all.

The Roots of Fox News Channel

2009-11-29T07:34:00.000-08:00

How many people know that one of the owners of Fox, before Rupert Murdoch, was Marc Rich?

How many people know that the idea for a fourth television network was the brainchild of a wealthy studio executive, who just happens to be a lifelong liberal Democrat?

What irony there is that Twentieth Century Fox Studios was partially owned by one of the biggest tax cheats in American history. A man who was a staunch Democrat, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton (tax cheats and Democrats seem to go together like horse and carriage).

Murdoch bought out Marc Rich's share of the studio. He later acquired the other half from Marvin Davis.

As sole owner, he hired Barry Diller from Paramount. He was an executive there. He is a liberal Democrat. Diller had an idea about creating another network. Fox was rolled out in 1986.

So, the idea for the fourth television network that became Fox Broadcasting Company, which includes Fox News Channel, was the brainchild of a liberal Democrat. So there you are. The roots of the television network that conservatives across America turn to for their news was originated by a liberal Democrat from a media empire that was once partially owned by a Democrat Party contributor who was pardoned for income tax evasion.

Not that there is anything terribly wrong with this. It is a business. The owners really do not have any ideological objectives other than to make profits.

It just confirms my point that what is offered as "expert opinion" by Fox is merely what will get viewers to look at the television because it is a business. Generally this means on Fox, blondes in short skirts, Kimberly Guilfoyle's ample cleavage or those who are famous for being famous regardless of their expertise.

For example, I read Ann Coulter's column all the time. It's funny and informative. I would not read her column for her opinion of the burning issues of military strategy etc.

Why would anyone turn to her as an authority about families and religion? Coulter's real attraction is her long blonde hair and even longer legs. Like many Fox News shills, Coulter really hasn't experienced life much.

So outside of politics, the political culture, legal issues and some other things, I really don't want to hear what she has to say about the economy, military strategy, social welfare (in the generic sense), marriage etc.

Same thing with Dick Morris. What does he know about anything other than the Clinton administration, polling data and electoral politics?

Yet, he's called on by Fox News as an expert in military, foreign policy, the news media, welfare, guns, civil rights, etc. Why?

It is one thing for the host of a show to pontificate. (Glenn Beck is an idiot, yet, he admits he is.) They are hired to pontificate all they want. It is their opinion.

Their conclusions are based on information most do not have. They tell people news they are not aware of (unfortunately they often take it from other sources without attribution). They sometimes are entertaining.

However, when Fox News Channel brings in Margaret Hoover, Monica Crowley, Steve Ducey, Dick Morris, Mary Catherine Ham Amanda Carpenter, Fred Barnes, Dana Perino and the worst of all, Dennis Miller, as expert commentators - I change the channel.

Lately, it has been occurring more and more. In fact, Fox News is no longer the first channel I turn on in the evening. It was since 2001.

When Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity ask the opinion of Monica Crowley, Ann Coulter or Dick Morris about foreign policy in Afghanistan - well, that is the blind leading the blind. That is when I reach for the tv remote.

As I have said repeatedly, the establishment conservative media is bureaucratized. It is no longer a meritocracy. The first few that hit the beach and were successful. Now they are merely bringing their friends along - regardless of qualifications or value.

Always remember, this is the same conservative establishment media that has given us Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Brock, Michael Smerconish, Andrew Sullivan and Chris Buckley among many others.

The moral is that before one gives complete loyalty to Fox News remember its roots. It can easily return to them.

Another Example of Pathetic Conservative Leadership

2009-11-27T20:14:00.000-08:00

Stephen Moore:

Founded the Club for Growth, a pro-capitalist group.
Is an economics writer for the Wall Street Journal.
Is a frequent contributor to Fox News Channel
Is a Fellow at the Cato Institute
was a consultant to National Economic Commission
was a research director for President Reagan's commission on privatization
is the author of several books about economics and the free-market
has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University

So one would think with all these credentials he would know a simple thing such as why Black Friday is called Black Friday. During tonight's broadcast of On the Record on FNC, Moore said that maybe Steve Forbes could answer why Black Friday is called Black Friday since he cannot. He thinks it should be called Capitalism Friday or something similar.

When Joy Behar does not know the reason for the name and makes a comment that this term is racist, everybody knows why she would say such a thing - and it is not because she is an intelligent, informed person. She is typical of the ignorant leftwing.

However, when a Stephen Moore publicly says on that he does not know why Black Friday is called Black Friday, it is just another example of how conservative leadership in this country is lacking in talent.

Trying to find a capable conservative leader or pundit is like trying to find a closer in the 2009 Phillies bullpen. Every once in a while there is some excellent pitching , yet generally speaking, they cannot save the game.

Unlike baseball, the ramifications of a lack of talent in politics has more deleterious effects. The only thing that Republicans and conservatives have going for them is that the liberals and Democrats are usually more ignorant and incompetent.

The problem is that the Democrats are now in the majority - and for the longest time they pretty much controlled the most of the federal, state and local governments. This is why inside-the-beltway is fairly liberal domain. It is also why the liberals control the culture and the arts.

As dumb as they are, liberals and Democrats have are pretty gullible and the leaders are very deceptive. Why do you think Obama was elected?

Lacking the mainstream media and control of the government bureaucracy, conservatives have an uphill task. It is tough enough without having out of touch leadership.

For the record, Black Friday is called such - in the contemporary usage - because it is the day retailers begin to start making a profit - they go from being in the red to being in the black. (There is a much older meaning, however, this is the current accepted definition).

Big East Football, Big Time

2009-11-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Maybe the doubters will finally go away. They should. Not one Big East football team was ranked among the Top 25 in preseason polls.
Now, as the college football season is concluding two teams are in the Top Ten and one is in the Top Five.

During the season there were as many as four teams ranked in the Top 25. Think about the significance of this. Half of the teams in the Big East conference were ranked among the Top 25 in the nation.

What other college football conference can make such a claim?

The University of Cincinnati is currently the fifth ranked team in the country and has been for the past few weeks. Their offense is high powered and their depth at quarterback defies description.

Last season, Cincy’s first two starting quarterbacks were injured. So what happened?

The third string quarterback, Tony Pike, led them to the Orange Bowl!

This year Pike was injured. So, what happened?

The second stringer, Zach Collaros, steps in and he leads them to a perfect record. Indeed, Collaros has evoked comparisons to Brett Favre, Steve Young and Joe Montana with his athleticism, ball handling skills and laserlike passing accuracy.

Contrast this to Iowa, which was moving in the standings until their starting QB, Rick Stanzi, was injured. Iowa has not been the same team since.

Then there is Pitt. The season began with some wins against lesser squads. This was followed by the loss to North Carolina State – a game in which they were leading for most of the time.

Since then, the Pitt squad has won all of their games and they are now ranked number 9. Their freshman tailback, Dion Lewis, is a semifinalist for the Doak Walker award, which is given to the best running back in college football.

Lewis has been compared to NFL Hall of Famer and former Pitt running back, Tony Dorsett. Even Tony Dorsett likes to watch him. Lewis is on track to break Dorsett’s freshman records set in 1973.

Lewis, Collaros and Pike are not the only exciting players in the Big East though. The conference is full of them.

Rutgers and South Florida, which have also been ranked in the Top 25 this season, feature some excellent players now – and freshman phenoms like QB’s Tom Savage and B.J. Daniels for the future.

Conceivably four or five Big East teams could be playing in post-season bowls.

Here are my predictions for who will be going where in the postseason. These are admittedly premature because things can change as we go into the last couple of weeks of the season which feature rivalry games where upsets abound.

Cincinnati versus Ga. Tech in the Orange Bowl

These are two comparable teams. The Orange Bowl is a Bowl Championship Series ( BCS) which gets to choose from the best available ranked teams.

Ga Tech is from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), which is a rival conference. A few years ago, the ACC raided the Big East and took three of the best teams - Boston College, Va. Tech and Miami.

The game also has the benefit of being popular in two relatively large television markets – Atlanta and Cincinnati.

Pitt versus Clemson in the Gator Bowl

This will be another Big East-ACC matchup. The Gator Bowl is slated to match an ACC team against either a team from the Big East, Notre Dame or the Big 12. Given that Pitt is the highest ranked team in the Big East after Cincy and given the large payout by the Gator Bowl, $2.5 million, it would seem only logical for Pitt to be invited.

West Virginia versus Va. Tech in the Meinecke Bowl

The third Big East – ACC game of the day. This time mandated because the Meinecke Bowl features a Big East – ACC game contractually. This one will have the wrinkle of two former Big East and neighboring state rivals.

Rutgers versus Temple in the International Bowl

The only bowl game played in Canada (Toronto), the International Bowl is contractually obligated to feature a Big East team against one from the Mid-American Conference (MAC).

While technically this is the Big East versus the MAC, everybody knows Temple were tossed out of the Big East. They found a home in the MAC.

So this should be a fantastic game. It is a rivalry in many different ways.
It is Philadelphia versus New York. Many of the kids that went to high school together now play for either Rutgers or Temple. Temple was a former Big East team.

South Florida versus SMU in the St. Petersburg Bowl

The St. Pete bowl is practically a home game for South Florida University in Tampa. They can draw a crowd. The bowl features Big East – Conference USA. SMU is a big television market so it would make sense to invite them.

Connecticut versus Mississippi in the Papa Johns Bowl

This is another bowl that is obligated to feature a Big East team against one from the Southeastern Conference (SEC).

Connecticut is a good team with a lousy record and has yet to become eligble to play in a bowl game. If they do not then the other bowl lineups will have to change. If they do, expect them to be invited here because it has the cheapest payout, $300,000, of all the bowl games.

These will probably change before the bowl bids are announced in December, however, these should not be far from the actual results.

Whatever the final bowl lineup is the one absolute certain fact is that Big East football is big time.

Obama Democrats: Hope and Bribes

2009-11-22T20:02:00.000-08:00

The Obama Democratic Party demonstrated their desire to help the poor, unfortunate victims of Hurricane Katrina by giving them $100 million - provided that their U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu votes in favor of legislation they want enacted.

How's that for hope and change. Makes the Visitors in the television series seem downright altruistic.

These Obama Democrats are the same people who derided Bush and the Republicans as racist and callous to the problems of Louisianans. They ridiculed Bush's response. They clamored for more federal money because of Hurricane Katrina when Bush was in office.

Now the only way the Katrina victims will get the money is if Obama gets something in return.

That is how liberals define charity!

Of course, why should anyone be shocked. The Obama Democrats idea of a selfless charity is ACORN. Furthermore, they know they will never be "called out" on it.

The Obama Democrats idea of a vigilant news media is the New York Times spiking information they have about a possible illegality or unethical conduct because they think it will be a "game changer." ( See my original March 30, 2009 report for the Philadelphia Bulletin about this. It was later reported by Fox News and made the rounds of the talk shows like Hannity, Beck et al.)
The Obama Democrats also know that the most of the members of the Republican Party are wimps. The ranking Republican on the committee that heard the ACORN whistleblower testify, Rep. Sensenbrenner did nothing when the testimony was given. Even after I contacted him and told him what was said he still did nothing.

Look at the way the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and some Congressional Republicans have pursued the dropping by Holder of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. The majority of the Republicans are silent about this.

As I said to a member of Rep. Wolf's staff ( Wolf is one of the few pursuing this), if the situation were reversed and some racist hate group had been intimidating voters on behalf of Republicans, the Democrats would have mentioned it every day in their speeches in Congress and in the Senate and they would be calling for a special prosecutor.

Not the Pussilanimous Republicans of the NRC, the Senate Republican Conference and the House Republican Conference.

Is it any wonder why people wonder are looking for leadership.

Currently, there are only two choices. Who knows which is worse.

One is the corrupt, unethical, hypocritical, deceitful, power mad, tyrannical, liberal Obama Democratic Party?

The other is the spineless, incompetent, go-along-to-get-along, play-a-few-rounds-of-golf-and-let's-have-a-few-drinks-at-the-country-club-after-I-check-to-see-if-my-dividend-check-came-in Republican Party in Congress and the Senate.

The pundits wonder why people are lining up for Sarah Palin's book.

Hope and change is what Obama promised. I guess the change he meant was the kind in a cash register.

Hill Street Blues: The Importance of Conservative Art

2009-11-17T09:56:00.000-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Hill Street Blues was one of my favorite television programs. I watched it religiously each week.

Moreover, it was a favorite of my Philadelphia Police Department colleagues. The characters, the chaos of the district headquarters (called precincts in other cities); the challenges of the bureaucracy and the politicos, all of these resonated with cops. Not since Wambaugh had there been such realism.

Yet, there existed in the plots certain themes that were disconcerting. There was a subliminal promotion of a certain philosophy.

The most obvious example was that of Lt. Howard Hunter, the commander of the SWAT team (called EATERS in the show). Hunter was the civil libertarians caricature of someone who believed in law and order. He possessed the “let’s-kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out-I-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning” qualities that liberals associate with anyone who believes in strict law enforcement.

Now Hunter did have his counterpart, Det. Goldbloom(?). He was the bleeding heart liberal. However, of the two, Goldbloom’s character was seen as more serious, while Hunter was a comic character to be ridiculed.

There was also Joyce Davenport, public defender extraordinaire. She was the advocate for the poor and the powerless. She cast a pall over those who wanted to see criminals in jail or who wanted to protect themselves. She talked derisively about “street justice” and “vigilantism.” Her disapproving looks were a staple of the show.

Then there was Capt. Furillo. He would take extraordinary measures to mollify the street gangs. He would be engaged in constant negotiations to have them tone down their violent ways.

Yet, he once threatened a group of neighborhood merchants. What was their crime? They caught a thief who was victimizing a store owner. Tired of being targets of criminals they organized into a protective group.

Hill Street Blues, absolutely presented the liberal construct of criminal justice. These are concepts are manifest in America everyday:

· The New York City DA who arrests the man using a gun to protect his house and kid against a burglar.
· The absurd headline in the New York Times wondering why prison rates are increasing if crime rates are decreasing.
· The fawning reportage of a violent murder just before his execution
· The idea that prison does not work only rehabilitation will.
· The increase uses of probation and parole
· Millions spent on “midnight basketball” to control violent crime

All of these were themes of Hill Street Blues. Now one can say this was art imitating life, instead of life imitating art.

This is true.

However, when a show as entertaining as Hill Street Blues was, proffers these ideas, they become validated. The public perceives Hunter as a real depiction of a strict law enforcement officer, that society does make criminals, etc. These become accepted truths.

There is no reason why a show, just as entertaining as Hill Street Blues, could not be made that showed Goldbloom as the caricature of the “let-them-all-out-of-jail” type and Hunter, the strict law enforcer, as the more serious minded.

That Joyce Davenport is a DA who routinely sees the same defendants in court time and again, because the judges keep letting them loose; all the while she watches the bodies pile up.

That shows Capt. Furillo threatening to throw the gang members in jail and negotiates with the vigilante merchants instead.

This is the importance of conservative art. It is why I wrote my novel “A Sense of Duty.” It is why I promote the novels of W.E.B. Griffin, as well as others. It is why I mention films by James Carabatsos and others.

It is why I founded the facebook forum of Creative Conservatives Corner.

Anyone who thinks art (novels, movies, television shows, music, etc.) doesn’t influence the popular culture is not being realistic.

She is a Rebel Not a Rogue

2009-11-16T07:35:00.001-08:00

Sarah Palin’s New Book
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

I had an opportunity to meet Sarah Palin a year ago during the National Governors Association conference at Independence Hall. She was the biggest star there that day attracting more media attention than Schwarzneggar. I talked to her, albeit very briefly, as she was leaving.

Contrary to her image, she was not the vapid, cute cheerleader one would have expected. She was in command of the facts and spoke with authority.

Of course, her vacuous image is a function of the mainstream media’s prejudices. Part of this is her own doing. As she admits in her new book, “Going Rogue,” Palin gave them ammunition that validated this image after one very hostile national television interview.

However, the criticisms of Palin by the East Coast establishment media - the Manhattan Mob - are a result of two dynamic forces. One is her conservative Republican politics.

The other is the sectional differences that have defined this country since its founding. The commercial interests of New England merchants and southern slave plantation owners versus western farmers; of Wall Street bankers versus Nevada miners; of eastern immigrants versus western pioneers; all have played a part in American culture for more than two hundred years.

These differences were delineated during the campaign and are contained in her book – although not described as such. It is very apparent, though, they existed. The McCain staffers considered her a necessary evil. She was the young, attractive, vital counterpoint to the aging war hero.

Yet, they secretly, at first, later openly, loathed her. They believed she was too stupid to act in her own best interest – and certainly not in the best interest of the campaign. The campaign’s intelligentsia did not trust her to speak publicly.

First, she does not have an Ivy League pedigree. (Although when one considers that every president after Reagan was and is an Ivy League alumnus that is not much of an endorsement).

One might think McCain’s staff aversion odd when one considers that the McCain campaign’s top guns were not Ivy Leaguers. Rick Davis graduated from the University of Alabama. Steve Schmidt attended the University of Delaware and did not graduate. However, both are Beltway insiders, part of the eastern establishment

This attitude is exhibited in a September 5, 2008 U.S. News and World Report which disparaged the fact that Palin went to four different universities. Not only did she attend four different colleges, she went to such academic nonentities as Hawaii-Pacific University and the University of Idaho.

Such an educational lineage is unacceptable to those who graduated from the Ivy Eight, the Seven Sisters or the ‘Almost Ivy’ schools of Cal-Berkeley, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke and some others.

Such a scholastic heritage is an anathema to those who inhabit the banks of the Potomac or between the East and Hudson Rivers. For them, Sarah Palin was - and is - nothing more than a baton twirling beauty queen.

Then again, most of the Manhattan Media Mob or the Beltway Bums would not know Dutch Harbor, and the World War II battle there, from Dutch Apple Pie. Supercilious entertainers like David Letterman and Tina Fey – and their writers – probably confuse Kodiak bears with Kodak cameras.

She is a menace because she represents the hoi polloi. She is part of the great unwashed - the antithesis of the eastern elite. The fact that Palin excited the crowds more than McCain dismayed the Republican elite. This caused the invective directed at her by them.

It also produced alarm among Democrats who believed Palin would draw conservative Democrats away from Obama. This led to T-shirts worn by members of a Democratic Party rent-a-mob, who were outside a Philadelphia hotel as Palin exited a campaign function, which read: “Sarah Palin is a c—t.”

So much for the civility for which the liberals claim to clamor.

Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the divisions not only within the Republican Party; she represents the schisms within the nation. She has taken the mantle from Ross Perot – another who dared to shake the political institutions and who drew the wrath of Republicans and Democrats alike.

It is doubtful that Palin will have a future in a nationally elected office. What is certain though is that she will be a powerful influence in national politics for years to come.

Just as Mario Cuomo was influential in leftwing national politics as an outsider, Palin is the voice of conservative women and the pro-life movement.

Just as Ross Perot influenced national policy, so too will Sarah Palin. An elected national office would be too restrictive to someone like her who needs to be able to speak her mind.

Sarah Palin is more rebel than rogue.

Obama Is a Real Chickenhawk

2009-11-15T11:19:00.000-08:00

Where Have All the Protesters Gone?

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Remember when they called Bush a chickenhawk. Democrats, "antiwar" protesters, liberals, leftists and Bush haters in general continuously said President Bush was a "chickenhaw" a term that denotes someone who favors war - as long as someone else is doing the fighting.

Far left groups like CodePink, International ANSWER and Not In Our Name would refer to Bush in this manner. However, they were not alone.

Many Congressional Democrats - who are now interested in civility, comity and cooperation - did not hesitate to call President Bush this gratuitous, vulgar and untrue slur. Then they expanded it to all of those in the Bush administration and Republican Party who were never in the military.

Of course, liberals being liberals, were just showing their hypocrisy and amnesia. They forgot their hero, Bill Clinton, was a draft dodger. Neither did it matter that Hillary Clinton never served in the military.

Meanwhile Bill was sending troops to Bosnia, Somalia, Haitia and everywhere else. They also forgot all the Democratic Party leaders who did not serve in the military yet voted for war.

It did not matter that Bush served in the Air National Guard, certainly more dangerous than Bill Clinton's nonservice. No, they demeaned the National Guard, the same National Guard that bailed out the hippies at Woodstock by the way.

The liberals also ignored the people in the Bush administration and in the Republican Party who did serve in the military. They especially ignored those whose kids were in the service.

The fact that John McCain served in combat and had a kid headed to Iraq and that Sarah Palin had a kid going to Iraq did not earn compliments from the Democrats. It certainly did not earn them their votes.

So now that we have a dyed-in-the-wool, 14 karat, solid gold, chickenhawk in the White House sending troops into combat - or in this case not being able to make up his mind if he should - where are all the chickenhawk jibes?

Indeed, to paraphrase an old antiwar protest song:

Where have all the protesters gone
Now that a Democrat is in the White House
Where are all the peace protesters
The truth is they were just working for the Democrats

Is Holder Stonewalling New Black Panther Inquiry?

2009-11-11T06:57:00.001-08:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a Philadelphia native, and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sent a letter, on November 10, to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting information about the Justice Department’s inquiry into the sudden and unusual dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

The congressmen are concerned that the Justice Department (DOJ) is using the investigation as a means to continue stonewalling Congress in this matter. It has been three months since DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility initiated an investigation at the request of Smith and Wolf.
Yet, despite repeated requests made during the past three months DOJ has not provided Congress with a clear explanation for why the Civil Rights Division dismissed the complaint.

According to Messrs. Smith and Wolf, “Congress and the American people must have confidence that the Department’s Voting Rights Act enforcement is free of improper political motives … it is important for Congress, in furtherance of its oversight obligations, to receive answers before the end of this year—before we enter a political season” so that voters can be assured that voter intimidation will not be tolerated.

Justice Department attorneys filed charges in January against three individuals and the New Black Panther Party for allegedly threatening voters at a poll in Philadelphia during last November’s presidential election. The Justice Department effectively won the case when the defendants declined to appear before the court and challenge the charges.

Yet, when the Obama administration took control of the Justice Department, the case against the Democratic Party’s political ally was suddenly dropped. There were no new facts or evidence to justify the decision. The impression that politics played a role in the decision has been a source of concern for Rep. Wolf who has been a strident defender of voting rights.

Not only has Congress made unanswered inquiries into this matter, so too has the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The Commission’s chairman, Gerald Reynolds, sent a letter on September 30 to Mr. Holder saying the responses were “overdue” and asking for “Department officials to fully cooperate” with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law.

Mr. Reynolds noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries. He said this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may also try “to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences.”

As of this date, neither members of Congress nor members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission have called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the matter.

FBI Knew of Hasan As Early as December 2008

2009-11-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

The FBI issued a press release today, November 9, in which they said Major Malik Nidal Hasan was noticed by them as early as December 2008. His activities at the time attracted the interest of "one of their Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)." Hasan was communicating with the subject of an unrelated investigation by the JTTF team.

They stated that a review of the interaction between Hasan and the subject of the JTTF investigation was explainable by his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. The content of the communications was consistent with his research. They said nothing else derogatory was found. This led them to conclude that "Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning." They also said other communications of which they were aware were similar to the ones reviewed by the JTTF.

The press statement did not elaborate as to the nature of those communications or exactly why they believed them to be consistent with Major Hasan's research.

The FBI stresses that "at this point, there is no information to indicate had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot." Yet, they did not seem to rule out the possibility that the suspect was a lone actor in a terrorist act - only that he acted alone.

They are examining forensic evidence to ascertain Hasan's motive for the massacre. However, they are limited as to what they can disclose to the public at this time.

The Army Criminal Investigative Division is leading the investigation with the assistance of the FBI and the Texas Rangers. As with any criminal investigation the suspect is presumed innocent.

Pelosi’s Health Insurance Reform Bill Establishes Waiting Lists

2009-11-03T16:45:00.000-08:00

Even Canada Said These Were Illegal
By Michael P. Tremoglie

Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

H.R. 3962, the Democrats’ health insurance reform bill, to be voted on this week by Congress, contains a provision to establish waiting lists as a mechanism to control costs. Such waiting lists have long been a characteristic – and a bane - of socialized medicine.

Indeed, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2005. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the time.

Yet, this is exactly what the Democrats’ plan has in mind for Americans if their proposed bill becomes law. Called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.- Ca., unveiled it with great fanfare last week. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Dingel, D. Mich., and is co-sponsored by Democrat Representatives Charles Rangel of New York, Henry Waxman, Fortney “Pete” Stark and George Miller of California, as well as, Representatives Pallone and Andrews of New Jersey. It is more than 1900 pages long.

But one need only turn to page 26 to find the provision for waiting lists.

There, listed in Title I ‘Immediate Reforms,’ Sec. 101 ‘National High Risk Pool Program,’ paragraph (3)(g) ‘Covered Benefits Cost Sharing Premiums and Consumer Protection’ is paragraph (7) (h)(2) with the heading ‘Insufficient Funds.’

This states, “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. (Emphasis added)

The High Risk Pool Program is designed exactly for those uninsured individuals who health insurance reform proponents say are the neediest. Estimates are such people comprise one to two percent of the population.

Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), believes that if the government is willing to deny benefits to those who they purportedly consider the most deserving, then eventually waiting lists will be applied to everyone enrolled in the government’s plan. The Democrats’ promise to increase the amount insured, decrease costs and increase benefits is a chimera according to her.

“It’s just inevitable if you make everyone dependent on the system and you make promises you can’t keep. This will be the fate of everyone dependent on the public option - and they (Democrats) want everyone in the country dependent on this program,” she said.

The AAPS, ironically, was established to be the “voice of private doctors” in 1943. That year the Wagner-Murray-Dingel bill was introduced to establish a government run health insurance system. The Dingel of that bill was the father of Rep. John Dingel the author of H.R. 3962.

A similar sentiment was expressed by Robert Kaufman, Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University in California. He too believed that although this policy is limited to only this one specific group it will eventually apply to everyone.

“Rationing is the inevitable consequence of this monstrosity. There is no way that anyone can administer anything like this without waiting lists - de facto or otherwise,” he said. “Given the trajectory and logic of the Obama administration, it is a reasonable surmise to expect that this establishes waiting lists as a policy and that the burden proof is with the Obama administration to show it is not."

Philadelphia’s Field of Dreams: 2009 Phillies Like 1929 Athletics

2009-10-22T13:21:00.001-07:00

The 1989 movie “Field of Dreams” was about an Iowa farmer, Ray Kinsella, who was supernaturally commanded to build a baseball field on his farm. Once built, the 1919 Chicago White Sox were reincarnated to play on it.

There is a Field of Dreams in Philadelphia – like the movie, this field also has reincarnated a past team - because the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies seem to be a reincarnation of the 1929 Philadelphia Athletics.

They have several things in common.

The 2009 Philadelphia Phillies are the first professional baseball team in Philadelphia to win consecutive league championships since the Athletics accomplished this feat in 1929, 1930 and 1931. The Athletics took the American League pennant during those years – and two consecutive World Series championships in 1929 and 1930.

The similarities between the two do not end there though. They are eerily similar.

Like the ’09 Phillies, the ’29 Athletics featured a slugging first baseman, Jimmie Foxx, who later became a Hall of Famer. In fact, the team had five Hall of Famers – Foxx, catcher Mickey Cochrane, outfielder Al Simmons and pitcher Lefty Grove, as well as the owner/manager, Connie Mack.Both teams featured excellent pitching and defense as well as hitting. Both featured clutch hitting.

The perfect example of this was Game 4 of the 1929 World Series, as told by Sports Illustrated writer and baseball historian, William Nack, in his August 1996 Sports Illustrated story about the ’29 Athletics.Mr. Nack wrote, “By the middle of the seventh inning of Game 4, the Cubs were winning 8-0… Simmons …struck a thunderous home run that bounced on the roof of the pavilion in left, making the score 8-1.”

According to Nack, four successive Athletics got hits, including Philadelphian Jimmie Dykes, and the score was 8-3. Second baseman, Max Bishop, got a single and Dykes scored making it 8-4.Then outfielder “Mule” Haas hit an inside-the-park three run homer making it 8-7. The score was tied after Cochrane walked and scored after singles by Simmons and Foxx.

The next batter was hit by a pitch. This loaded the bases with Dykes coming to bat. He hit a ball off the wall in left field making the score 10-8. The Athletics staff pitched two scoreless innings in the eighth and the ninth and won the game.

The current Phillies roster has played many come from behind games – especially in championship games - including Jimmy Rollins’ double with two outs in Game 4, Monday night.

The current Phillies also resemble another Athletics team in one regard. This team was the first Philadelphia professional baseball club to win back-to-back pennants. The 1910 and 1911 Athletics featured one of the greatest infields of all time.

They were called the “$100,000 infield.” While not much by today’s standards, this was an era when there were no television revenues and a season’s attendance was less than a million.The infielders were Stuffy McInnis, Eddie Collins, Jack Barry, and Frank “Home Run” Baker.

McInnis played first base; Collins played second, Barry shortstop and Baker third. Collins, a Hall of Famer, had a lifetime batting average of.333 and is considered the greatest second baseman of all time. Baker’s nickname tells it all.

The 2009 Phillies infield of Ryan “Home Run” Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Pedro Feliz is approaching that status, if they have not already achieved it.However, the 2009 Phillies have one distinction that is uniquely their own.

This the first Phillies team ever - in the club’s 126 year history – to win consecutive pennants.Indeed, the Phillies’ history is dismal. They hold the record as having lost the most games of any American professional sports franchise.

The club only appeared twice in the World Series prior to 1980. It was that season – nearly 100 years after being formed – that they won their first World Series championship.

They only appeared twice more in the World Series from 1981 to 2007. They won the National League pennant in their 1983 centennial year – losing to the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. They won the National League title again in 1993 - losing to the Toronto Blue Jays in the World Series.

Finally, last year they won the 2008 World Series for only the second time in the team’s history. They did so behind two phenomenal pitchers, clutch hits and the greatest infield in the majors.

There is a sequence in “Field of Dreams” where Shoeless Joe Jackson, played by Ray Liotta, turns to Ray Kinsella, played by Kevin Costner and asks: “Is this heaven?”Kinsella/Costner replies, “No, it’s Iowa.”Wednesday night the fans of the 2009 Phillies wondered if this were heaven – to which one can reply:

“No, it’s Philadelphia.”

Job Available, Football Running Back; Whites Need Not Apply

2009-10-16T12:07:00.000-07:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Since writing about the possibility of reverse discrimination in football last week (Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog Oct. 8, 2009 http://tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/10/reverse-discrimination-in-football.html), I have received some examples of this and there has been a very public controversy involving the National Football League.

My article was prompted by a quote from Stanford University Cardinals running back Toby Gerhart I read in Sports Illustrated magazine. Gerhart, who is white, said that white running backs are stereotyped.

First, the public controversy:

Rush Limbaugh was prohibited from being a member of a group that was trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise, largely, it seems, because of totally bogus quotes attributed to him that slavery was a good thing and an assassin of a civil rights figure should receive a medal.

These quotes were repeated by a mainstream media that did not bother to do the slightest due diligence in checking the source of them and realize these were hoaxes.

Limbaugh was labeled a racist. This is not true of course. The racism label is used to quiet any political dissent. It has no bearing to someone’s racial attitudes.

Never mind that Limbaugh counts among his friends such as Marcus Allen, a former great running back with the LA Raiders and Clarence Thomas. Or that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams guest host for him occasionally. The aforementioned are all African-Americans.

Black Americans are calling black person defending Limbaugh Uncle Tom’s.

For example, Warren Ballantine, an African-American talk radio show host, who calls himself the, “People’s Attorney” used a derogatory term to describe Juan Williams, an African-American journalist defending Limbaugh’s parody of a column written by an African-American columnist called “Barack the Magic Negro.”

Here is a transcript of what occurred on the Bill O’Reilly Show.
BILL O'REILLY: The reason that Limbaugh is not going to be able to buy into the NFL is because a bunch of made-up stuff became legend, and he got hammered.WARREN BALLANTINE: OK, we won't look at the made-up stuff. Let's look at him playing "Barack the Magic Negro", and we're going to say that's just funny, that's just a joke, that's not racial either. It is racial to real black people.JUAN WILLIAMS: Hey Warren, you were saying my argument was a red herring. Maybe you should do some research, go back and find out that it was an article written by a black person, headlined "Barack the Magic Negro."BALLANTINE: He made it a song and played it on his show.WILLIAMS: So what? He was making fun of it.BALLANTINE: You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK.

Such is civility in the America of Barack Obama the great unifier.

I have also received anecdotal information about white running backs that have not played despite objective evidence that they are very talented.

Two players cited were Peyton Hillis and Jacob Hester – both of whom were white. Hillis plays for the Denver Broncos and Hester for the San Diego Chargers.

According to the information I received, although I did not verify it first hand, is that they are both superior players to those who are starting, who are black.

Here is one comment: “Peyton Hillis is bigger, stronger, faster and has a better yard per carry average than “KnowShow” Moreno. Not to mention he is a much better blocker. Yet, he is sitting on the bench and Knowshow is starting. Jacob Hester led LSU to a national title at LSU (you know, the SEC...”best conference in the nation”) with over 1000 yards rushing and a 5.5 yard per carry”

I cannot verify who is faster Moreno or Hillis. The standard used to judge how fast a runner and how capable a running back a player will be is the 40 yard dash time.

Some sources say that Moreno has a slightly faster 40 yard dash time than Hillis. This is inconclusive.

However, Brian Leonard, who was drafted out Rutgers by the St. Louis Rams (the team Limbaugh wanted to buy), had a 4.49 40 yard time, was relegated to the fullback position which Toby Gerhart said is reserved for supposedly slower white players.

Yet, Leonard’s 4.49 is much faster than Knowshon Moreno’s 4.62 run in the 2009 combine.[1] Tony Fiammetta’s was also faster. Neither one start at running back.

Another example was furnished to me in a newspaper article about a New Jersey high school player. Dillon Romain, was passed by for scholarships by every Division I A program.

“He had qualified academically for college with a 3.0 grade-point average and 1,410 on the SAT, Joe Romain said. He ran the 40-yard dash in a swift 4.46 seconds. He stood out for a nationally renowned program. He had been to countless camps and clinics, getting noticed by the right people,” according to article by Matthew Stanmyre, which appeared in the October 14, 2009 New Jersey Star-Ledger.

The Star-Ledger quoted Chris Melvin, a New Jersey-based high school talent evaluator from Elite Recruits as saying, “In this case he didn’t do anything wrong. He just got overlooked for whatever reason.

Don Bosco coach Greg Toal also praised Romain. “It’s rare that any player cracks the starting lineup so quickly at the school, but didn’t hesitate. “He had all the qualities you want. He can block. He can run. He can catch. There’s nothing he can’t do well,” he said to the Star-Ledger.

Both gentlemen told the Star-Ledger what they think is an issue not said. “Melvin and Toal think a contributing factor could be that Romain is white and plays running back. ‘”Being a white running back is not the easiest thing,” Toal said. “There’s stereotypes out there in this day and age.”’

Could Gerhart, Toal and Melvin – three different people, one in California and two in New Jersey – all be imagining this?

Or could it be that in football the rule is “White Running Backs Need Not Apply” just as it was a generation ago when the same rule applied to black quarterbacks?

Limbaugh, Magic Negroes, Race-Baiting and the NFL

2009-10-14T08:27:00.001-07:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Ever since it was learned that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was attempting to buy a share of the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise there has been a steady drumbeat to prevent this. The approach of those who oppose this is fairly predictable. They use race-baiting.

There is a certain element in the United States – and you can add Western Europe – that labels as racism any criticism or parody of any issue or person who is African-American or Hispanic-American. Occasionally, this accusation is justified. Most of the time it is not, it is simply a smear tactic to silence a critic.

With Limbaugh there is plenty of criticism and parodies of liberals - both white and black - to use.

For example, much has been made about the “Magic Negro” parody of Obama by Limbaugh. They say it proves he is a racist.

Yet, the term “Magic Negro” was applied to Obama March 19, 2007, by Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein, who is African-American. Limbaugh was actually mocking this.

Ehrenstein, wrote, “Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the ‘"Magic Negro."’The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education.”

Note that the term was coined by sociologists – not by Limbaugh. The term is used to describe a black man who assuages white guilt. This is what Limbaugh was parodying.

The people who spread the smear of Limbaugh being a racist know this. They are just relying on the ignorance, or betraying the trust, of the people they tell this to so that these people will influence the decisions of others.

Because it is not just about Limbaugh, it is about his audience as well.

Make people believe that anyone who listens to Limbaugh is a racist and people will not admit they listen to him. They will not think their attitudes and beliefs are truen. They will not talk about the issues and concerns he mentions.

Pretty soon ratings will dwindle and Limbaugh is out of business. If Limbaugh is out of business, then his exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption of liberal organizations, the liberal mainstream media and the leftwing of the Democratic Party will be unknown largely, as it was in the era when the news was dominated by the New York Times, Washington Post and the three major networks.

This is why they have resorted to lying about what Limbaugh said.

Many of the racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh are false. Even the leftwing Media Matters of America could not state that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing - as has been reported. They did mention the quote about Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb. Limbaugh said that the media was giving McNabb credit because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed; meanwhile they ignored the contributions of the team’s defense – which also had black players.

I emailed a gentleman named Dave Zirin, a sportswriter with the leftwing magazine, The Nation (Who knew The Nation has a sportswriter? Does the Weekly Standard have one for the rightwing?). I asked him to give me the original source - meaning something that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing. Something he actually wrote or he actually said - not someone saying he said or wrote it.

I’ll let you know the results. Don't count on getting the information I asked.

Because this is all designed to ruin Limbaugh’s career. America’s leftists, liberals and Democrats all believe he has prevented their complete domination of the national politics of America they way they have dominated the politics of America’s large cities – especially in the Northeast United States ( For example, here in Pennsylvania the American capitalist democracy is sandwiched between the People’s Republics of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).

How stupid do these liberals think Americans are after all? Limbaugh’s audience knows that African-American economists such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams guest-host his show occasionally. The audience knows of Limbaugh’s friendship with the African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Once he even had Chris Matthews as a guest host.

The average American has caught on to the Democrats and liberals race-baiting. When did they come to realize it for what it was.

It may have begun years ago when a liberal talk show host, Phil Donahue, who at the time dominated the media, was interviewing a black Chicago congressman. Donahue used the “n” word. The congressman demanded he apologize and Donahue refused.

There were no headlines or calls for Donahue to resign. No one called Donahue a racist.

The double standard is easy to explain. Liberals do not like to acknowledge their own racism.

Reverse Discrimination in Football?

2009-10-08T15:54:00.001-07:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

“As a white running back you get stereotyped,” Stanford University running back Toby Gerhart said during an interview in the October 12, 2009 edition of Sports Illustrated.

“When I tell people I play football they say, ‘Oh, you’re a fullback,’” he said. For those unfamiliar with the sport, fullbacks are running backs who rely more on strength then speed. However, they rarely carry the ball. Their role is usually reserved to block for the running back.

Gerhardt then mentioned during one football game that he overheard a coach from the University of Washington refer to him by yelling, “He’s not fast enough to turn the corner!”

Is there reverse discrimination in football? It would seem so – in fact, there seems to be racial discrimination in general.

White Men Can’t Run?

It is a fact that in football at all levels - in the college ranks and especially in the NFL ranks of professional football - there is a paucity of white running backs.

The same applies to white wide receivers, another position for which speed is a necessity. There are a few. The Philadelphia Eagles have a white wide receiver Kevin Curtis. Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb, an African-American, has dubbed Curtis “white lightning.”

The conventional wisdom is that white players are too slow. Sportswriters and broadcasters, who are primarily white, seem to have propagated this.

The great Denver Broncos player, Shannon Sharpe, who played tight end, alluded to this concept when he commented about his teammate white teammate wide receiver Ed McCaffrey, was criticized that he was too slow.

Sharpe, who is African-American, addressed the issue. He said, “If Ed McCaffrey was black, I don’t think you would hear it mentioned that he is slow. It’s a misconception. How many players have (Denver Broncos wide weceiver) Anthony Miller-type speed? There aren’t many black, white, red, yellow, green or Chinese.”[1]

Sharpe also said that McCaffrey’s race impeded his earnings. He claimed that if McCaffrey were black he would be making more money than he did.

Are the Media To Blame?

Broadcasters are primarily white – as are the owners of the television and radio networks that broadcast the games. While progress has been made incorporating more African-American commentators, broadcasters and journalists, for a sport in which the majority of players are black the field is still clearly dominated by white males.

They bring with them their own prejudices. If one is around a group of sportswriters long enough eventually they will mention something about “slow white guys.”

This might be the source of the problem Toby Gerhart mentioned.

Perhaps they are trying to compensate for years of past racial discrimination. They are trying to erase the era when few, if any, black men competed with whites in college and professional sports – including football.

Although the NFL did have a black coach, Fritz Pollard, during the 1920’s, he was the only one until 1989 when Art Schell became the head coach of the Los Angeles Raiders.

Blacks were so rare as head coaches, despite comprising the majority of players, that in 2003 the NFL established the Rooney Rule named after the Pittsburgh Steelers owner. It mandated that NFL franchises must interview minority candidates for head coaching positions.

As laudable as this rule is it may not have been necessary if an NFL franchise had been owned by an African-American. It was not until 2005 that an NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings, was owned by an African-American.

Yet, these are not the only places in football were blacks are without representation.

Black Men Can’t Kick?

As rare as it is to see a white running back in football, it is even more unusual to see a black kicker or punter. Not one of the 32 NFL teams has a punter or a kicker who is black.

Is there not one African-American in the ranks of college football or the minor leagues who is not qualified to punt, make a field goal or kick off?

Or is that sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches, scouts, general managers, and other front office officials have the same bias against African-American kicking specialists as they do against white running backs?

It took those involved in the sport of football a long time to evolve from the absurd thinking that blacks were not sufficiently intelligent to play quarterback. How long will it take for them to progress to the point where they will realize that white men can play running back.

Demagogues (Democrats) Gone Wild

2009-10-07T08:11:00.001-07:00

Fact versus Fiction about Nonprofits
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

One of the most pernicious deceptions liberal Democrats have propagated during the health insurance reform debate is about the role of nonprofits. Experts at fear mongering, hate mongering and demagoguery, the Democrats have succeeded in perpetrating the myth that if an entity is government run it is not-for-profit. If it is not-for-profit, it is purely altruistic - existing solely for the greater good.

The biggest demagogues are Senators Schumer and Rockefeller. Their methods are classic. They demonize the “profit making” of private insurance companies while praising the “altruism” of the nonprofit.

They engage in the usual fallacies of the demagogue. They use the argument ad verecundiam (appealing to an authority) and establishing false dichotomies.

So far only Sen. John Ensign and Dr. Donald Palmisano, a former American Medical Association president, have exposed the speciousness of the nonprofit/government entity altruism claim. Predictably it has not received much repetition in the mainstream media. Indeed, Thomas Frank, a particularly vacuous liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal continued this spurious theme in a column he wrote.

It is vital for an informed public to review the refutations of the claims by the reformers of the moral superiority of a government run system. Here are some claims followed by the facts:

· Claim: Private insurers are only interested in making a profit for their stockholders. Nonprofits have only the good of the community as their interest.

Fact: “Nonprofits” are also concerned about making profits. Their profits are returned to the operation of the business.

· Claim: Private insurers deny claims because they put patients before profits.

Fact: A study by the American Medical Association determined that during 2008 the largest denier of claims was Medicare. Medicare denied 6.85% of the claims received. By contrast Humana only denied 2.9% of the claims they received; Cigna only denied 2.56% of their claims.

· Claim: Private insurers are only profit making.

Fact: 44% of private insurance companies are nonprofit. Among these are the dominant companies in some markets. The paradigm of the wealthy nonprofit company is the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans of many states which are very profitable nonprofits or which were so profitable as nonprofits that they converted recently to profit making.

Finally, there is one aspect of nonprofits that no one as mentioned that is worth reviewing.

Nonprofits do not pay taxes and those who donate to them deduct their donation from taxation. This deprives the community of funds.

The Democrats are confusing the public about the nature of nonprofits.
Whatever a nonprofit is, it is not the same as a charity. The two are not synonymous.

Sen. Ensign Revealed Truth of Rockefeller’s Public Option Plan

2009-10-05T05:31:00.000-07:00

Exposed Demagoguery
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

During the October 1 debate, by the Senate Finance Committee, of the Sen. Rockefeller’s public option amendment to the health insurance reform bill, Republican Sen. John Ensign revealed that the proposed plan would have remained government run - despite Democrat Sen. Rockefeller’s contention it would not. Ensign also exposed Rockefeller’s demagoguery.

The demonization of insurance companies “profit motive” by Mr. Rockefeller was the key to his thesis for socialized medicine. He said that private insurance companies are more concerned about profits rather than providing for their customers. This is in line with the “patients not profits” mantra used by those who favor socialized medicine.

Yet, Ensign pointed out that nearly half of the health insurance companies in the United States are not-for-profit. Watching the hearing on C-SPAN, Rockefeller looked like a kid who got caught stealing from the cookie jar as Ensign spoke.

Another claim made last week by Mr. Rockefeller, when he introduced the amendment providing for a public option, or what he called the “Consumer Choice Health Plan” was the lack of permanent government control. He claimed that the public option would only be government run for two years and would not lead to a single payer system.

However, Ensign illustrated the speciousness of this claim.

Sen. Ensign provided an eloquent analysis of the fallacious claims by Sen. Rockefeller and debunked the myths.

Public Option Not As Popular As Some Democrats Claim

He began by observing that although the Democrats claimed - and cited polls – the public option was popular, he asked, rhetorically, “Why is it that so many Democrats have a problem with it?”

The answer he said was simple, “It’s not popular.”

Patients Not Profits Debunked

He asked Yvette Fontenot, a Senate Finance Committee staffer, a witness before the committee how many people who will enroll in the public option. He then noted that 44% of private health insurance is offered by not-for-profit companies in the United States - some of which are the dominant companies in certain markets (Pennsylvania being one of them).

This essentially negated Rockefeller’s demonizing of the profit motive, which he made a central part of his opening statement.

Despite Rockefeller’s Claim Government Would Continue to Run It

Ensign then took aim at Rockefeller’s claim that the government would not be running the public option after two years. He asked Ms. Fontenot, “Who’s going to be running the public option after two years?”

Ms. Fontenot replied that an administrator would be. (Sen. Schumer can be heard whispering that this is the same as Medicaid. As if Medicaid is not government run.)

He asked Fontenot for whom the administrator would work. She replied that it would be the federal government.

“So the person running the plan would work for the government, yet it’s not a government run plan,” stated Ensign. He remarked that this was not quite logical.

He then noted how Medicaid and Medicare caused a cost shifting to private insurance because the government fixes the prices instead of allowing the market to do so. This would be the same with the public option.

Governmental intrusion into the market would cause private insurance rates to increase rates, sending more people to the public option. Eventually this would eliminate the private companies. (N.B. This has occurred in Europe.)

Ensign proffered that the law establishing the public option would be impossible to repeal. Such government entities, he said, establish government bureaucracies. This will prevent the repeal of this plan at a later date, Ensign hypothesized, because government bureaucrats will have political power.

Ultimately, there would be a single payer system, which he noted, does not work well. He cited the case of a Canadian politician who campaigned against private health insurance in Canada, only to come to the US for medical treatment because of the long waits in Canada. He also said that the Canadians cap expenses, which is why they have the waiting lists. He also cited the fact the British health system is the world’s third largest employer.

The Senate committee rejected the Rockefeller amendment, however, Ensign’s articulate refutation of the spurious assertions made by Rockefeller and his allies, revealed the demagoguery and mendacity of those who favor socialized medicine.

Those of us who have been studying the issue of single-payer, socialized medicine for years (my research began in 1993), already knew what Ensign said was true. This is the first time though one can recall such a cogent rebuking of it by a member of the Senate.

MSM Tries Ridiculing Ensign

It is also interesting to note that many in the media –Marie Cocco and Lisa Mascaro in particulare – have attempted to ridicule Sen. Ensign’s presentation. This is a sure indication of how effective it was.

All those opposed to this attempted power play by liberal Democrats should contact Sen. Ensign’s office and express their gratitude (Not being from Nevada I do not know the number to call.)

Obama's Fame Fails to Qualify in Olympic Bid

2009-10-02T13:24:00.000-07:00

A Guide to Liberal Media Damage Control Spin & Lies

By Michael P. Tremoglie

Tea Time Blog

The liberal media - mainstream and fringe - will spend the next few days rationalizing, alibiing, justifying and making excuses to explain or minimize the effect on Barack Obama's image that Chicago's failure to be selected as the site for the 2016 Olympic games.

Some of the lies from the liberal mainstream media will include:

Bush did it too. This will be in response to the criticism that Obama had more important things to do, including saving lives of American military personnel, than worrying about Chicago's games.

This is a lie. The fact is Bush did not do it too. The 2012 selection process was the most hotly contested one in history. Tony Blair and Jacque Chirac got involved. Bush did not. He was concerned about more important issues.

Republicans rooted for America to lose. This will be bandied about by liberals who resent the idea that some Americans wanted Obama to fail.

Of course, these liberals won't explain how they wanted the Olympics so they could say how successful Obama is. This is despite the fact that many advocacy groups for the poor and for African-Americans did not want funds spent on the Olympics. They wanted them spent on social programs.

This means nothing about Obama's image. This will be the mother of all media lies.

The mainstream media, liberals and Democrats have been telling us how loved Mr. Obama is by the rest of the world. They tell us he is a rockstar in the international community. They say he has enormous influence with foreign countries. They say America's image abroad has improved dramatically because of Obama.

President Obama assigned great importance to this. He threw the weight of his office, of his alleged stardom behind the effort to influence the selection committee. His wife did as well.

Indeed, some of the Obama's media flock said that this was Mrs. Obama's "biggest assignment in the nine months since coming to the White House. " They noted that Mrs. Obama said she will "take no prisoners" in her campaign to make Chicago the chosen city.

The Manhattan Media Myrmidons said that Mrs. Obama "stole the show" in Copenhagen. They said she got the "gold" while her husband got the "silver" from the adoring Danes. They said that the Obama's were "global brands" and "international superstars."

Live by the spin, die by the spin. If Chicago received the bid there would have been saccharine stories ad nauseum of how the Obama's wowed and dazzled the selection committee. They would proclaim that it was the presence of their personalities alone that was responsible for securing the selection. They would announce how the international community, which scorned Bush, was ready to welcome America again.

So implying it does not matter to Obama is pure liberal mendacity.

What the liberal mainstream media did not say - what they will not say - was why was President Barack Hussein Obama there in the first place. They will not talk about the environmental and financial hypocrisy that was involved in this lobbying campaign by Obama.

A - The United States is in the midst of the rising unemployment and economic chaos at home - yet he feels comfortable spending all this money to fly to Copenhagen to make a speech he could have made by telecommunications.

B- Obama's cap-and-trade environmental policies will add costs to Americans. If he is the environmental president, why create this huge carbon footprint to lobby for an event that will create an even greater carbon footprint.

C- The war in Afghanistan is spinning out of control. President Obama has not had time to meet with his own general, the person he put in charge of the effort there, to talk about issues involving the lives of American military personnel. Yet, he can talk about some games being played in Chicago?

No, the media will not ask these questions or make these statements. Such invective is reserved for Republican presidents only.

No, instead, the liberal media will do everything in their power to rehabilitate Obama's image - especially in matters of international relations. Remember, not only has Obama screwed up in Afghanistan, he was derided by the leaders of France and the United Kingdom for his United Nations speech about Iran and nuclear weapons.

I just wonder if the liberal media will call the International Olympic Committee selection panel racist?

Civil Rights Commission Chairman Wants Answers from Holder

2009-09-30T20:35:00.001-07:00

Says Responses "Overdue"

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

The Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Gerald A. Reynolds, has sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking answers to their questions about a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). It considers the responses “overdue.”

The letter, dated September 30, 2009, is seemingly an unprecedented action. It asks for Mr. Holder to “instruct Department officials to fully cooperate” with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law.

The correspondence noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries. It has questions surrounding the “unusual decision” by DOJ to dismiss the case against two of the three defendants and the equally unusual injunction obtained against the third defendant.

Mr. Reynolds says this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may also try “to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences.”

The communication reminded Mr. Holder that Congress mandates that, “All Federal agencies shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.” It wants Mr. Holder to identify the person responsible for complying with the requests.

The Commission voted, September 11, 2009, to make its review of the implications of the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement.

The letter concludes by cautioning Mr. Holder that if he does not respond by October 14, they will contact the DOJ personnel involved directly.

Jimmy Carter Called Barack Obama "This Black Boy" on national television

2009-09-21T16:16:00.000-07:00

by Michael P. Tremoglie

Frances Rice, founder of the National Black Republican Association found a video that once again exposes the fraud and hypocrisy of the liberal mainstream Manhattan Mob media. During the 2008 Democratic National convention Carter was a commentator. When asked about Obama he referred to him as this "black boy."

Yet, there was no chorus of righteous indignation as there was when Ross Perot referred to an audience of African-Americans as "you people."

Rice writes on her blog http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/ :

" Carter’s racial slur earned him not one word of condemnation. If a Republican politician had called Obama a “black boy”, a phrase most blacks deem to be an offensive epithet, that person would have been labeled a racist and drummed out of the political arena by Democrats and their liberal media allies.. Unscathed by his insensitive remark, Carter now has the audacity to scold average Americans, calling them racist, merely for protesting against Obama’s government-run, rationed health care scheme and out-of-control spending designed to turn our country into a failed socialist nation."

I guess is an expert about racism. It takes one to know one.

The Coming Calcification of the Conservative Media

2009-09-19T14:55:00.000-07:00

by Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

For years now I have watched many talented, conservative, writers, filmmakers, television producers and journalists go unnoticed, unmentioned or unrewarded while their liberal peers are worshipped - even by conservatives.

Case in point, a few years ago Andrew Sullivan was all the rage in conservative media. They said he was a great writer, he was insightful, he was a force for conservatism in the world etc etc.

Baloney!!!!

Andrew Sullivan's career began with what I call the Manhattan Media Mob. These are the people who launch the careers of your typical elite, liberal journalist. They do it for the same reason - pedigree.

Sullivan has the same Ivy League pedigree many liberal Democrats have. He has a Masters in Public Administration ( read big government here folks) from Harvard, as well as a PhD in government from there. He was an editor for The New Republic before he started his now famous blog. Now they do not come much more left wing than The New Republic.

Yet, despite these impeccable left wing credentials, Sullivan's musings were mentioned by conservative talk show hosts from Limbaugh to O'Reilly to Joe Red State's local show. Meanwhile legitimate conservative sources were not mentioned. It is as if the same pedigree that is needed to be granted entree into the liberal media world is also accepted as the passport into conservative media.

Worse than that, the conservative media is deteriorating into an "old boy's network." Specifically the Roger Ailes' network.

This is to be expected - and deserved - to a certain degree. Ailes, after all, is responsible for the success of Fox News and the career of Sean Hannity. He also contributed to Limbaugh's success and to that of Mary Matalin and others.

Being the first means he should get the lion's share of the rewards.

However, this should not mean exclusivity - especially when the political importance of this is so significant. Yet, this is what it has become. Conservative media outside of Limbaugh, Fox News and Salem Radio are ignored to a large degree. This is true with the new, metro, conservative newspapers, it is true with conservative movies and it is true with conservative books, plays, television shows and music.

Some cases in point.

I am certain that many of you who will read this know about Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.

How many of you know James Carabatsos? He is the antidote to Oliver Stone.

Carabatsos made the movies: Heroes, Hamburger Hill (arguably the greatest Vietnam War movie of all time), and The Lost Battalion ( one of the greatest World War I movies of all time), among many others.

His movies are as patriotic, pro-military and positive as Stone's are unpatriotic, anti-military and negative.

How many of you know Lionel Chetwynde?

He made the movies: Hanoi Hilton, D/C 9-11 Time of Crisis, Celsius 41.11( the refutation of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11), and Ike: Countdown to D-Day, as well as many, many more.

How many people know about the American Film Renaissance festival or the Liberty Film Festival? These are the quasi-Academy Awards for conservative films.

How many of you are familiar with the novels of W.E. B. Griffin's and William E. Butterworth IV ? They are bestsellers - so obviously many of you are. Yet, they are not household names like Grisham or Dan Brown.

Griffin's and Butterworth's novels all contain conservative, patriotic pro-law enforcement themes. However, there are many more conservative novelists (me included) who are not recognized.

Unfortunately, you will rarely, if ever, hear the names of Carabatsos, Chetwynde, Griffin, Butterworth and the rest mentioned by Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, Bennettt, Hewitt, et al.

Even people like Newt Gingrich do not include these talented conservatives among their favorite writers.

When it comes conservative newspapers - forgeddaboutit.

Conservative newspapers, such as the one I worked for, the Bulletin, were never mentioned by talk radio hosts or politicians despite being unparalleled sources of conservative information.

Indeed, Rush Limbaugh read one of my articles on his show one day, all the while stating he did not know what the Bulletin was. The same thing occurred when I appeared on the Bill Bennett show. Bill was not aware of the paper.

I think the greatest irony occurred when Rick Santorum was guest hosting Bennett's show one morning last May. He must have mentioned the names of ten different newspapers that day. He did not mention the Bulletin even though the paper quoted him regularly.

Then he had the audacity to lament that the liberals controlled the media. I recall screaming at him via my car radio that day. Santorum was sure as hell was not doing much to promote the conservative media.

The Bulletin was and is not the only conservative media outlet that is ignored. There are many others. (It is just the only one with which I have direct experience).

Many conservative organizations go unacknowledged by those who control the conservative media.

What about Frances Rice, founder and chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association? This former military officer has done yeoman work promoting the racism of the Democratic Party yet she labors in obscurity.

How many know about Ave Maria Law School and University? I routinely quoted their professors in my pieces, as well as those from Pepperdine, Grove City College and other conservative colleges and universities. Yet, I never noticed my journalistic colleagues do the same.

Give liberals credit for one thing. They will promote each others works. They will be effusive in their praise of investigative reporting and regularly mention the reporters or paper which exposed some scandal among Republicans. They do the same with filmmakers, novelists, songwriters and playwrights.

They understand the influence the arts has on journalism and on the collective psyche. They know the importance of liberal institutions in shaping the culture. As Steve Allen said, " You can write the laws, if I can write the songs."

Ask yourself this, while it's true that the names of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe have mentioned routinely for their superb work in the ACORN scandal, how many times have you heard about Matthew Vadum?

Vadum has been tracking ACORN for years. When I broke the news , March 30, that the New York Times spiked information they had about collusion between ACORN and the Obama campaign (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt),
He was one of the first people I called for a reaction quote. I was using him as a background source another piece I was in the process of writing about ACORN when I discovered this information about the Times and ACORN.

Vadum is not the only one whose work is disregarded. Cliff Kincaid, who has organized protests againts Bill Ayers, is not media exposure by talk radio and others. These are just a few. There are plenty more I could name.

If the leading conservative outlets would spend more time searching conservative newspapers and conservative magazines instead of reading from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC etc two things would happen.

First, there would be more information for conservatives to access and have the intellectual ammunition in their daily arguments. Conservative ideas would be able to thrive more easily.

Second, conservative media outlets would be more prosperous and there would be more of them.

If the conservative media would spend more time interviewing James Carabatsos, Lionel Chetwynde and others, than their movies, books and songs would become more popular.

Now I can hear some of you saying - with righteous indignation - "we are free market capitalists. If they cannot survive in the free market then their product is not very good. They must earn our listenership."

Once again - baloney!!

There is a political aspect to this.

The free market cannot exist without government. Otherwise it would lapse into anarchy . Without courts enforcing contracts business would lapse into the kind of market one associates with the Mafia.

Politics also regulates the airwaves. Otherwise Hannity, Limbaugh and every other talk radio host would not be urging their listeners to prevent implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. Such implementation would ruin their business.

The Fairness Doctrine would probably be a boon for conservative newspapers. At least some of their audience would now have to turn to these papers as sources of information. My old paper, The Bulletin, for example, would benefit greatly from the Fairness Doctrine.

Yet, not once did The Bulletin ever consider promoting the Fairness Doctrine at the expense of talk radio. If they conducted business according to a pure free market it would have.

So do not preach about the free market. Politics is an inherent part of all human activity - including the media business. Remember the old saying: "It's not what you know, it's who you know that determines success in business."

Well, this is becoming true in the conservative media - to the detriment of the ascendancy of conservatism as a political force in America. If the trend continues, conservative media will become ossified and a niche market.

The establishment conservative media does not have to be concerned about becoming unprofitable. Indeed, they will become more so by promoting the nascent conservative media. The pie will be expanded because the Pavlovian liberal treatment of the news - as currently exists - will be discredited completely.

Can the conservative media avoid calcification?

MSM Didn't Miss ACORN Scandal

2009-09-17T05:36:00.000-07:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

No one should believe that the liberal mainstream media "missed" the most recent ACORN scandal. They did not "miss it."

When I broke the news on March 30 about the New York Times spiking the information they had about ACORN working with the Obama campaign (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt), it went national, like the current scandal, only because of the Fox News Channel and talk radio.

I was working as a journalist for the Philadelphia Bulletin* at the time. An ACORN whistleblower said that the NY Times reporter to whom she had been feeding information to about ACORN told her the editors did not want to use information about collusion between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The editors said it could be a "game changer" - meaning adversely affecting Obama's campaign.

When my piece was published in the morning March 30, 2009 edition of the Bulletin it mushroomed into a national story by dinnertime. However, it was only Fox News, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other "alternative, conservative" media that ran with it.

Fox News Channel ran it on its tickertape during its broadcast well into the next morning. I received calls from people telling me Beck and Hannity mentioned my piece on their shows.

Yet no one called me to say, nor did I notice, that ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN mentioned it!!

Worse than the media blackout was that, Rep. Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the committee which took the testimony, was not aware of this until I interviewed him. Even after my interview, he never called a press conference about it or issued a statement. Neither did the RNC.

I was told, by a Republican congressional staffer, that Republicans shied away from criticizing organizations like ACORN because they were afraid of being called racists. Now you know why the Democrats and their media myrmidons are using racist all the time.

So do not for a second believe that the mainstream media "missed" this recent news. They are well aware of the corruption that is pervasive in the ACORN organization. They knew about this video.

The mainstream media willfully chose not to report it - just as they chose not to report what I wrote on March 30! Just as the mainstream media chose to ignore what I and others have been reporting about ACORN for at least a year!

They chose to ignore because they know how the Republicans react. They know that Republicans are reluctant to add their voices to the chorus of criticism if they perceive the issue to be petty. Republicans will not take the lead.

Notice how it is only now that the Republican Party is jumping onto the bandwagon and demanding the defunding of the group, investigations of this organization and ultimately the severing of the federal government's relations with it. However, it took a long time for the Republicans to arrive here. Just as it took Republicans a long time to push for an investigation of the New Black Panther Party.

Why? Because they are afraid of being labeled as racist.

Republicans do not lead these issues because the mainstream media does not report them or when they do report them they will characterize the Republicans as being racist. Unfortunately, Republicans are still tone deaf to the influence of the alternative media. Democrats know this.

The Manhattan Mainstream Media Elite know this as well. This is why the spurious criticisms of Obama's initiatives are being couched as racism. It is a means of closing debate. They know Republicans are fearful.

This is why when a reporter for a newspaper in Philadelphia reveals a scandal involving the New York Times and ACORN or when a pair activist-journalists working for a website reveal a scandal involving ACORN employees the mainstream media are silent. They do not want to promote anything that would be detrimental to the Democrats if there is any possible way to prevent doing so. The mainstream media does not want to legitimize criticism by Republicans.

It is not becaused they "missed it."

*(The paper closed June 1. It resumed publishing on a limited-basis August 1)

Justice Monitors Elections in Two Small Towns for Voting Rights Violations Despite Lack of Complaints

2009-09-15T05:01:00.000-07:00

Despite the fact that there have not been any complaints, the Justice Department (DOJ) will be monitoring today’s municipal elections in – are you ready for this - Springfield, Mass., and Newburgh, N.Y., to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Forget about reams of evidence of voting rights violations in Philadelphia, no Eric Holder's Justice Department would rather spend the taxpayers' money investigating a place where there is no problem.

According to the DOJ press statement, federal observers will be assigned to monitor polling place activities in Springfield and Newburgh. The observers will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations. Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

DOJ states that it deploys hundreds of federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country each year.
1,060 federal observers and 344 Department personnel were sent to monitor 114 elections in 76 jurisdictions in 24 states in 2008.

The statement also instructs citizens about how to file complaints about discriminatory voting practices, including acts of harassment or intimidation.

Well, what good is filing a complaint going to do when DOJ won’t pursue penalties even if they win a case?

A local newspaper, the Hudson Valley Press Online, which serves minority community, said the feds will not say why they’re coming to Newburgh. It quoted a DOJ spokesperson as declining to say what led them to choose Newburgh.

The same article also quoted Susan Bahren, an Orange County, N.Y. elections commissioner, as saying, that she, too, does not know why there will be federal observers. Ms. Bahren also said her office did not receive any complaints about violations of the Voting Rights Act in Newburgh.

Perhaps Ms. Bahren could send them to Philadelphia.

Cry Racism

2009-09-14T07:07:00.000-07:00

Democrats : Anyone opposing Obama is a Racist
By Michael P. Tremoglie

Liberal Democratic Party politicians and their willing accomplices in the media are saying if you oppose President Obama or Democrats you are a racist. Nancy Pelosi, various and sundry Democratic Party “strategists” on television and newspaper pundits have all said the same.

Who are the racists - the liberals and Democrats or the conservatives and Republicans? Well, let’s examine the record:

· It was the liberal Democrats who hired members of an organization acknowledged as a racist, anti-Semitic, hate group to be poll watchers in Philadelphia – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It was the liberal Democratic Party who refused to prosecute a member of this same organization who referred to white people as “crackers” and asked them how they will like “being ruled by a black man” – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It was liberal Democratic President Barack Obama who referred to his own mother as a “typical white person” – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It was the liberal Democrats who defended President Obama’s adviser Van Jones, who once said that “white” environmentalists are poisoning black people – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It was the liberal Democrats who defended President Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who used ethnic slurs and defamed Italians, Jews and other ethnic groups – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It is a liberal Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd, a revered and senior member of the Democratic Party, who was an official of the Klu Klux Klan – not white, conservative Republicans.

· It was a liberal Democrat, a Clinton campaign operative, who started the rumor that Barack Obama is not an American citizen – not white, conservative Republicans. (Democrats also questioned McCain’s legitimacy as a US citizen since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone – perhaps a glimpse of Democrats true feelings towards our neighbors south of the border.)

· It was the liberal Democrats who questioned Barack Obama’s authenticity as a black man – not white, conservative Republicans. (A liberal newspaper columnist called Mr. Obama a “Magic Negro.”)

· It was the liberal Democratic talk radio network which displaced minority radio programs – not white conservative Republicans.

Indeed, the civil rights record of Republicans is commendable.

For example, it was during the Eisenhower presidency that the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed. Eisenhower’s Attorney General Herbert Brownell is the person who crafted the legislation in March 1956. Democrats criticized Eisenhower for pandering to the black vote. Democrats
removed most of the effective items from the final bill.

It was Eisenhower who desegregated public facilities in DC during his first term-Truman did not do it. And it was Eisenhower who enforced school the Supreme Court school desegregation order in 1957.

It was not just Eisenhower.

Fifty years earlier it was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who invited the African-American leader Booker T. Washington to the White House. An invitation that probably cost Roosevelt reelection. This is contrast to the segregationist Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.

Democrats are crying racism because they have been unable to make a substantive argument proving that their ideas to reform the system of health insurance are valid.

There is an old Chinese proverb: “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”
Democrats would rather curse the darkness. They don’t know how to light candles.
They are bereft ideas. All they have to offer is hate.

Unfortunately, this tactic has worked in the past. Americans should make an extraordinary effort to ensure Democratic Party hatemongering does not work again.

Civil Liberties for Only Some in the Era of Hope and Change

2009-09-12T07:13:00.000-07:00

An abortion opponent is brutally murdered, the offices of a group helping to organize the "tea parties" receives a bomb threat, Republican voters are threatened by members of a hate group during a presidential election, opponents to socialized medicine are assaulted at town hall meetings, pro-military demonstrators and troops returning home from Iraq are assaulted by "peace protesters."

So what is the reaction by the mainstream media, by the civil rights enforcers and "civil liberties" groups?

It ranges from muted to absolute silence!

Oh sure, there are the obligatory mentions by the wire services - a small paragraph not very prominent. Or the piece contains some language that minimizes the outrage. However, there is nothing like the reportage when a abortion doctor is murdered or an antiwar protester is jailed or the vandals who disrupt Republican conventions or stage protests outside military installations are jailed for their crimes.

However, when a 63-year-old disabled man was gunned down - because of his opposition to abortion - as he held up a sign protesting abortion near a high school in Owosso, Mich.,the murder was not condemned by the Obama administration, which issued, with great fanfare, pronouncements condemning the shooting death of an abortionist last May.

After the murder of the abortionist, the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office launched a federal investigation into federal crimes in connection with the murder and called a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.

According to a statment in Pro-Life News, Joesph Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, Chicago, said people in his organization have been threatened before. Yet, the Justice Department never launched an investigation into violence against them.

Similarly, when members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense were accused of intimidating voters outside a polling place by brandishing weapons and uttering racial slurs calling white people "crackers" some reporters in Philadelphia tried to minimize what was occurring.

Indeed, even after obtaining a judgment against all three defendants the Obama Justice Department dropped the case against two of them for specious reasons. The only reason an inquiry is being conducted now is that for months some congressional representatives have been pushing the matter with the Justice Department. Of course, it was only Republican congressman. Democratic congressman did not want to get involved.

The famed soi-disant defenders of our civil liberties: the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild and other similar groups still have not commented on the mysterious dropping of the voter intimidation case.

The hypocrisy of the left is blatant.

Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere - are not concerned when Republicans are denied their voting rights.

Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere - are not interested in protecting the free speech of pro-life demonstrators.

Liberals - in the media, in government and elsewhere are not going to protect the Constitutional rights, the civil liberties, the human rights of people with whom they hate, oppose, or disagree.

Remember this the next time you read or hear stories by the Associated Press/MSNBC/CNN/NYTimes?Washington Post/CBS/ABC/Reuters or when you read or hear statments by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild, Planned Parenthood, Democratic National Committee or other leftwing groups bemoaning some violation of rights - real or contrived.

Recalling the Heroes Who Risked It All for Their Fellow Citizens

2009-09-11T07:33:00.001-07:00

by Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Police, fire personnel, emergency medical technicians, and the military are often referred to collectively as the "uniformed services." But they share more than just a name. As novelist W.E.B. Griffin writes, they "share a number of unique traits: astonishing courage, loyalty, and camaraderie . . . like no other profession."

Griffin omitted something.

Each day members of the uniform services report on duty knowing there is a possibility that they may not report off.

They do it anyway.

Statistically, there are some occupations which are more dangerous such as a convenience store clerk or cab driver or bartender. The difference is that uniformed personnel place themselves at risk willingly - knowingly.

They are never called when all is well. They are called only to protect the lives of their fellow citizens. They know that in the process their own lives may be in jeopardy.

They do it anyway.

They do it because that is who and what they are.

When members of the uniformed services entered the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, they did so not because they were trained to do so. They did so because of their character. They knew the risks. They did so knowing the possible consequences. They'd done it before.

They did it anyway.

They knew what they were getting into when they arrived at the World Trade Center. They got there quickly and went to work to help those trapped inside the buildings.

Wharton Business School graduates were rescued by those who could not afford to attend such a distinguished Ivy League institution. There were rescuers on the 82d floor when the building collapsed - a place the rescuers ordinarily might not be permitted to be because of their societal status.

They went anyway.

They knew what was happening. They did not have to do it. They could have said, "Oops, sorry; just can't get there." They would still have kept their jobs. Nobody would have condemned them.

They did it anyway.

Fire personnel who were caught in the explosion, like the New York City Fire Department's John Morabito, who survived the explosion of the second tower - was still on the job, rescuing people, many days afterward.

Morabito already risked himself once. But he continued to do it anyway.

I once rescued three people - and a dog - from a burning two-story building. I could not even conceive of what it would be like to be in a burning skyscraper. No training - no school or academy - can prepare you for something like that.

The uniformed personnel who ventured into danger in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon did not ask for gratitude. Neither do those who are - at this very minute - placing themselves in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq and places that we will never know about. They will not ask for plaudits.

They do it anyway.

When you recall the reports of what the uniformed personnel did on 9-11, remember there was nothing in their job description that mandated they risk their lives. Certainly, they knew the hazards - but nothing required them to sacrifice their lives for those of others or for any benefit, monetary or otherwise, that would accrue. There were no bonuses for lives saved.

They did it anyway.

The next time you read or hear a news story criticizing uniformed personnel - from the liberal mainstream media; from the leftwing intelligentsia; from the Code Pink protesters; from the wealthy liberal elitists - remember that, despite the risks, despite the costs, despite the difficulties, despite the criticism from the chattering classes:

They do it anyway.

DOJ Finally Investigating New Black Panther Voter intimidation case

2009-09-09T15:46:00.000-07:00

According to sources, Rep. Frank Wolf R.Va. and Rep. Lamar Smith R-Tx received a letter today from the Dept. of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ) about the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense ( NBP), which was mysteriously dismissed by the DOJ after President Obama took office.

Questions about this unusual dismissal have been asked by Messrs. Wolf and Smith, as well as, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Several letters were sent to DOJ asking for the process that resulted in the DOJ dropping a case against two of the three members after they already received a judgement against all three. These letters were either unanswered or answered evasively.

The letter, signed by Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel, states the Office of Professional Responsibility is initiating an inquiry into the matter. She said that they will be contacted with the results once the inquiry is completed.

Mr. Wolf issued a statement today after receiving the letter. He said:

“After months of unanswered questions, incomplete and faulty excuses, and revelations of political influence, the Office of Professional Responsibility has agreed with our July 9 letter asking for a full investigation of the dismissal of this important voter intimidation case – over the objections of both the career attorneys on the trial team and the department’s own appellate board. I fully support OPR’s decision to investigate this dismissal and look forward to their report. I hope the Civil Rights office also will agree that the case should be re-filed. ”

Speculation remains about how assiduously the DOJ will investigate this matter because of the resistance they have shown thus far. Questions also remain as to why the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office never prosecuted this case or why civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild and others have been silent about it.

Obama's Education Speech Masks His Liberalism with Conservative Themes; Liberal Media Distorts Oppostion

2009-09-09T10:04:00.001-07:00

The first piece I wrote about President Barack Hussein Obama was an August 5, 2004 ezine article titled The Barack Obama Myth, http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950. This was after I listened to him speak at the 2004 Democratic convention. At that time, I wrote:

"this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different. Obama is very liberal."

Obviously, my piece was very prescient.

Mr Obama's speech to the nation's school students sounded many of those same conservative themes of self-reliance and personal responsibility he mentioned during his August 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. His speech to the students was merely a reiteration of these themes made popular by black leaders such as Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby and Walter Williams. These themes appeal to mainstream America.

As such the speech discredited to a certain extent the opposition to it. It was very rational and it made the critics sound irrational.

Of course, the mainstream media, which disdains anyone who opposes President Obama, used this to ridicule those who protested. Indeed, they even mischaracterized the opposition.

They said that those who opposed the speech were fanatics. They said they were hatemongers.

What they didn't mention was that even the White House admitted that their initial description of the speech and what they asked teachers and students to do was "poorly worded."

The liberal mainstream media also used the opportunity to continue the criticism of Rush Limbaugh - criticism that conceivably is being urged by the Democratic Party who blame Limbaugh instead of their own ideas for the unpopularity of the congress they control.

A commentator for ABC stated that Rush Limbaugh was fomenting opposition on September 2. An MSNBC commentator said that Limbaugh called the speech unpatriotic.

Both are factually incorrect. Limbaugh was on vacation on September 2. As far as calling anyone unpatriotic, Limbaugh merely said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe what he is saying.

This is quite true. As I wrote in August 2004, "His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, "Progressive.") Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members. "

So Obama's speech to students was never going to do anything except reiterate that what he has said in the past. This doesn't mean that those who opposed it shouldn't have.

After all, Democrats and the Washington Post criticized President George H.W. Bush for addressing students in 1991 about science. If anything the condemnation by Democrats and the teachers' unions to the critics reveals their hypocrisy.

However, don't be fooled by Obama's appearance. He is very much a liberal. He is beholden to the American left - the far left of the political continuum.

As I also wrote in 2004, "Obama the candidate is conservative only when addressing a national television audience. ...Obama is a stealth candidate -- a liberal stealth candidate."

The Fox of Philadelphia ( Part 1 of a short story)

2009-09-08T07:16:00.000-07:00

The Fox of Philadelphia
By Michael P. Tremoglie

“You know the more I think about it, the more I figure it’s a good idea if you and Mikey go stay with your sister for a while,” Ilario Enna said to his young wife. “I can’t be around that much with the way this case is going and she can help you take care of Mikey. Besides she would love having a one year old around the house.”
“Yeah, and who is going to take care of you, Larry?” replied Katie Enna, using the name everybody on the Philadelphia Police Department called him.
“I can take care of myself,” Larry replied indignantly.
“I know you can,” Katie responded plaintively “It’s just that I hate the idea of leaving you alone. It’s not like there aren’t people around here who won’t help me with the baby if I need it.”
“Yeah, but we don’t want to burden anyone. If I thought your sister would be burdened I wouldn’t tell you to go there either. But she is always asking you to spend a few weeks with her, and it might be a good thing for both of you.”
It was no use arguing. Katie knew that. She was going to go. Besides, if she stayed and he worried about them, it would affect his job. She certainly did not want that to happen. She knew the case was a dangerous one because, normally, Larry never talked about his work. Although he tried not to alarm her, just the mere fact he suggested she spend some time with her sister in Chicago made her apprehensive. Katie knew her husband too well not to be concerned.
Katie, whose real name was Caterina, was an attractive young woman with raven black hair and beautiful blue eyes. She, like her husband, was twenty-three years old.
Larry and Katie had known each other since they were infants. The two of them had immigrated to the United States, with their families, from the same town in Sicily twenty years earlier. Their families settled on the same street in South Philadelphia.
They fell in love with each other and were married shortly after Larry became a Philadelphia police officer - three years after graduating high school. Two years later, their son Michael was born.
Both sets of parents returned to Italy not long after they married. Larry’s father returned to Sicily – something he always planned to do. Katie’s father’s plant closed. He got a job with a company that wanted him to manage their Rome office.
Neither of them had any aunts or uncles who lived in the United States. Larry had two older brothers. They moved away years earlier and he rarely spoke with them.
Katie had one sister, Ida, who married, Herman Meadows, an Iowa farmer turned Chicago factory foreman. They lived in Elmwood Park, Illinois just outside of Chicago. Despite the distance, Katie and Ida maintained a close relationship.
__________________________________

A few weeks after their conversation, Katie and Michael flew to Chicago to visit Ida. However, she desperately missed her husband and worried about him every day. The fact that he did not call heightened her anxiety.
Four months after she arrived at her sister’s house in Chicago, Katie flew back to Philadelphia, without the baby, for a surprise visit with her husband. Ida objected to her returning so soon, nonetheless, she enjoyed taking care of her nephew and she could not prevent Katie from going.
Katie arrived at the house in the evening. She wanted to surprise Larry. As she unlocked the door she noticed that the lock had some scratches on it – as did the doorjamb.
The house was empty. Larry is probably still at work, she thought, as she climbed the steps to the second floor bedroom. When she got to the landing, she peered into her bedroom and noticed Larry’s legs on the bed.
She got a knot in her stomach.
She walked softly into the room. He snored ever so softly. She smiled, leaned over and kissed him. He awoke; startled at first, then he smiled, grabbed her and kissed her.
“What are you doing here? Why didn’t you tell me you were coming?”
“I wanted to surprise you. You had me a little worried there. “
“Yeah, I normally don’t sleep so soundly. This investigation’s got me goin’ for a few days now, so I took something to help me sleep.”
“I didn’t know what happened,” Katie said with a smile. “I got scared, especially after I saw the scratches on the doorknob and doorjamb. It looked like someone broke in. I thought somebody killed you.”
“Scratches?” Larry asked, a note of concern in his voice. “Whaddaya mean? Show me.”
He quickly got out of bed and walked down the stairway to the front door. Katie was a few steps behind him.
Midway down the stairway they saw the flash of the explosion come up the stairway - neither lived long enough to hear the sound.
****

How Many Poor People Could Receive Health Insurance If Democrats Paid Their Taxes

2009-09-08T04:05:00.000-07:00

Liberal Democrats like to say that if our government took all the money spent on the Iraq war it could pay for health insurance for all of the uinsured.

Well, that may be, however, the Iraq war was a matter of national security. Regardless of what one believes, the purpose of the war was to prevent another terrorist attack.

However, there is something liberal Democrats can do to help the government pay for the uninsured. This won't require changing the insurance status of the 90% of Americans who are very satisfied with the current system.

Liberal Democrats just need to pay their federal income taxes and require that their political representatives do so as well. If Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner and other powerful Democratic Party members of the federal government paid their taxes every year - plus their back taxes and penalties - the feds would probably have a couple of million dollars to spend on health insurance for the uinsured. Indeed they could probably provide insurance to about 20,000 uninsured.

Besides these are just the tax cheats we know about. How many Democrats haven't been caught yet?

What about all of these wealthy Democrats who want to help the poor?

If Rangel sold his vacation home in the Dominican and gave the millions to poor people; if Daschle gave the millions of dollars made from his speaking fees to health insurance companies, I wonder how many poor people could receive health insurance.

What is even more interesting is that these Democratic Party tax cheats are not just any old politician. These are the elite of the Democratic Party. These are people who are directly in charges of federal income tax laws.

Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This is the congressional committee that establishes federal income tax laws.

Tom Daschle was the leader of the Senate. He also had influence on income tax laws.

Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the Treasury and enforces income tax laws.

President Obama chose Geithner and Daschle to be in his cabinet. Daschle was supposed to lead the health insurance reform effort.

None of them paid all of their federal income taxes!!

These people are liberal Democrat leaders who can set good examples for their fellow liberal Democrats. One can only guess how much more tax money the federal government could collect if all the other liberal Democrat tax cheats paid their taxes after Rangel, Geithner and Daschle urged them to do so.

Wasn't it VP Joe Biden who said that paying income taxes was patriotic?

Wasn't it Rep. Nancy Pelosi D- Calif, the Speaker of the House, who said that this will be the most ethical congress in history?

So before Democrats try to "fix" our health insurance system maybe they need to get rid of the corruption, greed and hypocrisy in their own party.

That should keep them busy for at least four more years.

Va. Congressman Adamant About New Black Panther Case

2009-09-07T07:09:00.000-07:00

‘I Am A Believer In The Voting Rights Act’
By Michael P. Tremoglie, For The Bulletin
Sunday, September 06, 2009

Rep. Frank Wolf R- Va., told The Bulletin in an exclusive interview, that he fully intends to learn why Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit — for which they already obtained a judgment — against two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense for violation of the Voting Rights Act that occurred last Election Day in North Philadelphia.Mr. Wolf is the ranking member of the House subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).

He is an unapologetic staunch supporter of the Voting Rights Act. He was the only member - Republican or Democrat - of Virginia’s House delegation to vote for the 1981 Voting Rights Act. He voted for the act’s reauthorization in 2006.

“I voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1981 and received a lot of criticism for doing so,” said Mr. Wolf. “I believe in the Voting Rights Act. I believe there has been a violation of voting rights in this case.”

He is so disturbed about DOJ’s actions that he is considering filing a resolution of inquiry before the House Judiciary Committee, although he expressed his desire that such a drastic measure will not be necessary.
“We're going to force Eric Holder to address this,” Mr. Wolf said. “I do think there is something funny about this. I don't know what it is.”

Mr. Wolf sent a letter to Mr. Holder July 31. He wrote, “The video evidence of the defendants’ behavior on Election Day, as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary, "Inside: The New Black Panther Party," should leave no question of the defendants’ desire to intimidate or incite violence.”

He also said that the results of the dismissal of this case were serious. “Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new poll watcher certificate … immediately after the case was dismissed… Is that justice served?”Mr. Wolf suspects that the dismissal was politically motivated. He thinks Mr. Holder has politicized the DOJ. He is deeply troubled by this.

“A politicized Justice Department is a dangerous thing,” he said.

Civil Rights Commission Demands Answers from DOJ

2009-09-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

Calls Dismissal of New Black Panther Case “Corrosive to Rule of Law”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

An August 10, 2009 letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, contained a stinging rebuke to the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ). A footnote in the letter states that the explanation for the dismissal of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP) “is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”

The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last Election Day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, where the incident occurred, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at a polling location wearing the uniform of the organization and Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a default judgment, as is routine, the Obama DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.

As the Commission’s letter noted, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. They thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case would only prohibit such a very specific action limited to a specific area.

The Commission’s six page letter was pursuant to two inquiries sent in June to the Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” It was signed by the Commission’s chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair, Abigail Thernstrom, as well as four other commissioners.

The commissioners also noted that an earlier reply they received from Portia Robertson, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions.” They elaborated “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”

They claimed the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to Members of Congress.” A footnote in the letter states that “These conclusions are more than weak. We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”

They further note that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this they want Attorney General Holder to personally direct responses to their inquiries or appoint someone from DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.

The Commission believes that since they are obligated to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, they are entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. They are seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for CRD’s actions.

They also want to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.

According to Ms. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.

Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the Obama DOJ has been politicized.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R. Va., said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”

Is this the Beginning of the End for Conservative Media

2009-08-28T20:16:00.000-07:00

I must admit I am really growing weary of seeing the opinions of twentysomething journalists being presented on Fox News as if those opinions are authoritative. The reason they are there
has nothing to do with their command of the facts.

It is an unfortunate fact that most media, liberal and conservative, are trying to cut costs - especially newspapers. The content of much of what you hear and read today is produced either by high priced folks like Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly or by those who make their living by means other than writing i.e. scholars, former politicians etc. Some are authorities and write cogent and poignant pieces - all write for free.

Most of the rest is produced by callow sciolists who work for little money. You see many of them on Fox News and Townhall.com.

Very little news, presently, is reported by experienced, competent, talented writers and journalists. People who may not be experts about the topic, yet, have life experiences that can relate to it. These people have been replaced by the 20-somethings.

For example, Amanda Carpenter, who writes for the Washington Times and contributes to Fox News, I am sure is a good journalist. The problem is she is only about 25 years old.

Why would I want to hear or read her opinion about anything let alone complicated issues such as health reform? I seriously doubt she knows what its like to have to pay medical bills. I doubt if she knows how to navigate through the miasma of insurance terms such as co-pays, deductibles. comprehensive, preventative, pre-existing, routine, well baby, major medical, preferred provider etc.

So why place her on a panel like she does?

Isn't this what led to the demise of the liberal mainstream media? Several decades ago, the major newspapers hired inexperienced college kids to report about things to which they couldn't possibly relate?

About 30 years ago I read a column about the newspaper business written by an old pro. He was lamenting that when he started working for a newspaper, 30 years earlier, most of the reporters knew something about life. Many of them had served in the military during World War II and were married with responsibilites.

But as he reached the end of his career, the newspapers, he complained, were hiring college kids with no real world experience to report about things such as crime, racism, politics, war etc. They didn't know what they were writing about. They just wrote from the perspective they acquired from their professors who were liberal.

This led to the liberal mainstream media we know today.

Unfortunately, this now seems to be the trend in the conservative media.

The days of a guy like Limbaugh are over. Although not an expert in anything, he at least possesses some experience along with a quick wit and is very intelligent.

Besides he paid his dues.

Now we are getting recent college graduates who are given book contracts to write about major and complex political issues at the age of 22. These people are authoritative? We're supposed to buy this?

These people have not only not paid their dues - they haven't even joined the club yet.

Maybe there is a method to this madness. If you can figure it out let me know.

What We Need is a New Zorro

2009-08-15T15:07:00.000-07:00

Out of the night, when the full moon is bright
Comes the horseman known as Zorro
This bold renegade, carves a Z with his blade
The horesman known as Zorro*

I watched the Antonio Banderas' film "Mark of Zorro" recently. Being the Zorro aficionado that I am, after the show I got out my video of the Tyrone Power classic “The Mark of Zorro” and watched it as well.

While watching the movie, I felt as if there were something familiar about this story. Something other than the the dialogue, which I know almost verbatim.

One scene particularly evoked parallels to the present state of America. It is the segment in which young de la Vega, recently returned to California after attending school in Spain, learns that his father, a wealthy landowner and nobleman, had been deposed as the Alcalde of Los Angeles.

For those unfamiliar with the movie, after deposing the elder de la Vega, the new Alcalde raised the taxes of the peons in order to make them " more industrious." There was something familiar about this concept of raising taxes to create wealth and help the economy.

However, the Alcalde was actually enriching himself instead of the taxpayers. This was illustrated in a subsequent scene in which the Alcalde is admiring a bantam owned by a peon. The Alcalde asks the price of the bird. When the peon tells him it is not for sale, the Alcalde threatens to review his tax obligations. The terrified peon then makes " a gift " of the rooster to the Alcalde.

There was an analogy here, although I still was not quite sure what it was.

Young de la Vega is outraged by these injustices. He resolves to restore his father as Alcalde and help the peons. He takes the secret identity of Zorro and proceeds to rob the tax money collected from the peons by the governmentand return it to them.

This too was a familiar concept. I have heard people say they wanted to return taxes to the people.

It finally came to me when Zorro, fleeing the Alcalde's soldiers, is hiding in the mission. He is disguised as a monk.

There the innocent, beautiful young niece of the evil Alcalde is praying to escape the depressing environs of the Pueblo De Los Angeles. She was sent there to live with her uncle, sort of like an intern. However, there were no young men her age with whom to associate.

Thinking Zorro is a priest; she confides in him that she has been thinking of entering a convent. Zorro tells her that a beautiful young woman should be married and have children.

That is when I realized what was familiar about this plot.

Zorro is a Republican - and a conservative one. Had he been a liberal Democrat, Zorro would have seduced the young woman and, if she became pregnant, counseled her to get an abortion.

It all made sense now.

The evil Alcalde subjugates the caballeros - upper middle class. He oppressively taxes all of the people - ostensibly for their own good, but in reality to empower himself. Then comes Zorro, who wants the taxes returned to the people - just like Republicans.

My theory was reinforced in subsequent scenes. When the parish priest is arrested for refusing to pay the mission taxes it reminded me of the liberal mantra of separation of church and state.

When Zorro finally leads the caballeros in a revolt against the Alcalde, I recalled the 1994 elections when the Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time in a generation.

Now, I am sure that my opinion will come as a shock to the Hollywood producers of the most recent Zorro movie. However, the evidence is irrefutable.

Zorro championed the cause of the people, rich and poor, against liberals bent on profiting from excessive taxation. Zorro lead the revolt against an expansive government.

Unfortunately, unlike Zorro, the Republican revolution in Washington waned. Maybe they should see the old Zorro movie. Maybe they can draw some inspiration from it. Maybe they can use some of Zorro’s ideas.

I can just see Sarah Palin, with mask and cape, riding a white horse up the steps of the White House - carving an “S” on the door of Alcalde Obama’s office.

* Disney’s Zorro TV theme

Woodstock: 3 Days of Fraud, Deceit and Hypocrisy

2009-08-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

Woodstock – The Ultimate Lett Wing Hypocrisy
by Michael P. Tremoglie

Who could forget the sitar-like harmonies of Crosby, Stills and Nash, the "better living through chemistry" pulsations of Sly and the Family Stone, the chanting of Country Joe and the Fish, and the wonderfully wacky, Wavy Gravy? Woodstock--a place where half a million people gathered for peace, love, and music. The event represented a generation of youth.

Well not quite.

The boys (and girls) of Woodstock were not such an inclusive group. One of the myths about Woodstock is that it was some altruistic event.
Woodstock was all about money. John Roberts, the Ivy League heir to the Polident fortune, financed it. He and his partners were in it for profit. They never stated otherwise. Max Yasgur, whose farm was the site of the event and whose name was immortalized in song, was anything but a simple dairy farmer. He was an NYU graduate and one of the wealthiest farmers in the area. He also walked away with $75,000 or about $300,000 in current dollars. Not bad for the three-day rental of 600 idle acres.

The Who was paid the then-unheard-of sum of $12,000. Three groups refused to go on until they got cash first. The promoters had to get an advance from a local banker on a Saturday night in order to prevent a riot.

Woodstock was not for the poor.

A ticket was approximately 18 bucks. In an era when the minimum wage was a $1.60, a ticket was two days pay. That does not count lost wages for taking off from work, travel expenses, and of course, the drugs. Total it all up and it was at least a week's pay.

"I remember building a fire one morning for breakfast. All we had was hot dogs and spaghetti," a
Woodstock alumnus waxed nostalgically in a magazine article.

A few hundred miles away from the concert lived people who would have loved to have had hot dogs and spaghetti for breakfast. They would have loved to have had breakfast.

Over $2 million was spent staging Woodstock ($10 million in current dollars.) $10 million buys many a breakfast in Appalachia.

If there is any significance about Woodstock it is the symbolic irony of it. The Woodstock audience was composed of enlightened and compassionate liberals--at least that is what they thought of themselves. These were people who wanted to feed the poor and help the helpless.

These people are now part of the governmental social-welfare complex and are now college professors who preach social justice to their students.

Yet, the Woodstock audience could not feed themselves let alone the poor. The Woodstock crowd needed to rely on the very people they spurned--the establishment--to feed them. Specifically, they needed those warmongering, baby-killing, murdering monsters of the military establishment who dropped food from helicopters to feed them.

They depended on the National Guard for food!

The same National Guard that was derided by liberal Democrats during the 2004 election as being 'Chickenhawks.' It is absolutely hilarious that some critics of President George W. Bush's National Guard service were probably those who were saved from starvation by his fellow servicemen in the Guards.

Not only was the audience of Woodstock incapable of feeding themselves the leaders of this event were just as incompetent.

The very same people who are now liberal Democrats, Naderites, and Communists, the very same people who want to plan every aspect of the economy and society could not even plan a rock concert.

The myth is that Woodstock became a free concert by the beneficent act of the producers of the concert.

Although it was good PR, it was not true. No, the promoters had to make it a free concert. The Woodstock generation wants what they want--and they want it free – just like their health insurance. They wanted to go to the concert so they crashed the gate.

Good intentions did not make Woodstock a free concert, poor business planning did.
Woodstock exposed the hypocrisy of the left. A half million people either spent money that could have been donated to charity or took food. They usurped resources from the government that could have gone to the poor.

Why? So they could have a good time.

Moreover, the performers weren't a collection of Mother Theresa’s either. They earned substantial sums for their appearances. The only money donated was to Abbie Hoffman's fanatics and only because he extorted it by stating he would disrupt the concert.

They did all of this while inveighing against the capitalist system.

The boys (and girls) from the Wood' proclaim themselves "veterans." In their characteristic hubris, they want to erect a monument to Woodstock. What is there to venerate? Woodstock was nothing more than kids with no responsibilities acting irresponsibly.

In Washington, D.C., there is a wall there with some 50,000 names on it. The Vietnam Memorial lists the names of real veterans--of kids who did their duty. They were the real altruists. Their concerts were in places like Bien Hoa and Ia Drang. They were the ones who should define the generation.

Country Joe's lyrical lamentation asked why we were in Vietnam. His answer was found during the '70s--in the re-education programs of Communist Vietnam; in the "boat people" who fled Vietnam on anything that could float; in the killing fields of Cambodia.

The kids whose names are on the wall tried to prevent that from occurring.

Remember this during the next national election: The Woodstock veterans are the "veterans" advocating socialism – the same kind that failed there.

Protesters “Allies” Turn Against Them

2009-08-12T04:23:00.000-07:00

Call Them “Rabble”

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

There are those who have taken command of the situation by actively protesting the health system reform proposals of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They appear at townhall meetings with their legislators and vocally denounce what is being proffered.

Some in the liberal mainstream media have called these concerned citizens many unsavory names. Democrats have called them un-American and Nazis.

This is to be expected. What is not so anticipated is the willingness by their alleged allies to condemn them. They do so faster than they condemn Obama and the Democrats.

Somehow they are embarrassed by the verbal denunciations of those with whom they concur. They urge them to be calm and to act with what they claim is integrity and decorum.

In other words, don’t say anything until you’re asked (which they won’t be since most of these meetings are orchestrated by the legislator – especially the Democrats).

It seems to me that the only reason these meetings are receiving the notoriety they are, is because of those who comment with intensity – instead of "integrity." It is certainly the only reason the politicians take notice.

Those who speak out with passion have energized others who were heretofore reluctant to say anything. They also validate the beliefs of those who have not spoken out. They now know that others think as they do.

Urging "integrity and decorum" seems a rationalization for being timorous.

Advising the protesters to speak meekly is the same advice many of the Republican Party’s paid political consultants gave Sarah Palin. These "strategists" were on television ad nauseum. Their opinion was that Sarah Palin should keep quiet instead continuing her feud with David Letterman. Palin. They said she was only making herself look bad.

Well, Palin didn't stop talking and Letterman did the mea culpa. The Republican's paid political consultants looked ridiculous.

Many of those who meekly and quietly oppose the reform effort call their more vocal brethren rabble.

As far as being rabble is concerned - well let's just say that this is a term one uses to disparage those with whom they disagree and who speak with enthusiasm. Any vocal crowd can be dismissed as rabble. However, it will only be true if:

There is no truth to what they are saying.
They're bigoted and ignorant.
They become destructive without provocation.

This certainly doesn't describe the protesters. They are well informed, telling the truth and not provoking anyone.

It is risible for those who oppose Obama to also oppose the protesters by saying they lack integrity. Intensity and "integrity" are not mutually exclusive.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Democrats Carnival of Corruption and Conspiracy Theories

2009-08-06T02:48:00.000-07:00

Reporting all the facts the mainstream media does not has been the province of certain bloggers, talk radio, a cable news channel and the “off-Broadway” (so to speak) media. These include conspiracy theories and political corruption that touch the Democratic Party.

Such stories definitely will not be found on MSNBC. They will rarely be on CNN. Only occasionally will they be on NBC, CBS and ABC.

As far as the New York Times is concerned, well, recall that on March 30, while working for The Bulletin, I broke the news that they spiked information in their possession about collusion between the Obama campaign and ACORN.

Lately, Democrats and their media allies are using the “Obama Birth Certificate” conspiracy theory craze to try to discredit Republicans and conservatives. What goes unmentioned in the reportage are the leftwing’s own bizarre conspiracy theories. Indeed, even the “Birther” conspiracy is one of them - since, according to Ann Coulter, a Clinton campaign operative originated it.

Also minimally reported by the liberal mainstream media is the rampant corruption that exists within the Democratic Party. It is difficult to find a Democrat in power who has not violated an election campaign law, paid his or her taxes or taken a bribe.

Yesterday, Reuters reported on one of the Democrats more entertaining corruption cases. This involved former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson. He was caught with $90,000 in cash in the refrigerator of his DC apartment.

He was convicted on Wednesday on multiple charges of bribery and money laundering. “Dollar” Bill was accused in 2007 of soliciting millions of dollars in bribes from companies while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. He was convicted of 11 of 16 counts of bribery, racketeering and money laundering.

Other Democratic Party corruption, which was minimized by the mainstream media and defended by Joy Behar, include:

Charles Rangel - the NY congressman and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which establishes tax law. He wants to increase everyone else income taxes yet cannot seem to pay his own. He owed several years taxes on a vacation rental he owns – not in Harlem by the way.

Timothy Geithner – the Treasury Secretary, the boss of the IRS, also didn’t pay his taxes until he was nominated and was caught.

Tom Daschle – another Obama cabinet nominee and former Democratic Party Senate Leader also did not pay his taxes.

As I reported last May, while working for the Bulletin, the Obama Justice Department dropped a case they already won against the New Black Panther Party of Philadelphia. This group, which I reminded a McCain campaign worker on Election Day was listed as a hate group by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, stationed two people outside a polling place in North Philadelphia who intimidated voters according to affidavits filed with the Justice Department.

In 2003, Democratic presidential candidate and future Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said that President Bush may have been warned in advance about the 9/11 attacks. He promised he would investigate.Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said during the 2004 election campaign that President Bush already captured Osama bin Laden and planned to tell the public just before the election for political advantage.Sen. Barbara Boxer officially objected to the certification of Ohio's votes in the 2004 election -- on the Senate floor -- and demanded an investigation into the "Diebold stole Kerry votes" conspiracy theory.Rosie O'Donnell, an entertainment industry Democrat, said while hosting the Barbara Walters TV show “The View” that there is a conspiracy involving 9/11. She believes the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives, not taken down by terrorists in airplanes.

This list is by no means complete. However, there is certainly a lot of material here for investigative reporting and cutting edge commentary about political corruption and conspiracy theories.

Where’s Chris Matthews when you need him?

Mike can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

PWW - Policing While White

2009-07-31T05:53:00.000-07:00

Listening to some of the liberal mainstream media commentators about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates one would think that it was the natural order of things that the police officer, Cambridge MA, PD Sgt Crowley was a racist. This is their worldview.

Yet, race is not a factor in the attitude of cops toward suspects according to a 2003 study. In fact, in at least one city, the cops show more regard for blacks than they do for whites.

The research was conducted by three criminologists, and published in the August 2002 edition of Criminology, the Journal of the American Society of Criminology. This study is the academic equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction for the race-baiting, cop-hating, social activist/trial lawyer industrial complex. Yet, not one word about it was mentioned in the media - not even the putatively "conservative" media of talk radio or Fox News Channel.

The authors of the study were Professor Stephen D. Mastrofski of George Mason University, Michael Reisig, and John D.McCluskey (both of Michigan State University). Mastrofski is the Director of the Administration of Justice Program at George Mason University. Reisig is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and McCluskey is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice. The study consisted of observing the encounters with citizens by police departments in St. Petersburg, Florida and Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and 1997.

The study was a part of a larger project about community policing. Professor Mastrofski told me, during a phone interview, that he and his colleagues were attempting to determine how cops interact with community. Mastrofski said he and the other researchers believed that they would find that race was a predictor of how cops behaved towards citizens they interacted with either during routine calls, investigations or arrests. However, the conclusions by Mastrofski, et. al. were contrary to their own preconceived notions and the beliefs of most Americans. They learned that race was not a factor.

The researchers defined abusive behavior by cops as that which referred to the "citizen’s identity are unambiguously gratuitous, and illegitimate. Such things as derogatory statements, slurs, or ignoring the citizens questions." The professors determined that the attitude of the suspects, the environment of the encounter, and the age of the suspect were a better indicator of the attitude of the cops toward the suspect than race. As Professor Mastrofski told me "…in general if a suspect is nasty, then he will be treated nastily."

In the case of the Saint Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, the researchers determined that the cops were more "nasty" towards white than black suspects. This is even more astounding in that it not only disproves conventional wisdom but stands it on its head. Professor Mastrofski qualified those findings by saying he and his colleagues determined that in St. Petersburg, the deferential treatment of blacks could be accounted for by the " St. Petersburg’s chief’s effort to promote better treatment of minorities." Regardless of the city, however, the study provided unexpected and unconventional data when considering race.

These results according to Mastrofski confirmed the results of a prior study, published in the early 1970s, by Professor Al Reiss, who evaluated interaction by cops in departments in Washington D.C., Boston and Chicago. Although Mastrofski told me this study did not evaluate all variables and therefore was not quite as comprehensive.

Yet, despite the potential to debunk the conventional wisdom that cops mistreat blacks, this study received no major media reference. The race hustlers, academicians, and the mainstream media-especially the mainstream media- have propagated this myth of preferential treatment of whites - a myth that says all cops are the proverbial Southern sheriff.

After the Gates incident liberal talk show hosts like Chris Matthews perpetuated the police as Bull Connor stereotype - the Alabama sheriff whose department abused those blacks arrested for protesting segregation. It is in their interest to maintain this image with the American public. It helps them obtain funding, it helps them obtain favorable verdicts in civil suits, and it helps politically. Any scholarly research that portrays white cops as treating blacks better or the same as whites will adversely affect these objectives.

Matthews lives in the "every cop is a criminal" world.

Mastrofski insisted that he did not want the study to be construed to mean it proves that cops do not abuse blacks in other departments or that there is no racist cops. However, this study certainly disproves the presumption that policemen as a class are guilty of racism. This presumption of cops being guilty of racism is the media standard for all controversial incidents involving cops and minorities. This is the perception routinely propagated by the liberal chatterati. This perception is so ingrained in our modern culture that it virtually guarantees an accusation of mistreatment of minorities by cops is accepted as fact.

By perpetuating this fraud, "civil rights" advocates and liberals prevent black criminals from being arrested. This has a deleterious effect on African-American communities. Liberals become the African-American communities worst nightmare.

Just as unfortunate is the complicity of the mainstream media in this deception. I would suggest that readers write the New York Times,the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and other publications and media, both liberal and conservative, and demand that they report about this study.

Maybe It Wasn’t the Cop Acting Stupidly, Mr. President

2009-07-23T12:52:00.000-07:00

Maybe it was the Ivy League Professor
By Michael P. Tremoglie

It was about 9 p.m. on a cool October night when the call came out over police radio.

“Report of a break-in, two black males!” the dispatcher said dispassionately.

The address was near 56th and Baltimore Avenue, in Southwest Philadelphia – the 12th District. The district was a violent place - earning the nickname the “Fightin’ 12th” because of the proclivity of some of the locals to assault police officers.

My vehicle assignment that evening was an Emergency Patrol Wagon (EPW) - or more simply a van. Normally Philadelphia police officers work alone, unless they are assigned to an EPW.

My partner that evening was African-American. He was a taciturn veteran. He knew how to do the job and he knew how to teach rookies as I was then.

We arrived on the scene in a few minutes. This was the “east end” of the district – an African-American neighborhood.

As we approached the house we saw, through an open window, two black men, watching television and drinking beer. My partner let me take the lead – his method of mentoring.

I knocked on the door. One of the men answered. I explained we had a call of a burglary.

He looked at me incredulously. Then, with a grin, said that he had trouble opening the door. He opined that was why someone thought he and his friend were breaking in the house.

It all sounded perfectly plausible to me. I said OK. The man closed the door and I started to return to my vehicle.

However, my partner stopped me.

“Did you get any ID from them? “ He asked rhetorically.

Before I answered, he led me back to the door. This time he knocked.

The same person answered.

He asked for identification. This elicited an angry, righteously indignant, response. His companion joined him. The two shouted at my partner and me.

They said we were only doing this because they were black men. We would never ask white men for identification.

My partner took great exception to this. He became angry.

Just as the situation looked like it was going to explode, an elderly woman came down the steps from the second floor. It was obvious she had been sleeping.

“What is going on here?” she said, bewilderedly.

Then she uttered the words that crystallized everything.

“Who are these men officer? What are they doing here?”

As it turned out, the men had broken into the house – the home of this woman and her elderly sister. They were sound asleep completely unaware that they were there.

The bad guys were very clever. When they noticed the police approaching, one quickly turned on the television. The other took two beer cans out of the refrigerator.

My veteran partner suspected this. He knew something was amiss. There was nothing concrete. It was just a hunch - one that was correct.

There are a lot of variables in police work. There are a lot of uncertainties. Things are not formulaic. Judgments need to be made in nanoseconds.

All of this came to mind as I read about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates. He was arrested after police received a call of two black men trying to break into a house in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Actually, it was Gates and his driver forcing open the jammed door of his own house.

When Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrived, he questioned Gates. Apparently, Gates was offended. He accused Crowley of racism.

Reports are that Gates did show identification to Crowley. However, an argument ensued and Crowley arrested Gates.

I do not know why Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct. I know that disorderly conduct, specifically, “DCM3” – i.e. Disorderly Conduct, Third Degree, Misdemeanor - was occasionally used by Philadelphia police to arrest people who were not cooperating with police commands.

You see, Mr. President, it is quite possible that the white police sergeant, James Crowley, was not “acting stupidly” as you say. It is quite possible that the distinguished, black, Ivy League university professor was the one who was “acting stupidly.”

Perhaps he was in a bad mood because, after traveling half way around the world, he could not open the door of his expensive house in an affluent neighborhood - a neighborhood in which the white police officer cannot afford to live.

Mr. President, if you really want to bridge the racial divide, then you need to recognize that racism is just as much not blaming someone because of their race as it is blaming someone because of their race.

It is time, Mr. President, to stop casting white police officers as Bull Connor.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the critically acclaimed police novel “A Sense of Duty” available at Barnesandnoble.com

Ricci v. Sotomayor

2009-07-18T07:30:00.001-07:00

What Are the Criteria for Protected Racial/Ethnic Groups?
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

The confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was interesting in that it highlighted the inherent bigotry of the American left, its political representatives in the Democratic Party, it hypocrisy and its socio-political philosophy.

During the hearing, Judge Sotomayor was questioned about her opinion in the reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. DiStefano. An Italian-American firefighter was denied a promotion he earned via a civil service examination that was annulled.

The lawsuit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by 18 firefighters alleged that they were denied promotions because of their race. One of them was Hispanic the rest were white. They all passed the test.

However, the city threw out the test results because none of the African-American applicants passed. African-American organizations had threatened legal action and protests. So the city officials discarded the test.

The firefighters sued. The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, an 11 year veteran.

Both the District Court and the Second Circuit Appeals Court ruled in favor of the city. Sotomayor was on of the three members of the Second Circuit who ruled in favor of the city. She also was one of the judges who denied a request for the whole Second Circuit to hear the case.

The Supreme Court subsequently heard the appeal by Ricci et al and reversed the other courts. Justice Ginsburg, who herself had questionable racial hiring practices, said that if the white firemen were promoted then the city’s blacks would be served by an all white fire department as it was in the days of segregation.

What Justice Ginsburg did not explain is what exactly the criteria are for a protected class of citizens. Are only blacks and women protected? What about Jews? They were discriminated against in the past.

Indeed, what about Frank Ricci’s ancestors? He’s of Italian descent.
Italians were discriminated against.

When my grandfather immigrated to the United States from Sicily one hundred years ago, he obtained a job at the Stetson Hat factory in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. This is the same company famous for its cowboy hats.

The reason he got the job was that being a “hatter” was not considered work suitable for a “white man.” It was dangerous work in the laborers were exposed to mercury poisoning. Many were afflicted by it - this how the expression “mad as a hatter” came about.

So certainly Italian-Americans, Jews, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, all sorts of immigrant ethnic and racial groups can be considered victims of one sort or another.

So why do liberals favor only certain racial/ethnic groups and genders?

Another manifestation was the attacking of Mr. Ricci by Sotomayor’s supporters.

As this case became an issue because of Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, leftwing Democrats do what they always do – the began a smear campaign against a working class guy who just wanted to see justice done.

Democrats – who love to say they represent the average American – will vilify, slander and do anything they can to ruin anyone who gets in their way. The more “average” the person is, the easier it is to assassinate the person’s character.

The People for the American Way was anything but doing something the American way. Reports were that they urged newspapers to look into Mr. Ricci past employment history to find a controversial ruling.

The whole purpose was to discredit Ricci. They did not want to argue on the merits of the case or whether Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy was appropriate.

No, just engage in ad hominems.
The leftwing of the Democratic Party, the controlling faction of the party, did not distinguish itself in its behavior through the Sotomayor hearings. It revealed its true nature.

Predictably, Republicans refused to call attention to this.

Mike can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

What a Difference a Protest Makes

2009-07-15T06:36:00.000-07:00

Conservatives Oblivious to Activism's Importance
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Every time an anti-abortion protester disrupted the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor they were removed immediately from the chambers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D – Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, which is conducting the hearing, is very efficient in keeping order.

Then again, maybe efficiency and the maintenance of order is not what this is all about.

After all, when antiwar protesters disrupted a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the Iraq war in 2007, the committee chairman Russ Feingold, D. - Wisc., empathized with the protesters who were from an organization whose members wear pink costumes ( I know the name of the group I just do not want to mention them).

Feingold said, “I strongly support your First Amendment right to free speech.”

Although the police were nearby, the protesters were never removed from the chambers. They repeatedly applauded Feingold’s vitriolic criticism of the Bush administration. Despite repeated “warnings,” they never stopped disrupting the hearing and they were never removed.

Ironically, the only antiwar protesters who were arrested that day were those who staged one outside of Hillary Clinton’s office. Apparently, protesting Democratic Party legislators is not considered an exercise of the First Amendment.

Even protesters who vandalized the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building were never arrested. This prompted at least one Republican to write to the Capitol Police chief expressing his dismay.

Nothing was done.

The coordination between these alleged “grassroots protesters” or “community activist” groups and the Democratic Party is a well known “secret.” The coordination between them and the media should be well known, however, it is not. This is primarily because of the lack of an opposing political party in the United States.

Last March 30, when I broke the news that the New York Times spiked information they had about the coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign, the story went national that evening.

(The Times did not use the information they received from an ACORN whistleblower because they thought it would be a “game changer.” Here is the link:
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt)

Fox News Channel ran with it. The network featured it on its banner all evening. I was that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity mentioned it on their shows.

I was amazed at the excitement my article generated.

A few months earlier I reported, after watching a Fox News broadcast, about members of the New Black Panther Party of Philadelphia intimidating voters at a polling place in North Philadelphia.

I later interviewed the McCain campaign lawyer, Lovida Coleman, about the incident. She told me one of the New Black Panthers was credentialed by the Democratic Party as a poll watcher. She also said he told her he was a Democratic Party committeeman.

During the press conference she held after my interview, I mentioned to her that the New Black Panther Party was considered a hate group by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center.

She was unaware of this.

This is the problem with the Republican Party as an opposition group. They are totally clueless. They only seem to get motivated about taxes. Other than that, Republican politicians are fairly dormant.

This is why the Democrats can permit protesters to disrupt hearings, the mainstream media can continue to provide admiring reportage of these protesters and there are no consequences to them. The Republicans are either apathetic or oblivious.

Conservatives need to become cognizant of what is occurring and take countermeasures. There are some things they can do immediately.

First, conservative politicians and activists need to patronize and promote conservative media outlets.

As a journalist, I would make every effort to report about conservative groups. I felt they were not receiving the same media attention the liberal groups did. I wanted to provide some balance.

Occasionally, I received cooperation from these groups. Occasionally!

The same cannot be said about Republican politicians. The Republican Party was worse. I received little or no cooperation from them.

Like conservative groups, I wanted to give Republican politicians the access I felt they were not getting from the mainstream established media. The only outlet they had was talk radio. I wanted them to tell their side of the story.

When I approached them, they acted as if they had stage fright. When they did consent to be interviewed, they displayed very little knowledge of the subject matter. For example, when I asked the ranking Republican on the committee that heard the testimony about ACORN and the NY Times, he seemed as if he did not know about it.

Finally, conservatives need to promote conservative media. They like to complain about the liberal mainstream media, yet they do nothing to promote conservative media.

For example, when Rick Santorum was guest hosting for Bill Bennett several weeks ago, he complained that the liberals controlled the media. Yet, not once did Mr. Santorum mention my paper – even though he was well aware of its existence.

Liberal groups and Democrat politicians are much more cooperative than their conservative/Republican counterparts. They are, as a whole, much more media savvy.

Republicans should recall the words of their party’s icon, President Abraham Lincoln. He knew the importance of public relations.
He once said, “Public opinion in this country is everything.”

His ideological descendants have obviously forgotten this. The Democrats have not.

Mike can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Democrats Supreme Doublespeak

2009-07-14T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Party’s Racial Hypocrisy Continues
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Listening to the opening statements by the Democrat Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it seems that the only qualifications she brings to the court is her “compelling story,” that she is a the third woman to be nominated and that she is a Latina.

One by one, each of the Democrats mentioned these characteristics as the reasons why she should be appointed. Ms. Sotomayor mentioned them as well in her opening statement.

Yet, the “compelling story” of Clarence Thomas was not considered an attribute by Democrats. In fact, Justice Thomas was the victim of the most reprehensible character assassination of all time. It exceeded the smear campaign conducted by Democrats and the liberal media against Robert Bork.

Furthermore, Alberto Gonzalez’ and Miguel Estrada’s Hispanic heritage was not considered an asset by Democrats when they were nominated for offices by President Bush. Indeed, Democrats were panicked that they had been nominated because they did not want Republicans to groom one of them for the Supreme Court.

Despite all this Democrats now want race and humble origins to be qualifications for their nominee when they were not for Republicans.

Worst of all, Democrats bray Republicans are questioning Sotomayor’s apparent racism. It is the supreme irony that the Democrats are proclaiming that race should not be an issue with the Sotomayor appointment. It is ironic that they are trying to minimize her role in the Ricci case.

The only reason Sotomayor was nominated was because of her race. Race is part and parcel and an integral part of Democratic Party politics. They pander to races and ethnic groups to get votes. They slander anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.

Predictably, Democrats have played the race card against Sen. Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee. They are calling him a racist because he once said that the NAACP was a communist inspired organization (FDR once said something similar about black newspapers).

Why a comment by Jeff Sessions about the NAACP being communist is racist, yet Sonia Sotomayor’s comments about Latina’s being superior to white males defies reason.

If Sonia Sotomayor is a racist she would not be the first Democrat to be such. The party has a history of harboring racists.

The fact is the Democratic Party was the party that defended segregation and slavery always uses the racism smear (along with sexism). As much as they try to hide this they cannot.

Perhaps the preeminent expert on the Democrats’ racist history is Frances Rice of the National Black Republican Association. This African-American woman was a Lieutenant Colonel in the military. She co-founded the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) in 2005 to call attention to the bonds between African-Americans and Republican Party.

She wrote an essay titled the Democratic Party Owes Blacks an Apology. She notes:

· The Democratic Party enacted fugitive slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations; instigated the 1856 “Dred Scott v. Standford” decision which legally classified blacks as property; passed the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new Northern states; and passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to spread slavery into all of the new states.

· Southern Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes in 1865 to suppress, restrict, and deny blacks the same privileges as whites.

· In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party
· Democrats passed discriminatory Jim Crow Laws in 1875 ( Republicans passed the 1875 Civil Rights Act

· The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party

· the Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in
the 1954 “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education

· Roosevelt banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists. (What was that about Sessions?)

· It was the Democrats who tried to prevent the Civil Rights Acts of the 20th century from passage.

Meanwhile Republicans, who routinely labeled as racist, have the exact opposite history. Even now the trend in academia and political circles is to tar Republicans as racist. Yet this myth has been debunked.

An authority on the Republican Party’s racial history is University of Virginia political science professor Gerard Alexander. He wrote a 2004 book review titled The Myth of the Racist Republicans.

Mr. Alexander wrote “…the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers.”

Maybe this is why the Democrats are so obsessed with race. They have a more than 200 year history of slavery, racism and segregation for which to atone.

Mike can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Liberals’ Unenviable Track Record

2009-07-13T06:31:00.001-07:00

Why Do We Keep Believing Them?
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Why anyone would believe that liberals would be able to solve the current American crisis is beyond reason. They have consistently made claims that have proven to be either incorrect or outright falsehoods.

These were not minor issues either. The erroneous policies they advocated, the mistaken predictions they made, were of major importance.

So there is no reason Americans should think that they can solve the problems of healthcare, the economy, education et al.

Here are just a few examples prognostications and pronouncements by leftists:

Walter Duranty - This Pulitzer Prize recipient was a New York Times Moscow bureau chief. He did not report that Stalin was exterminating seven to ten million Ukrainian men, women and children. Despite an independent 2003 inquiry by the Times that indicated his reporting was merely Soviet propaganda.

Sydney Schanberg - another NY Times Pulitzer Prize winner, he said that SE Asia would be better off with America gone and the communists in control of the government. He wrote a famous dispatch for the NY Times on April 13, 1975, a week before the communists conquered Cambodia and implemented a holocaust of extraordinary size, “for the ordinary people of Indochina…it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.”

Anthony Lewis - This NY Times columnist also predicted that there would be no mass slaughter in Cambodia. He wrote, “Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?

Noam Chomsky – this icon of the left went one step further than his liberal brethren. He not only said there would not be a Cambodian genocide he denied there was even after the proof was incontrovertible.

Senator Ted Kennedy - The obligatory references to his swimming or driving acumen will not be made. No, all that is necessary is to note that Senator Kennedy proclaimed during a Senate speech that if President Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in European countries World War III would begin.

Rep. Tip O'Neill - Another famous Massachusetts Democrat was Speaker of the House during the Reagan administration. According to a review of the memoirs of the Soviet Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, O’Neill told Dobrynin that Ronald Reagan's reelection would be catastrophic: “Reagan will give vent to his primitive instincts . . . probably put us on the verge of a major armed conflict. He is a dangerous man.”

Attorney General Ramsey Clark - before he became famous as a defender of Saddam Hussein, Clark was the leader of the movement to rehabilitate rather than imprison criminals. He said that long criminal sentences were the result of societal vengeance and do not prevent crime. As America later learned this false.

Judge David Bazelon – like Clark he was one of the leaders of the “hug-a-thug movement.

John Kenneth Galbraith – this famous economist once said that General Motors is “large enough to control its markets.” He implied that American corporations were invulnerable.

These are just few examples of the sagacity of liberals. There are more.
What they all have in common is the absolute security of their own intellectual and moral superiority and that they were absolutely wrong.

Given their history why do we keep electing them?

Mike can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Sarah, Sarah, Storms Are Brewing in Your Eyes

2009-07-10T05:11:00.000-07:00

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

You knew that when David Letterman had the temerity to gratuitously and vulgarly insult her daughter, Sarah Palin was not going to react like a Bob Michel Republican.

(He was the former House minority leader who had this terrible habit of smiling after a gratuitous slur was made against Republicans by one of the House Democrats. As W. James Antle III, wrote a year ago in the American Spectator - “Bob Michel Republicans …are happy being in the minority.”)

Sarah Palin was not going to take Letterman’s abuses like Bill O’Reilly did when he appeared on Letterman’s show.

(During a 2006 Letterman told him, “about 60 percent of what you say is crap.” During a recent appearance Letterman told him “I think of you as a goon.” O’Reilly’s responses exhibited none of the feistiness for which he is known.)

Sarah has provided the paradigm for them.

Despite all the Republican “strategists” who told her to keep quiet, Palin was not going to let this pass. She was not going to play second banana as Sen. Orrin Hatch, Rep. - Utah does when Sen. Pat Leahy, Dem. – Vt. makes some snide comment.

No, Palin demonstrated she is not going to be a punching bag for liberal Democrats.

It does not matter whether they are media liberals, liberal entertainers, liberal community organizers, liberal Democrats or communists. She went after Letterman like any mother would have. She was not going to let a career in politics interfere with avenging a disgraceful attack on her innocent defenseless daughter.

Sarah Palin showed the courage and determine that so many Republicans, especially those in the Senate, have heretofore lacked. They rarely if ever respond to insults by liberal Democrats.

This is why liberal Democrats are so desperate to destroy her. She is intrepid and resolute.

This is also why many Republicans are standing on the sideline and not objecting to it. Sarah Palin holds a mirror to their pusillanimity. She is William Wallace and they are the Scottish nobles.

She could be the Joan of Arc for the Republican Party (sans burning at the stake of course).

What is even worse for her enemies is that Sarah Palin is intelligent.

I know. I had the opportunity to speak with her while she was at Independence Hall last November for the Governor’s Association conference. She impressed me as being bright, articulate with a command of the facts that most of her peers do not have.

She is certainly light years ahead of Rod Blagojevich, a man for whom the Hyde Park sophisticates of the Democratic Party voted.

She was the star of the show then. All the attention was focused on her during the Independence Hall media conference.

Perhaps this is why New York City Republicans like Peggy Noonan cannot stand her. Noonan’s dislike for Palin is palpable and grotesque. She has been one of the most vitriolic of Palin’s critics.

This is understandable. Noonan has become one of the Manhattan elite. She launched a website for women with Lesley Stahl that features contributors like Whoopi Goldberg. She also endorsed Obama in 2008. This was 180 degrees from the day she mocked Obama’s election as Illinois senator in 2004.

(Unlike Noonan, I said Obama was a rising star in the party. I wrote in August 2004, after watching his convention speech, “If the Democratic National Convention failed to produce a bounce for John Kerry, the same cannot be said of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s candidate for United States Senator from Illinois. While this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive… Obama is very liberal.”)

So it is quite understandable why Manhattan Republicans like Noonan do not like Palin. She does not fit their societal mold.

Palin seems to be part of a growing core of Republicans – especially women – who are as mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it anymore.

Liz Cheney is part of this group. So are Michele Bachman, Marsha Blackburn, Rosario Marin, Heather Wilson, Renee Amore and Mary Fallin.

Blackburn, Marin, Bachman, Fallin and Wilson, along with Carly Fiorina and Renee Amore all publicly defended Palin after the smear campaign against her began immediately following her nomination.

For the Peggy Noonans among you, who notice such things, please note:

· Rosario Marin is a Mexican-American, who was the Treasurer of the U.S. during the Bush administration. (Take that Sotomayor.)

· Renee Amore, is African-American and the deputy chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

· Carly Fiorina was the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation

· Heather Wilson was a Rhodes scholar who graduated with honors from the Air Force Academy

Not one of these intelligent, accomplished (and, yes, attractive women) who are working mothers, ever doubted for a second Sarah Palin’s intellect or ability!

Who knows maybe Sarah Palin’s new role will be to join forces with these forceful, talented women and provide some spine and direction to the Republican Party. Maybe they can provide what is desperately needed in the party. There is no question the men have not been able to figure it out.

Maybe Palin is headed to emulate another Jefferson Starship song, the 1987 hit: “Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now."

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

[1] Lyrics by Peter and Ina Wolf for Jefferson Starship’s “Sara” 1985

2009-07-09T07:55:00.000-07:00

Who Woulda Thunkit?
I’m Really a Liberal
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time

I just realized I am a liberal.

This revelation came to me after reviewing the issues a certain liberal candidate for office outlined. On every issue she listed I found I was in concurrence.

I think you too will come to the same conclusion. Here is the list of the issues (in bold and italicized):

Pro-choice?

You bet! I completely concur. I think people should have the choice to send their kids to parochial or private schools just like many public school teachers, Democratic Party politicians, feminists, and New York Times’ journalists do.

Anti-death penalty?

Absolutely! Once again total concord. I don't think a baby in its ninth month should be executed.

Civil unions?

Sure thing! I think all unions should be civil. There would probably be less divorces if they were. Besides less divorces means less welfare programs.

Gun control?

Indubitably! I know one definitely needs to control the gun when shooting an intruder.

Redefine families?

You got it, dude. The only time northeastern liberal newspapers use the word family is to describe the mob.

Eliminating prayer in schools?

Forgettabout it. If kids studied like they should they wouldn't have to pray before exams.

Separation of church and state?

Absolutely!!! As it is right now, religious institutions – especially parochial and other religious schools - are subsidizing public school districts across the country. If all those students in religious schools were sent to public school, every school district in the United States would have to triple their taxes to pay for the influx. Parents of students who go to private religious and parochial schools are subsidizing school districts and therefore are paying an indirect tax. This is unconstitutional!

Freedom of dissent?

Right on! Conservative students and faculty should be allowed to express their beliefs.

Affirmative action?

No doubt about it. The ACLU, NOW, and the Sierra Club should hire black executive directors immediately. The ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC news anchors, as well as the Managing Editors of the New York Times, Washington Post and Vanity Fair should be replaced by blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and women.

No limits for lawsuits?

You know it. I think lawyers should be sued every time they file one of those frivolous lawsuits.

Rehabilitation for criminals?

Unquestionably! I think judges who place dangerous criminals on probation should be sent to a prison facility to be rehabilitated.

Equal Rights for Women?

Undeniably, women should have to prove that they should be awarded custody of kids in divorce cases just like men do.

More social programs?

Certainly! The greatest social program a nation can provide for its citizens is to keep them safe and free.

It is amazing that all this time I was a liberal and did not know it. Realizing what we have in common, I want to invite my fellow liberals to join me and work together to make this country truly a place where everyone can thrive and be free.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Maybe Tomorrow

2009-07-08T03:50:00.000-07:00

Song Fitting Expression of Jackson Spectacle
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

A fitting commentary to the spectacle which the demise of singer Michael Jackson became can be found in the title of my favorite Jackson 5 song, “Maybe Tomorrow.” It is appropriate because if anything comes from this incident it is that – in the future - Americans will stop the deification of entertainers.

The mainstream media, so anxious to televise those killed in action in Iraq arriving at Dover Air Force based during the Bush years, lately have done nothing to acknowledge the sacrifices of the defenders of our liberties. Yet, they provided unlimited reporting about a man who sang songs.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The exploitation of this event is crass and disgusting even by Hollywood standards. Al Sharpton, as Juan Williams noted on the Fox News Channel, had little contact with Jackson. Yet, Reverend Al shows up to get some prime camera time – and presumably some donations.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The United States House of Representatives held a moment of silence for Michael Jackson. They also passed a resolution recognizing his accomplishments. President Obama sent his condolences.

Yet, Ed McMahon, who died a few days before, was a World War II aviator and also served in Korea. The man risked his life to defend his country and did just as much, if not more, charitable work than Jackson ever did. Nobody in the White House or Capitol Hill said a thing about Ed McMahon.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The aunt of a soldier killed in Afghanistan complained that her nephew’s death was not noticed at all. He was killed in action the same day Jackson died.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

Of all the politicians who tripped over themselves to be involved with L’Affair Jackson, only Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin issued a statement during this whole period expressing sorrow – not about Jackson - but about soldiers, who were stationed in Alaska, recently killed in Afghanistan.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

For the next several days there will be hagiographies about Jackson. His fame will be exploited by news stations, magazines and anybody who can remotely cash in on slaking the thirst of a public that is seemingly conditioned to revere all entertainers.

The good news is that this is starting to change now. Many Americans are realizing that Michael Jackson was a good singer – a great singer, a great entertainer. However that is all that he was.

Maybe tomorrow we will honor those who represent the apogee of humanity: the altruistic, the heroic, and the selfless.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

BCS B.S.

2009-07-07T04:20:00.000-07:00

No Wonder Republicans Get Hammered During Elections

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time

Today, the Senate is holding hearings about the college football Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- UT, is replicating a hearing about the BCS that was held earlier this year, in the House, by his fellow Republican, Texas Congressman Rep. Joe Barton.

Hatch and Barton are not concerned with terrorism, war, famine, plague, unemployment, crime, the government usurpation of the automobile industry and the planned usurpation of the health field, as well as North Korea, etc.
No, they want to enact laws forcing a playoff in college football.

What is even more incredible is that this is being advocated by politicians who oppose government intervention! The putatively anti-big government conservatives, Barton and Hatch, want to pass a law interfering with free market capitalism.

No wonder Republicans are getting hammered in the elections.

Such phony devotion to free-market principles and smaller government is easily discerned by an electorate tired of politicians not investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This is the salient point here. This is a game – played by unpaid college kids. Before politicians invoke anti-trust regulations, remember who is involved here.

Before adding a new government acronym to the lexicon (can’t you just see it now “President Obama just announced the appointment of Barney Frank, Commissioner of the Federal College Football Playoff Administration”) remember who and what we are talking about.

I found a 25 year old Television Guide piece about the approaching college football bowl games on television. The writer said there were too many bowl games (16 then as opposed to the 34 now). He also said there should be a playoff.

Well, there is a playoff system in major college football. It involves the top two seeded teams.

Now you may say this is not much of a playoff, that it is not fair. You may ask why it is not like the NCAA basketball tournament – which provides 64 teams a chance at the championship.

Those 64 tournament teams are seeded – just as the two major college football teams are. When one considers that the lowest seed ever to be champion was Villanova - the #8 seed in 1985 – why should there be 64 teams?

Think about it – in 70 years - only one team not in the top five seeds ever won the college basketball championship.

Now some people (especially sportswriters many of whom are as doctrinaire leftist as their newsroom brethren) say the bowl games are about greed. They postulate the only reason there is no playoff is because the bowl games will lose money.

There is no greed in the NCAA tournament? How ingenuous can you get.

The tournament started in 1939 (37 years after the first bowl game). It consisted of only eight teams then. It expanded to 64 in 1985.

Why do you think that was? Money!
Before “March Madness” came along (the advertising moniker television networks gave the tournament) the public was not very concerned about who the college basketball champion was. Indeed, most teams played in the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) until about the '70's.
Do you think the NCAA makes more or less money because of “March Madness?”
The same thing can be said about small college football. No one was interested whether Podunk State, Coal Cracker College or Sunset Beach U. was the number one small college team in the nation.

However, make small college teams determine their champion by a playoff and now there is some suspense for a TV audience. Now networks can sell commercial airtime.

The major college teams do not need to generate interest. They do not need the gimmick of a “playoff.” They already have an audience.

If the small college football teams, college basketball teams or college baseball teams want a playoff that is their business. Just do not say it is for righteous reasons.

Let major college football alone.

If Widget Inc. - maker of the best paper fasteners in the world - wants to sponsor the Paper Clip Bowl; the city of Osh Kosh, Wisconsin wants to host it; Middle Tennessee State and North Dakota State want to play in it; ESPN wants to broadcast it; and a few million people want to watch it; why should the federal government, the courts, or the sportswriters of America complain?

The current system is fine. The games – for the most part – are fun to watch. Players get a chance to be on a national stage – for most their only chance to do so.

Even the marching bands have an opportunity to showcase their talents, their efforts work and their desire.

The bowl games are a ball for these kids. Don’t let the adults ruin it.

Meanwhile, Congressman Barton, should direct his energies to finding out why the Department of Justice dropped its voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at elfegobaca@comcast.net

Justice Ginsburg’s Ricci Racial Hypocrisy

2009-07-06T09:32:00.000-07:00

Justice Ginsburg’s Racial Hypocrisy in Ricci
She Never Met a Black She’d Hire in 1993
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog

During Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s July 1993 confirmation hearing, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, asked her about racist hiring practices. He wanted to know if she thought that an employer, located in a city that was predominantly black, would be suspected of racism if there were no blacks on the payroll. Judge Ginsburg replied it would be.

Hatch then reminded her that her own payroll did not include blacks even though she was in a city with a majority black population. He quickly followed up by saying he did not suspect her of racism.

Ginsburg, who was clearly flabbergasted that her hypocrisy had been exposed, tried to be glib. She replied, “ …if you confirm me to this job, my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve.”

Now, 16 years later, the blatant hypocrisy she revealed then was displayed once more in her dissent in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. This case involved a discrimination lawsuit by 18 New Haven Connecticut firefighters, 17 whites and one Hispanic. They had all passed their promotional test. Yet, the city invalidated the test results because few blacks had passed.

The lower courts concurred that the city should have issued a new test. However, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that this violated the rights of those who were not promoted. Ginsburg said their rights wre not violated.

This is outrageous to many on various levels. However, the most contemptible flaw is her patently hypocritical reasoning.

The same argument Justice Ginsburg used to suggest that the New Haven Fire Department might be engaged in racist hiring and promoting practices could easily have been applied to her own hiring and promoting practices.

Justice Ginsburg wrote in her Ricci dissent, “…a city in which African-Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population, must today be served—as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination—by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions. In arriving at its order, the Court barely acknowledges the pathmarking decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), which explained the centrality of the disparate-impact concept to effective enforcement of Title VII.”

Justice Ginsburg clearly believes that the racial makeup of the city’s workforce must reflect that of the city itself. If it is not, she claims that is a priori evidence of racism. Yet, her argument is not applicable to herself.

Her assertion that the workforce of the New Haven fire department - or any employer for that matter – must reflect the same, or near the same, racial proportions of the geographical workforce in which the employer operates is known as the “disparity” argument.

The argument goes like this: if the population of a city is 50 percent African-American, then the percentage of an employer’s workforce must also be approximately the same, otherwise the employer must be exercising racism in its hiring procedure.

This “disparity” or “disproportionality” argument has been used to “prove” racism in everything from criminal sentencing to hiring practices to charitable contributions to welfare. It is the reasoning for revising crack cocaine laws.

Later in her dissent Ginsburg tries to deny the racial disparity argument. Using classic Orwellian doublespeak she writes, “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone." (Emphasis added)

Well then why is she sanctioning the city’s decision to cast aside the test because of racial disparity?

This is classic insult your intelligence rationale. It is typical of liberals.

After listening to, as well as, reading Ginsburg’s opinions about racist hiring practices and also reading the reportage about Ricci v. DeStefano that followed in such liberal journals like the New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and others, one cannot help remember the George Orwell’s words in his May 1945 treatise “Notes on Nationalism.”

Mr. Orwell wrote, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

Why Leftist Thought is Predominant in America.

2009-07-05T07:43:00.000-07:00

“YOU LEFT THE FIELD OF IDEAS to people like me to be corrupted, while you went off to make money,” said Ellsworth Toohey to his former boss Gale Wynand in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. The Toohey character represents the liberal intelligentsia. Wynand represents the Rockefeller Republican.

This one statement by a fictional character articulates the present social, political, and cultural state of America. The liberal intelligentsia is predominant.

A few years ago a history professor published a book that received a prestigious award. The book claimed Americans did not own many guns in the early years of the republic and therefore the Second Amendment is not for individuals. This was well received by gun control zealots, which probably accounted for its acceptance and praise in literary, media and academic circles.

However, there was one problem. The claim was not true. Eventually, the prize was rescinded and the author resigned from his position as a professor.

How could such a book promoting abolition of gun ownership be lauded, while scientific studies and books such as John Lott’s "More Guns, Less Crime" are immediately demeaned?

Because the field of ideas has been deserted by the American right.

For about twenty years, leftwing academicians met at the annual Socialists Scholars Conference. The 2002 event brought in New York City Councilman and former Black Panther Charles Barron, Michael Cohen, editor of the Green Party USA newspaper, Mumia Abu Jamal attorney Leonard Weinglass, and Edward Said.

Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Ron Dellums, one-time Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Major Owens have attended past conferences.

There is nothing inappropriate about this. All ideas are welcome in America – although one must wonder if a congressman, famous filmmaker, or distinguished college professor attended say a Fascist or Nazi Scholars Conference what would happen.

However, it is emblematic of the influence of leftwing ideology in modern America. The pervasiveness of socialist thought among scholars is nothing new. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) was established in New York in 1905 by some very famous scholars.

Among them were Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and Clarence Darrow. Each of these men were very influential in American society then and now.

Indeed, socialist ideas and propaganda from a hundred years ago is still disseminated today.

American socialist icon Eugene Debs said during a 1918 speech, “And here let me emphasize the fact -- and it cannot be repeated too often -- that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices…have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that …alone declare war and they alone make peace.
They themselves did not go to war anymore than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war…”

This claim has been repeated today, without knowing its origins, by journalists and politicians.
A 2004 Newsweek magazine article claimed, “American troops tend to be working-class or poor…”

New York Times journalist Chris Hedges ( an admitted socialist) said during a 2003 college commencement address, “(the soldiers he met in Iraq) joined the military because there were no job opportunities.”

Bill Maher remarked during a 2005 edition of his TV show that the military recruits the dregs of society.

The facts are quite different.

According to a Rand study of military enlistees, “…a high school senior was less likely to enlist, “The more months he’s been unemployed” and “If he has a low wage.”

The Defense Department’s own data states, “Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted …had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions …have higher cognitive aptitude than the civilian youth population…reading levels were higher in the enlisted military than in the non-military sector. FY 2001 …active duty enlisted …had a mean reading level typical of an 11th grade student whereas the mean for civilian youth was within the 10th grade range.”

Yet, socialist antiwar propaganda from a century ago survives today.

Another example of these anti-American falsehoods is that of blacks in the military during war.

General Pershing wrote in his book about World War I that African-Americans were being told that African-American troops were always given the most dangerous assignments, were sacrificed to save white troops, and were often left to die without medical attention, when in fact; at that point, black troops had not been in combat. Ironically, Pershing wrote, “It was not difficult to guess the origin of this sort of propaganda.”

This same propaganda was repeated by the liberals/leftists during the Vietnam War and all other wars since including Operation Iraqi Freedom.

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991, it was said African-Americans would be represented disproportionately among frontline units and casualties. However,

Representative Les Aspin, a Colorado Democrat and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee stated, “The…Committee spent some considerable time on this [issue] and came to a rather surprising conclusion about it. It's not true.”

From the aforementioned Rand study, “…when compared to college graduates in the civilian workforce 21-49 years old (9 percent African American), African Americans are equitably represented in the officer ranks.”

The difference between the Vietnam War days and today is that then the media was pretty much in lockstep with leftism and the antiwar movement. Today there are alternatives.

Unfortunately, they seem to be limited to blogs like this one and talk radio. News organizations like the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal also do not follow the liberal template. Other, smaller newspapers present the truth yet do not have much of an impact outside of their own regions.

Unquestionably, the leftists have corrupted the “field of ideas.” They have controlled the opinion shaping professions of the academy, the media, and the arts for a long time.

Unless more conservatives become members of what Robert Bork once called the “chattering classes,” America will become a totalitarian society. Public opinion, both foreign and domestic will turn against America.

The foreign policy of appeasement will continue to endanger America. If America does not defend liberty what nation will?

The idea that America must apologize for supposed transgressions - such as eliminating the threat of world communism – will continue erode America’s moral standing.

The idea of a socialist utopia will be an easy sell to those who know nothing other than that capitalism is evil.

Anti-Americanism will be an easy sell if all people know is that we had slaves without learning about the civil war or the abolition movement.

There is a saying that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come and if conservatives do not respond, it could soon be the false, leftwing idea now taking root in our culture.