Protect Children Against Repeat Sex Offenders

Philly-Based National Group Fighting Against TSA Pat Downs on Children

Apr 20, 2011 by Randy LoBasso

WeWontFly.com, a national organization opposed to enhanced airport searches, put out a press release this morning calling for a blanket end to pat downs on children.

“The goal of the campaign is to highlight the immorality of TSA [Transportation Security Administration] pat-downs of minors, force the TSA to immediately and permanently halt all touching of minors and encourage travel industry players to join us,” reads the release, which can be viewed on the front page of WeWontFly.com, created in October 2010 by James Babb and George Donnelly.

We caught up with co-founder Babb, who lives in Eagleville and had previously helped put together “National Opt-Out Day” on Thanksgiving Eve 2010, organizing resistance at Philadelphia International (and elsewhere), right in the middle of the expansion of news coverage (and Drudge Sirens!) on the issue, which got people up in a real tussle.

Babb says the efforts to stop TSA searches remains the overarching goal of the group and others like it throughout the country, though says after watching a recent viral video of 6-year-old Anna Drexel getting what he calls “fondled” by airport security, they needed to act.

“Minors are particularly vulnerable,” says Babb. “You and I as adults can say ‘I won’t fly.’ We can choose whether we want them fondling us or irradiating us [with airport body scanners]. Children don’t have that ability.”
He says there should be a zero-tolerance policy of “abusing children in this way” and has called on supporters of WeWontFly.com – including 19,635 Facebook followers, as of the time of this blog – to begin a nationwide “Call Flood” campaign alongside efforts to collect signatures to send to the Obama Administration and TSA officials. The idea is to call huge companies the country over, like airlines and Disney destinations and say that until the companies put pressure on congress to get this stopped, their patronizing will cease.

6 year old girl sexually accosted by TSA

“The Disney Corporation, their own mission statement says protecting children is a priority,” he says. “And the fact that kids are being subjected to this assault on their way to Disney World or Disney Land or a Disney cruise, it’s just horrifying.”

The rationale for searching children is that terrorists may be disguised and be able to use anyone, including children, to get weapons on planes. Babb doesn’t buy it.

“People say there’s this big danger of terrorism,” he says. “The actual danger is so small. You’re eight times more likely to be murdered by a policeman than a terrorist. You’re four times more likely to die in your bathtub than by a terrorist. It’s not a substantial threat at all.”

Babb maintains techniques, such as scanners and pat downs not only don’t make us any safer, but make us less safe. In fact, it’s been reported the body scanners wouldn’t have detected the type of powdered explosives used by the “underwear bomber.” WeWontFly.com maintains alerted passengers, in fact, have a better track record of fighting terrorism – the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Flight 93 on 9/11 – than do TSA scanners and pat down techniques.

“To say, ‘Look, we’re going to let our guard down if we stop putting our hands in kids’ pants is total bullshit,” muses Babb. “They’re not protecting anybody anyway.”

Link to Phillly-Blog

Common Sense Commentary:

 

TSA actions clearly violate the Fourth Amendment unless travelers clearly, knowingly, and willingly surrender their Rights via written, signed, contract with full understanding.

We only have to look to 50 year of SCOTUS Miranda Rights rulings to know that each of the above elements must be clearly, and willingly be met in order for an American Citizen to surrender their inherent GOD GIVEN Rights.

 

There is no question that should any of us citizens, be caught touching these children, in this way, we would be convicted in court as SEX OFFENDERS, and sentenced to STATUTORY SENTENCES and have to Register as Sex Offenders for life, IF we were to ever leave jail.

Bill of Rights

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Child sexual abuse - wikipedia

6 year old boy strip searched by TSA

Sexual assaults on children are normally viewed far more seriously than those on an adult. This is because of the innocence of the child victim, and also because of the long-term psychological impact that such assaults have on the child.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child,pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or...

Blessings to all PATRIOTS!

New York Times Hammers Obama

All the President's Sanctimony 
Ross Douhat
New York Times, Op Ed

Here is how President Obama introduced his plan for deficit reduction in Wednesday’s speech:

… because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse. You’ll hear that phrase a lot. “We just need to eliminate waste and abuse.” The implication is that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.

… So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget — two-thirds — is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Two-thirds.

…. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table …

And here are some choice excerpts from the plan itself:

It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table — but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future …

We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid … we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need …

… both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

So, to be clear: We need to put “everything on the table” … except for policies that benefit the middle class and senior citizens. We can’t pretend that we can close the budget deficit by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse … but we can pretend that reining in Medicaid and Medicare spending is just a matter of cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “erroneous payments,” finding “efficiencies” and eliminating “unnecessary care.” We need to make “tough choices” and (did I mention this?) put “everything on the table” … but we can’t change Social Security benefits for current or future retirees.

This was what bothered me the most about the president’s speech. It wasn’t the partisanship and polemicism. Politics ain’t beanbag: President Obama wants to be re-elected, the House Republicans gave him a nice fat target, and I wasn’t surprised that he decided to come out swinging rather than letting the opportunity pass by. Nor was it his refusal to match Paul Ryan’s honesty about what it takes to balance the budget without tax increases with a similar honesty about what it takes to balance the budget while leaving Medicare and Social Security more or less as-is. Evading unpleasant realities is a grand bipartisan tradition: Someday, a Democratic leader will have to admit that he supports tax increases on the middle class, but I’m not at all shocked that President Obama still hopes to save that admission for his second term — or the first term of Joe Biden’s administration, perhaps.

No, it was the sanctimony that got to me. If you’re going to propose reforming entitlements by primarily cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “unnecessary care,” is it really appropriate to shake your finger at politicians who propose to cut “waste, fraud and abuse”? If you’re intent on pretending that tax increases on the rich are the only tax increases required, is it really appropriate to lecture your audience about the need to make “tough choices” and put “everything on the table”? This is a recurring tic in President Obama’s speeches, of course: He likes to frame his partisan thrusts with professorial summaries of the policy landscape, alternating between honest high-mindedness and slash-and-burn polemics. But Wednesday’s address was a particularly frustrating variation on that theme. Rarely has a politician talked so piously (and accurately) about the necessity of hard choices while proposing to make so few of them.

In a sense, I know, even a gesture toward inconvenient realities is better than no gesture at all. It’s the tribute that big-government liberalism pays to fiscal reality, you might say, and it’s a sign of the growing constraints on the progressive vision that President Obama felt compelled to acknowledge that reality at all. (Matt Yglesias and Yuval Levin, from the left and right, made versions of his point following the speech.)

But the sanctimony is still hard to swallow. This president doesn’t pander any more egregiously than his predecessors. But he spends more time trying to pretend that his pandering is really tough-minded, post-partisan truthtelling. And that two-step grows more grating with every passing day.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/all-the-presidents-sanctimony/

Common Sense Commentary:

When you have lost the New York Times, you are no longer relevant in liberal circles. 

Obama has lost his POTUS Bully Pulpit, which is the most powerful speaking position in the world. He now has to reel in the New York Times and many others in order to win the primaries and be re-elected. 

Of course, he will get them back. But at extreme costs. And, at this moment a seated president is now standing outside the White House and has to fight his way back in.

If we Patriots keep our heads down, focus on the larger war, and stay away from fundamental internal arguments over nuanced policies, we will have a new president in 2012, and he will be a Republican. We must choose wisely!

Blessings, fellow Patriots!

Tea Time

Tea Time

Posted By Roger Kimball On April 3, 2011 @ 2:05 pm In Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Yes, it’s getting to be that time again.  During the run-up to the November 2010 elections, many observers — including me ^[1] — remarked that the tea party, which was clearly shaping up to be a major power in many states, was not so much anti-Democrat or even anti-incumbent as it  was anti-business-as-usual.  The tea partiers were united not by demographics — age, profession, education, geography, etc. — but by impatience at the sclerotic inefficiency and blundering intrusiveness of a government establishment that had lost touch with the American founding principles of limited government, fiscal accountability, and republican virtue.

Perhaps the most conspicuous targets of the tea party were high-profile Democrats like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, but plenty of Republican politicians also learned to their chagrin that they could no longer treat their office as a perpetual entitlement or the American taxpayer as an inexhaustible mammary gland. As was repeatedly noted in the aftermath of the election, while the tea party lost a handful of high-profile races (Nevada, California, Delaware), the spirit of reform rushed like the waters of the Alpheus and Peneus through the Augean stables of state and local legislatures. Commentary is not prophecy; nevertheless, I predict a reappearance of those cleansing waters come 2012. How thorough a job they will do depends, of course, on the people directing the flow.  A key question is exactly who will be standing in for Heracles on  the Republican side of the ledger.

We’ll know that soon enough. For now, it’s perhaps worth underscoring that anti-business-as-usual, a-pox-on-both-your-houses theme.  In the 2010 election, the primary focus was on domestic issues: the economy, ObamaCare, the economy, immigration, the economy, gun rights, the economy, the economy, the economy.

Domestic issues are still front and center. But the embarrassing spectacle of the Obama administration lurching from paralysis to spasmodic incoherence and back on the Middle East and North Africa suggests that foreign policy will also loom large on the tea party’s agenda.

I say “foreign policy,” but there has been precious little policy — precious little in the way of thoughtful and consistent  activity — in the Obama administration’s tergiversations. On the contrary, Obama’s signature formula ^[2] — arrogance undergirded by the twin pillars of incompetence ^[2], on the one hand, and thuggish ^[3] if naïve progressivism, on the other — has ruled the roost these last weeks as the United States has lurched from embracing to expectorating one strong man after the next. It’s been a disastrous — and potentially a very dangerous — minuet that Obama and his minions have performed.

But the fiasco that is American action in the Middle East and North Africa at the moment is not the provence of Democrats only. There are also several Republicans who have bought into the “Arab Spring” narrative and seem to believe that what we are seeing in that part of the world is a reenactment of 1776 instead of an anarchistic uprising unified by sundry criminal and Islamist elements.  Indeed, the rose-colored glasses have been donned not only by Republican politicians but also by various conservative commentators who have traded common sense and appreciation of political reality for the emotion of virtue, a neo-Wilsonian sort of exchange that unfailingly ends in disillusion.

I’ll leave the starry-eyed commentariat to one side today in order to concentrate on a few prominent politicians who, when it comes to Libya, believe in walking loudly and carrying a preposterous shtick. I am thinking in particular of Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman who, for the last 15 minutes, anyway, have been loudly beating the war drum. (See this excellent piece ^[4] by Andy McCarthy.)

The time qualification is important. In the last few days, Sen. Graham has publicly described ^[5] Col. Gadhafi (“Gaddafi,” “Kadafi,” whatever) as an “international terrorist” and an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and has wondered why we couldn’t just “drop a bomb” to rid the world of him.  Sens. McCain and Lieberman, meanwhile, have been falling all over themselves to praise President Obama for bombing Libya. In a remarkable piece in the Wall Street Journal ^[6] the other day, they declared that “regime change” should be the goal of our military action in Libya. “[A] successful outcome in Libya,” they write,  “requires the departure of Gadhafi as quickly as possible.” OK. Then what? “By all accounts [all accounts, Kemo Sabe?]  the Transitional National Council is led by moderates who have declared their vision for (as their website puts it) Libya becoming “constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens.” Isn’t that nice?

Now, I believe Ronald Reagan had it right when he described Col. Q. (or “K,” depending on your orthographic preference) as “the mad dog of the Middle East.” ^[7] After all,  the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, in which nearly 200 Americans died, was the handiwork of Libyan agents. The creepiness, to say nothing of the evil malevolence, of the “psychotic transvestite” (in Mark Steyn’s phrase ^[8]) is not in dispute.

The point is, however, that Col. Q. is not the only bad guy around.  And, despite the McCain/Lieberman valentine to the “Transitional National Council,” the fact is that the opposition, a.k.a. the “rebels,” in Libya are liberally represented by people every bit as scary ^[9] as Qaddafi. Besides, it seems only yesterday — actually, it was about 18 months ago — that the Three Musketeers  McCain,  Lieberman, and Graham went on a state junket to Tripoli to (as McCain himself put it ^[10]) cement and “deepen” the “ties between the United States and Libya” which (he said) “have taken a remarkable and positive turn in recent years.”

^[11]

  “Late evening with Col Qadhafi at his ‘ranch’ in Libya,” McCain tweeted at the time, “interesting meeting with an interesting man.” Lieberman thought he was pretty interesting, too, though standing mutely, mascot-like at McCain side he seems more like Howdy Doody than a U.S. Senator.

^[12]

  When Liberman does get around to talking, though, he, too, is effusive. Here’s a Wikileaks cable ^[13] about the chummy, high-level meeting:

“We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi,” remarked Senator Lieberman. He stated that the situation demonstrated that change is possible and expressed appreciation that Libya had kept its promises to give up its WMD program and renounce terrorism. Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.

The dynamic trio was in Libya to discuss — wait for it —  expanding U.S. military aid to Libya and also — not incidentally — to try to stage manage the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie terrorist who had been incarcerated in Scotland but who was about to be set free on “humanitarian” grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer. The Obama administration was complicit in the release, asking only that he not be given a “hero’s welcome” in Tripoli. In the event, that’s just what he got ^[14] and, moreover, he seems to be living happily ever after, for that “terminal” cancer turned out to have many more stops before it reached the terminus, if it ever does.

Col. Q.’s rehabilitation started in 2003 when President George W. Bush told the world that Libya had given up its program to acquire nuclear weapons. Various diplomatic upgrades followed, including a visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2008. In 2009, John McCain blathered on about the “mutual respect and friendship” that subsisted between Libya and the United States while Joe Lieberman  hailed Libya as an “important ally” in the war on terror. As recently as February 2011 — just a few weeks ago — President Obama asked Congress to increase military aid for Libya in order (so Fox News reports ^[15]) “to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.”

Well, that was then. Now, in March and April 2011, we’ve rediscovered that Qaddafi is a mad dog after all. As I say, I never doubted that.  Senators McCain, Graham, and Lieberman had no reason to doubt it either. Still, as Andy McCarthy ^[4] notes, they went blithely ahead and embraced him. “With eyes wide open,” he writes:

The interventionist senators abetted the U.S. aid to Qaddafi and the legitimizing of his dictatorial regime. Given that this policy has contributed mightily to Qaddafi’s current capacity to consolidate his grip on power and repress his opposition, one might think some senatorial contrition, or at least humility, would be in order. But, no. Having been entirely wrong about Qaddafi, the senators would now have us double down on Libya by backing Qaddafi’s opposition — the rebels about whom McCain, Lieberman, and Graham know a lot less than they knew about Qaddafi.

What is more dispiriting, the Three Senatorial Musketeers falling over themselves in 2009 to praise Qaddafi, or the same trio in 2011 calling for his assassination in order to . . . what? After Qaddafi, then what? An army of young James Madisons just waiting to install themselves in Tripoli? And here’s another question, from William Hazlitt: “Were we fools then, or are we dishonest now?” As I say, in 2010 the tea party had its hands full with various domestic issues.  Those haven’t gone away, but I reckon we’ll be hearing a lot about our North African adventures in 2012. Here’s a question: do you suppose Qaddafi will still be presiding over the Libyan oil wells then? It would be a rash man, I suspect, who said No with any confidence.

---

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/03/tea-time/

URLs in this post:

[1] including me: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/11/15/who-governs/

[2] formula: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/05/31/the-secret-ingredient-in-the-obama-formula-for-success/

[3] thuggish: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/14/the-aroma-of-illegality/

[4] excellent piece: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263694/senators-sway-andrew-c-mccarthy

[5] publicly described: http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/03/31/graham_gadhafi_libya/index.html

[6] Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576233112828325424.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[7] mad dog of the Middle East.”: http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/03/video-ronald-reagan-called-gaddafi-mad-dog-of-the-middle-east/

[8] Mark Steyn’s phrase: http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-03-25/news/29193259_1_military-action-gadhafi-arab-league

[9] every bit as scary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

[10] McCain himself put it: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/22/john_mccain_libya

[11] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNfztA1i0ts

[12] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYVWT_kDTsU

[13] Wikileaks cable: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html

[14] that’s just what he got: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487856/ns/world_news-terrorism/

[15] Fox News reports: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/#ixzz1ISbNXNc6

OBAMA ON THE HOOK

OBAMA ON THE HOOK

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on March 29, 2011

With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble.  If they work, he's OK.  If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome.  Consider the extent of his exposure:

•    His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government.  As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."

•    His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.

•    Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge.  In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.

•    Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

•    Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession.  No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.

That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate.  But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster.  He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny. 

He is now truly the hostage of events.  Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.

from www.DickMorris.com 

Common Sense Commentary:

Obama, being devoid of real American ideas and ideals, won his election based on the cataclysmic failure of a foundational liberal system (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forced sub-prime loan debacle) that he and liberals blamed George Bush for (see: Bush's Presidency - a quick response to a Liberal's Myths)

Now, "the hens are coming to roost", as his life long spiritual and ethical mentor quipped many times.

Without an effective foundational understanding of his responsibilities to America, or the American People, Obama drifts like a rudderless dingy in the currents and winds.

He still can win in 2012, because who knows what crimes liberal Democrats are willing to impose upon the American People. So, we have to fight hard for our nation.

But, the most important effort every America Patriot must pursue is to politely and patiently show their friends what reality is, as reality painfully sinks in to every Patriotic American other than the most extreme, hateful anti-American Liberal.

Our race is a marathon right now. Let's each of us pace ourselves for this, the greatest of America Marathons in our nation's recent history.

NO WAY OBAMA WINS IN 2012

NO WAY OBAMA WINS IN 2012

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on March 15, 2011
 

The combination of high oil and gasoline prices, rising food costs, higher health insurance premiums and the likelihood of future inflation has jarred consumer confidence, creating a major crisis for the Obama administration.

The collapse has been sudden and dramatic.

Terror Chatter High, Prepare Now with the Emergency Radio     

In December, the consumer confidence scale in the Rasmussen Poll stood at 81.7 percent. But in January, euphoria set in. Obama compromised on the George W. Bush tax cuts, the nation seemed to be coming together after the Giffords shooting and a Republican House sat poised to stop any new spending or social experimentation. On Jan. 11, the Rasmussen confidence index rose to 88.3.

Then reality dawned. Unemployment remained persistently high, economic growth was largely stagnant and partisan bickering resumed. The confidence level on Feb. 11 dropped to 84.5.

Then the bottom fell out. The daily Rasmussen polling reflected a drop day after day until, by March 11, the index had fallen to 73.1, its lowest level since it registered a 69 in July of 2009, in the depths of the recession.

The false dawn of January has faded and the hard, cold reality of a likely second recession is setting in. But this recession is accompanied by the likelihood of inflation, a stagflation syndrome that will probably grip America for years. And which will likely take a manmade recession, on the order of 1979-82, to counter it.

Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.

The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world's second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.

Worse, the Fed and the administration are out of tools to help. Interest rates are already at zero. Fiscal stimulus -- the deficit -- already consumes 40 percent of our total government outlays. The Fed is printing money at a ferocious rate under its qualitative easing (QE-2) program. What is left to do?

Only dramatic cuts in the federal deficit, a rollback of regulations that cripple small and community banks, a cancellation of future tax increase plans, a big reduction in federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, freeing manufacturing from the prospect of carbon taxation and unleashing our domestic energy potential can solve our problems. But Obama is not about to undo his legacy of disaster for the American people.

And then there is the longer-term oil and gasoline crisis. Instability in the Middle East is going to mount, not recede. The chances of disruption in Saudi oil supplies and the possibility of an overthrow of the regime (triggered by the best efforts of Iran) will continue to force prices upward. The drag on the economy and the rising consumer discontent in the United States spell further problems for the Obama presidency.

As the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said -- outrageously and wrongly -- about 9/11, "the chickens are coming home to roost." The policies of this administration -- the disastrous overspending, the irresponsible borrowing, the social experimentation -- all are magnifying and amplifying the impact of the recession. Relief is not going to come anytime soon.

Instead, the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.  

from www.DickMorris.com 

Common Sense Commentary:

Adding to Dick's analysis of Obama's political challenges, we have to add in the Electoral Vote and State challenges as well.  Obama won the presidency with 365 to 173 Electoral Votes (EV's) over John McCain.

Obama swept a number of kumbaya states that he will find impossible to sweep again. He was able to smooze and fool them last time, but they will not fall for his slick politicking this time. In fact, several of these states would now vote for Bush again, rather than Obama.

This includes Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire and Nevada. Add to this the loss of a net of 6 Electoral Votes from the 2010 Census update, and Obama is now behind 266 to 272 EV's.

Adding to this the possible loss of a number of previous reliable Blue States, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Iowa and Obama has been seriously routed, losing 219 to 319.

Notice, we have not even looked at Colorado, New Mexico and he's down another 14 losing 205 to 333.

The 2012 POTUS Race is for the Republican candidate to lose, right now.  We will have to choose a candidate who is inspiring, grasps real world economics, and has the guts to rebuild America's weakened image abroad, while savvy enough to put out all the fires Obama has allowed to simmer into out of control blazes.  That prediction is for another day.

Blessings!

Blacks and Republicans

March 15, 2011

Blacks and Republicans

By Thomas Sowell

  Read: MLK was a Republican!

San Francisco's irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city's streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray.

McCray's greeting to him was "You're 10."

"What are you talking about?" Willie Brown asked.

McCray replied: "I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you're only the 10th black person I've seen."

That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade.

A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, "You're the first black man I have seen around here in months!"

"It will be months more before you see another one," I replied, and we both laughed.

Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco, and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula, by high housing prices.

At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country.

But the building restrictions-- and outright bans-- resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.

The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.

It so happens that these are counties where the voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.

Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable.

With all the Republican politicians' laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such policies of the Democrats as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.

If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.

It would be impossible for the Democrats to deny the facts, not only in coastal California but in similar affluent strongholds of liberal Democrats around the country. Moreover, environmental zealots are such an important part of the Democrats' constituencies that Democratic politicians could not change their policies.

Although Republicans would have a strong case, none of that matters when they don't make the case in the first place. The same is true of the effects of minimum wage laws on the high rate of unemployment among black youths. Again, the facts are undeniable, and the Democrats cannot change their policy, because they are beholden to labor unions that advocate higher minimum wages.

Yet another area in which Democrats are boxed in politically is their making job protection for members of teachers' unions more important than improving education for students in the public schools. No one loses more from this policy than blacks, for many of whom education is their only chance for economic advancement.

But none of this matters so long as Republicans who want the black vote think they have to devise earmarked benefits for blacks, instead of explaining how Republicans' general principles, applied to all Americans, can do more for blacks than the Democrats' welfare state approach.

Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.Realclearpolitics.com

Common Sense Commentary:

The truth is Republicans also need to thread the needle with minorities.  

Republicans have always earnestly supported equal rights for blacks and minorities, while advocating limited government and free markets.  

But, where Republicans run in to trouble is when they condemn injurious programs, their language also attacks program recipients.  When this happens, the value and truth of the argument is lost in the pain of the injury. 

We saw this recently when Harry Reid was being hammered by Tea Partier Sharron Angle and was going to lose his Senate race, Angle then self-destructed her own race from attacks against all Hispanics in regards to the Illegal Immigration problem.

Of course, she lost the key Hispanic Vote, as do many Republicans, and because Hispanics are the predominant Union members, they were very easily manipulated by Reid and his corrupt Union bosses.

Had Angle been more pointed and attacked the corrupt Democrat Party efforts of forcing good people to break the law and creating a shadow citizenry, which is entirely against everything America and Republicanism stands for, and for which only the Democratic Party benefits, Angle might have easily won that race.

Americans are a very fair and honest people. And, Republican Political language often condemns the victims, and not the corrupt and failed big government programs. Thus, we lose the battle on the issue, and we lose the people who will benefit most from fixing the corrupt Democrat programs. 

What to do?

1     Attack the problem and its specific issues

2     Attack the liberal Democrats that create
       impossible problems for honest citizens

3     Accept that often "abusers" are also
       victims of government dysfunction

In Angle's case, 61% of Hispanics may be against Illegal Immigration, but 100% are against being grouped and attacked because of their race. Let's remember this.   

Now, on to 2012 to Reclaim America!

Blessings!

Liberals are opportunistic LIARS!

Liberals are opportunistic LIARS!

Robert Reich is a typical liberal.  Anything goes as long as it’s for something he wants.  Read his hypocrisy in regards to public use of "Reconciliation" measures and to his cries of “foul” over a perfectly legal and appropriate maneuver in rescinding Wisconsin’s Public Union’s authority to collective bargaining: 

Dr. Jekyl Reich:

Governor Scott Walker and his Wisconsin senate Republicans have laid bare the motives for their coup d'etat.... The American public may be divided over many things but we stand united behind our democratic process and the rule of law. And we reject coups in whatever form they occur.

Then, there's Mr. Hyde Reich:

Monday, Feb 22, 2010 10:23 ET

"Do it with 51 votes"
The 60-vote requirement for healthcare is made up.
51 is a majority, and it's all we need 
 By Robert Reich

1. Reconciliation is too extreme a measure to use on a piece of legislation
    so important.
    I hear this a lot but it’s bunk (highlights for emphasis)


2. Use of reconciliation would infuriate Senate Republicans. It may.
    So what?

My free advice to the President: If you want to get healthcare enacted you must use reconciliation and quickly.

Common Sense Commentary:

In truth, Reconciliation was completely inappropriate for Congress to directly confiscate and operate 17% of America’s free market GDP.  This "Reconciliation" specifically, by definition, involved extra-ordinary amounts and percentages of American Budget Funding.  Thus it was anti-thesis to everything the Reconciliation process was designed for.

Wisconsin's bureaucratic actions were taken exactly for the reasons those laws were made. To modify/resolve an existing bureaucratic issue.  There are no Collective Bargaining conferences on the table at this time. There are no planned Collective Bargaining Negotiations planned. This was strictly a Bureaucratic maneuver managing potential future events.

Like all liberals, Reich is a fraud, blowing in the wind whenever it suits his personal desires and with no respect for the Rule of Law, or for the Rights of Majorities in our Republic.  We see this hypocrisy in everything liberals "stand for".  That is, if being perniciously opportunistic is equivalent to "standing for principles".

Democrats, and therefore liberals, by their own definition from the party's nascent days in the 1800's and even back to the early 1700's were always focused on the political philosophy of Special Interests. This is based on the idea that only some people are equal, and others do not merit equality, rights, a voice, or protections.

The Democratic Party originated as a pro-slavery Special Interest party, and in fact they started the Civil War to expand their progressive special interest philosophies. Democrats created Jim Crow, the KKK, expanded both despite 100 years of Federal Republican efforts to create total equality throughout the American Society.  

Woodrow Wilson expanded Federal protections of Jim Crow and created Federal Employee Segregation.  FDR also greatly protected Jim Crow, while extending, and expanding Federal laws prohibiting the hiring of blacks.

Both John F Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson voted against the Equal Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, both supported Jim Crow for political opportunistic reasons, and both tried to undermine Martin Luther King, Jr, who was a life-time Republican.

Such is the depth of Liberal concerns for equality, equal rights under the law, and equal opportunity.

More on this in a few weeks in my blog series (below)

What Happened to America and Its Constitution?

 Blessings!