Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Racial Profiling OK
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
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.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Liberals Sound Like Nazis - Definitions of "blackness" Disturbing
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."
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."
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Obama's Zeal to Divide America for Political Gain
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Arizona Recognizes Real Racism
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
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
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/
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/
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Beck and Olbermann Get It Wrong
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.”
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.”
Friday, April 16, 2010
Liberal Hypocrisy: Taking Our Country Back
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.
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.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Liberal Media and the Pope
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?
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?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
NY Times' Selective Scandalmongering
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
( 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
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Barack Obama Myth
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
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11950
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama Most Divisive President Ever
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.**
When George W. Bush used that phrase to challenge the terrorists, the Democrats said he was being belligerent to **terrorists.**
Thursday, March 18, 2010
NCAA Predictions
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
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
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Dems Having Orgasms about Palin's Hand
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)."
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)."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"Birthers" Like "Truthers" are Looney
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?
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?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Bonfire of the Elites
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
'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
Friday, January 29, 2010
Hearing Set for New Black Panther Case
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.
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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
1995 - Time Magazine Called Limbaugh Rejection of Bailout "Populist"
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."
"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."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Geithner Gets Hammered from Both Sides
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Unequal Protection Under the Law
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 .
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 .
Thursday, January 21, 2010
GOP Shouldn't Take Credit for Brown
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
It’s Marcuse, Not Alinsky
(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.
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.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Those Evil Greedy Capitalist Americans
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 ....).
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
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.
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.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Above the Law? Eric Holder Thinks He Is
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.”
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.”
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Comrade Toms
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.
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 ?
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
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
Monday, January 11, 2010
Italy the Antidote for Political Correctness
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.
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
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.”
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Chase Bank Credit Card - Something Strange, Definitely Terrible Service!!!
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
TCU - Who? Number What? Playoffs! Are You Kidding Me?
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.
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.
Monday, January 4, 2010
How Liberals Control Popular Culture
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.
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.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
PC & the NBA
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."
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."
Friday, January 1, 2010
SEC Going South
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
