Black Panthers Put Bounty on Head of Zimmerman, Ho Hum
What happens when a politically favored class who put a million dollar bounty on the head of a currently innocent man? Well, judging from the silence of Eric Holder, Obama and the rest of the media, absolutely nothing. The Black Panther party have rounded up 5-to-10 thousand men to hunt down George Zimmerman and "bring him to justice" themselves.
By their silence, does that mean Obama and Holder approve? I think it's hard to argue otherwise. After all, Obama said if he had a son, he would look like the victim. What the hell was the point of that if not to bring everyone into a frenzy? Apparently laws don't apply to the Black Panther party. By the way, where is La Raza in this whole situation when a Hispanic is being treated this way without being charged? Is he too "white" to matter to them? According to the NY Times, he's not "hispanic," he's a "white hispanic," whatever that means.
The Supreme Court takes up Obamacare today and all the media will be hanging on the case. But I have to ask the question: who cares what they decide anyway? Whether it's invalidated on the Commerce Clause aspect is irrelevant in my opinion. More important in my view, is how the law was passed and whether the American people want it.
First, the law that passed was a fraud. It used gimmicks and accounting fraud to claim that it was budget neutral and wouldn't cost anything. Now the CBO admits it will cost over twice as much - and that's going to be generous. It will blow a hole so large in the budget that we will be Greece by the end of the decade (if we're lucky). Next, Obamacare is terrible policy. Contrary to the Democrat arguments, the law will worsen health care, will cost a ton and will force people off their existing plans that most people generally like. Finally, it was passed without widespread support - through a reconciliation budget process without bipartisan support. Yes, the DEMS own this piece of garbage. And now 2/3 of the country now say they are opposed.
So regardless of the outcome from these 9 individuals on the Supreme Court, the law should immediately be defunded and subsequently repealed anyway.
Former MF Global executive Edith O'Brien said in an October 2011 email that CEO Jon Corzine gave her "direct instructions" to transfer $200 million of customer funds to an overseas account, according to a congressional memo released on Friday.
Would there be a single Democrat not calling for jail time if this were a Republican? I doubt it. Little wonder it was released on a Friday afternoon.
All the great dictators in history knew that getting to mushy student minds are the key to realizing your political philosophy. In Fairfax County, VA, teachers are trying to assist Obama achieve his results. Michael Denman, a teacher at Liberty Middle School ordered students to drum up opposition research to help find "weaknesses" in GOP candidates. Then, he sent the results to the Obama campaign.
This garbage is what passes as "teaching" these days. Very sad.
Mitt Romney has started to become palatable to conservatives as he has gotten pushed to the right. Then his advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said that today's Romney message is just for the primary and then when the general election starts, Romney will be like an "Etch a Sketch" and erase his message and start over. This is a major error and Romney needs to take control of his campaign before it gets hijacked like the McCain/Palin one did (emphasis on Palin).
Are you kidding? If this is what Romney's advisor believes, he should be fired. If it's true, then Romney has got some real explaining to do. We don't need a GOP candidate who believes that someone has to change his message to everyone. He's had a pretty good message focusing on the economy and telling the truth about Obama's catastrophe - just stick to it! And throw out the bums who disagree.
During George W Bush's first term, the global cry was against his supposed "unilateralism" against Iraq. I always thought it strange that someone could make this claim when 49 countries went in side by side with the United States. Is there a double standard in viewing Obama (and Hillary)'s actions against Iran?
Let's look at these sanctions against Iran. First, it's debatable that sanctions ever work against government officials themselves. I can see several example where sanctions impoverish innocent people in a country, but I have seen very few, if any examples of where the leader in question, is personally impacted. But I digress - let's talk about uniteralism.
The US has exempted Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain from penalities for not implementing these sanctions. OK - so this is the 3rd largest country in the world, the 4th, the 5th, the 7th, the 8th, and the 12th. Additionally, China (2nd largest) has said they oppose the sanctions, as has Brazil (the 6th) and India (#9). It is unlikely that Russia will support sanctions either (11th largest).
So if you're counting at home - out of the top 11 economies in the world, we might have Canada, , while the other 9 either are exempt or are saying they do not support it. If we go further down the list, we know that Netherlands (#15), Poland (#19), and Belgium (#20) also have exemptions. Turkey is also a likely no (#16). South Korea (#13), also dependent upon Iranian imports is likely to strike a deal with the US government. When it comes down to adding up the numbers, I'd bet out of the top 20 economies of the world, the only countries supporting Obama's sanctions against Iran fully will be Canada and Mexico, two other oil rich nations.
Sounds like Obama and Hillary are unilaterally supporting sanctions against Iran while most of the rest of the world either have decided they cannot go along right now, or they outright oppose them. It is true that many European countries are saying that in the future they will try to reduce Iranian imports, but when countries talk of the future, it has to be discounted as they are not doing it now, and their exemption can be renewed after 6 months.
Let's be honest, if this were GW Bush striking this deal, wouldn't there be protesters on the streets shouting about his unilateralism? 2 for 20 is not a very high batting average.
I saw David Axelrod on Fox yesterday and he was commenting on gas prices. He said "Gas prices are 11% higher than they were when Obama became President." First, this figure is completely wrong, but I will tell you how the White House is deceive the public.
If we look at crude prices when Obama came into office on January 20, 2009, the price was under $66/gallon. And today, they are at $107/gallon - a difference of 62%! So your first impression might be: "The guy in the White House is lying to us!"
Well, if we give the President the benefit of the doubt and say, hey, he's talking about the day he was actually elected, on November 4th, 2008, then we are closer. The price on that day was around $90/barrel, so today's prices are 18% higher.
Either way, the figure is wrong, but my problem is that the President is clearly attempting to deceive us and sometimes he uses the November 2008 date as a baseline for when he began, and sometimes he uses January 2009. Take unemployment for example, he usually says that when he started it was at 7.8% (January 2009 figure) and he never uses the figure which came out during the week of his election (6.5%).
Hey, I know most Presidents take credit for what they want, and blame the other guy for the bad stuff, but I think Obama takes this game to a completely new level, to a new stratosphere.
Good news for fiscal conservatives. Mitt Romney has endorsed Paul Ryan's budget.
The only bad news is that Democrats still have yet to present a budget (well, except for that Obama proposal that was defeated 96-0), so they are guaranteed to say, "See, the GOP wants to take your goodies away," pretending that our current course is fine.
Well, that's not tough to interpret. He said repeatedly that he wants gas prices at European levels - $8.00-10.00 per gallon. And we seem to be getting there pretty darn fast, so based on his goals, he should get an A. Same thing with Obama on the economy. He wants everyone dependent on a massive, unaccountable, powerful federal government - and he too, seems to be getting his wish.
Mayor Bloomberg has banned food donations to government run shelters that feed the homeless because of his "concern" that the food might not meet his definition of nutritious.
Forget about the absurd fact that Bloomberg believes the government knows better than private citizens about what people should eat. (Have you met government workers and believe the majority are smarter than the rest of the public?) Also forget about the fact that individual liberties continue to be taken away in the name of "benevolence" (that's always the case with communist dictatorships too).
The other important question is what a "healthy food" is. Eggs are filled with protein but may also have cholesterol. Some doctors think they are incredibly healthy; others believe you shouldn't eat them much. Same thing with soy, whole grains, carbs, sugars (even if in their natural form in fruits), and the vast majority of foods. Is it ok to have salt shakers on the tables? Is it ok to serve desserts that have lots of sugar? Everyone has a different view of what's healthy and it often varies from person to person. So it makes absolutely no sense for the government to decide what's right for everyone.
News just came out that a 7th U.S. soldier was killed by an Afghan soldier last month. The important thing to note is that this was before the U.S. killings, before the Koran burnings (which were not deliberate by the way). Hmm...why isn't Karzai or the Taliban apologizing for these killings when U.S. soldiers are the victims? Probably because they're taking their cue from the Administration, which lays blame on the U.S. first.
Tuesday saw another three states vote, plus Samoa. While the consensus opinion will probably be that Santorum continues strong, as he won Alabama and Mississippi, it's interesting that Romney probably picked up more delegates than Santorum on Tuesday. According to the AP, Romney will pick up at least 31 delegates, Santorum picks up 29, and Gingrich 24.
Politics can be a momentum gain, so I do think Tuesday was important for Santorum. On the other hand, Romney won Hawaii (plus Samoa), and was pretty competitive in Mississippi and not too far behind in Alabama. If the knock on Romney is that he can't win Southern states with their evangelical roots, Romney didn't perform badly. And let's face it, you can't get much more Southern than those two states. So if this is as tough as it gets for Romney, well, he's in good shape. Still not a cake walk, but in good shape.
The real question might be: what is Gingrich's move. I suspect that Newt has two real options, after Tuesday: 1. He can continue battling and hope for a brokered convention, or 2. He can perhaps cut a deal with Santorum. I suppose he can also bow out gracefully. My bet is he continues battling. He knows that Romney doesn't have 50% in a 4 man race. He knows that Santorum doesn't either. Also, we still have a couple of huge states left in Texas and California, and who knows - if Gingrich somehow could actually win these, then he could perhaps influence the Republican Party to select him.
****UPDATE**** Romney ended up taking 41 delegates from Tuesday, Santorum 35.
Breitbart Editor Challenged by Soledad O'Brien at CNN
Ok - one short video has been released which shows Barack Obama introducing Derrick Bell at a rally in 1991. Some may consider the significance which shows Obama's relationship with another very radical lefty. I would say if anything, it just shows Obama's consistency over the years in associating with such radicals.
Joel Pollak, the editor of Breitbart.com was interviewed about the video by Soledad O'Brien at CNN, who obviously didn't agree that the video was significant. Her tone during the questioning was probably a little on the disrespectful side, and she must have asked in this video about 18 times, "is this the bombshell?"
It was an interesting interview, but I'd say Pollak had the upperhand. Soledad somehow reminded me of the old villain in the TV series, Columbo, who was always trying invent new reasons to justify what they were doing at the scene of the crime:
Columbo: Why were you walking your dog at 2 am?
O'Brien: Duh - because he couldn't sleep. Lots of people do that. It's completely normal. Don't you know anything?
Columbo: Why did you carry the gun?
O'Brien: Why would you even ask that? Isn't it obvious? Of course I was worried about my dog's protection! Pretty simple really.
Maybe the analogy isn't perfect, but that's what I was reminded of. Going into the interview, O'Brien was going to defend Obama no matter what was asked, and that's what she did. Too bad, she kinda ran out of information, and seemed a little uninformed.
I think this vetting process is healthy and I'd expect Breitbart will have more in the days to come. Watch the video.
Mitt Romney obviously looks the most impressive, and out of the 10 state elections held yesterday, he took 6 of them, with Santorum taking TN, ND, and OK, and Gingrich taking GA. But if I want to look for weaknesses for Romney, in looking at the results, he's still not winning many southern states (unless Virginia and Florida are counted), and he didn't win Ohio by much. I also like to wonder what if - the big if being if Gingrich drops out of the race. How much of that support would go to Santorum? I think conventional wisdom is that most of it would, but it's hard to tell. And there are still lots of states left, including some monster ones, including TX, CA, and NY. I haven't done the analysis as to how many of those are winner take all, but I don't see this race as over at all.
It seems to me that both Gingrich and Santorum dislike Romney enough that I wouldn't be surprised if they did a tag-team to prevent Romney from taking the nomination. (a la McCain and Huckabee in 2008).
Others might point out that Romney still isn't getting anywhere near 50% of the vote and this is true. But is see this as proof that this year, Republicans actually have four pretty strong candidates, and whenever you have four pretty good candidates going at it, there's no way anyone should get 50% of the vote. I personally see all four of them as being stronger than our nominee in 2008.
I don't mind that the Republican primary race continues. I think it's healthy and it is the process not to be crowned until the end of the race. Also, a longer race gives a potential 3rd party guy less time to enter (unless that 3rd party entrant might happen to be Paul, Santorum, or Gingrich, which is also possible).
This is very bizarre to say the least. Andrew Breitbart apparently was quoted as telling people to "watch what happens on March 1," which people believe he was referring to his releasing college tapes of Obama that could derail his re-election bid. If he really did have damning evidence, I think it will come out. But wow - dying that same very day is just a crazy coincidence.