November 23, 2014

Cosby said anti-Obama = Racist

Jack Kemp

Way to go, Brother Cosby. Ride the politically correct bus - and find out your seat has a trap door...

"Bill Cosby says those who oppose Obama are racist"
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Monday, March 4, 2013

Comedy and television icon Bill Cosby slammed Republicans who failed to stand for President Obama’s State of the Union speech, likening them to racists who opposed desegregation.

"I think we have people sitting there,” he said, referring to the president’s SOTU speech, during a CNN television interview reported by Mediaite, "who are as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation.”

His comments came in context of a discussion about racism and the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across Selma, Ala., Mediate reported. Rep. Connie Mack said "it’s just hard to believe,” and

"it’s unbelievable,” in reference to the level of racism that marked that decade, Mediate reported.

"I don’t think so,” Mr. Cosby said, Mediate reported. "Not when you look at the president’s speech recently.”

That’s when he made the remarks about those who failed to stand for Mr. Obama’s speech. He didn’t say Republicans — but it was members of the Republican Party, not Democratic Party, who failed to stand.

"And then in place of a better America, they want their own sick feelings put across and … it isn’t a good time,” he said, as Mediate reported. "But I think, also on our part as professors and presidents of colleges all over, and in public schools, we need to get the education of the correct history that happened so people can say, ‘Yes, this really did happen.’ "

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Napoleon Obamapart and his Imperial Amnesty Decree

Image courtesy of

Timothy Birdnow

Here is the bones of the Emperor Nobameon Obamapart I amnesty scheme.

Some of the lowlights:

"The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.

These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation."

End excerpt.

Who "broke" the immigration system? Was it not Mr. Obama and his cohorts in Congress, who simply refused to enforce the laws on the books?

And how is anyone being held "accountable"? Seems to me they are being given a free pass after breaking the law. playing by the same rules? Huh?

I work with a legal immigrant from Eritrea who spent years trying to get his Eritrean wife to join him here. It took years and tons of money, and he was nearly desperate at the end. He should have just dropped her in Matamoros and let her walk across the border. There is no "playing by the same rules" in this instance.

The second paragraph illustrates one of the ambitions of Obama and the Democrats; more tax money.

Let us continue with the White House white wash (or is it People of Non-Color Wash?)

" * Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.
* Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.
* Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: The President is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time."

End excerpt.

I'm all for cracking down on invaders at the border, but it's not the border that is drawing them, and we should crack down on people who employ them. It should also be pointed out that Congress authorized money to build a border fence years ago and only a few lousy miles of it were ever constructed. This is pure gamesmanship by the BHO; he can stack as many people as he likes on the border and simply issue a stand down order.

It's like laws against jaywalking; the only time police enforce them are when a jaywalker causes an accident or whatnot. You can have all the laws you want on the books, but if the authorities refuse to act on them they may as well not be there.

A fence at least imposes a physical barrier which, coupled with even reasonable enforcement efforts, may stop a few invaders.

It has been argued that a fence is worthless, that it won't stop anyone. Really? When Attila the Hun tried to invade China he was stopped by the Great Wall, which was constructed (at great cost) for that very purpose. It worked; Attila turned his army around and headed back toward Rome, which had no such wall. The Emperor Hadrian constructed such a wall himself in Britain, and it did a fine job of keeping the Scotts and Picts from invading Roman territory. It should also be pointed out that the wall in Berlin posed a substantial barrier to Germans; had the Soviets not constructed it all of East Germany would have been stuffed in the wester Berlin district.

Criminal background checks on "undocumented" people makes a lot of sense! It's like running a police check on an armadillo wandering in the forest.

The off-white house document continues:

"For more than a half century, every president—Democratic or Republican—has used his legal authority to act on immigration. President Obama is now taking another commonsense step. As the Administration implements these executive actions, Congress should finish the job by passing a bill like the bipartisan Senate bill that: continues to strengthen border security by adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents; cracks down on companies who hire undocumented workers; creates an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pay a fine and taxes, pass a background check, learn English and go to the back of the line; and boosts our economy and keeps families together by cutting red tape to simplify our legal immigration process."

End excerpt.

Really? Every President has used Executive Orders to enforce laws duly passed by Congress, not to change them. Congress has passed immigration laws and this President doesn't like them, so he refuses to enforce them. Now he simply changes the law in his own mind, and expects Congress to pass a law that comports with his enforcement. He has this 180* out of phase.

All of these wonderful benefits he promises from his new imperial decree are things HE WAS ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE DOING; crack down on employers, increase the number of agents on the border, etc. The rest of this is purest sophistry.

Emperor Obama tries to claim credit for reducing the number of illegals coming to this country. Actually, he is indeed responsible - the economy is so bad here that fewer migrants are showing up. Now we are getting the total dregs. And it begs the question; if Obama's actions have been so good at reducing the rate of migration here, why does he need to issue an executive amnesty at all? The reality is there are more people pouring across the border than ever. This is a monumental lie. And he's been settling these "children" all over the country.

I could continue with a line-by-line dissection of this document, but I'll leave that for the readers.

The point of this is that it will cost lots and lots of money, money not earmarked by Congress. He's passed his own law and expects Congress to simply bankroll it. This is precisely why we have a government that is partitioned in the American fashion; when the Executive branch oversteps it's authority Congress - which holds the purse strings - can cut off the money. But the GOP is terrified of being blamed for a "mpgovernment shutdown" and will not act, even though the last such "shutdown" seemed to boomerang in their favor with an unprecedented political tidal wave in their favor. Seems to me they should be shutting the government down on a regular basis.

But they won't, because they listen to each-other and to the media and do not mingle with the pleibs out in flyover country.

A nation that does not restrict non-nationals is not a nation at all and is destined to die. At best it is an empire, a polyglot of nations grafted together by force of arms and perhaps some mutual commerce. In the end empires are not stable, because the people do not have enough in common. Where is the Austro-Hungarian Empire? It couldn't hold together past the First World War because the member nations had too little in common. Where is the Ottoman Empire? The British? Great Britain almost dissolved recently when Scotland held a vote on secession, and that on the main island of Britain itself. The Soviet Union was unable to stay together despite a massive internal security apparatus. Empires simply lack cohesion. Nation states, on the other hand, are quite resiliant because the people share a common culture and heritage. Spain, the first modern nation-state, remains solid despite considerable historic ups and downs (and a separatist movement or two from some ethnic groups - like the Basques - inside their country). The U.S., a nation composed of many peoples who have united as one (E Pluribus Unam) and share a common history, culture, tradition, and beliefs, is sliding into imperial status as a result of a generation raised on Progressive ideas of multiculturalism, a concept t hhat says we should allow numerous cultures to coexist inside our our nation. Multiculturalism is about division, about fracturing the essence of our nation, creating a kind of Balkan-like empire. The Balkans have always been fractured because they are multicultural. Ditto the caucasus. In fact, there are few examples of countries that fare well with even two cultures. Canada is one such, yet Canada has a devil of a time remaining united and it may split apart at any time.

America is becoming an empire, and Mr. Obama, by usurping the lawmaking powers of Congress, is introducing imperial political machinery that will, if allowed to stand, give the next would-be emperor a platform to expand imperial power. America as a nation is nearly dead.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1581 words, total size 11 kb.

Iran will Continue to Negotiate until it becomes a Nuclear Power

By Alan Caruba

Monday, November 24, is the deadline for the negotiations between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China regarding its program to build its own nuclear weapons to conclude. At this writing, whether the negotiations will be extended or not is unknown, but it seems unlikely.

President Obama has been obsessed with Iran, seeking to change its hostility by finding an answer to the problem its nuclear weapon program represents. That is typical of his "magical thinking” whereby something he wants is automatically assumed to be accessible. In the case of Iran, it has been hostile to the U.S. since its revolution in 1979 and remains so today.

Iran has cause. As Marin Katusa, a leading energy investor, explains in his book, "The Colder War”, the U.S. was instrumental in overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh, an Iranian prime minister who set about nationalizing its oil industry. The U.S. stagied a coup in 1953 and reinstated the pro-U.S. shah. "Post-coup, the shah grew increasingly authoritarian and, in 1979, the Iranian revolution forced him to flee.”

Katusa reports what followed: "The U.S. government judged it futile to try to reinstate a pro-Western regime. So it turned its back on the shah and encouraged an invasion of Iran by Iraq. Saddam Hussein, the secular Iraqi dictator, went to war against his neighbor, supported by money and weapons courtesy of the United States.” The war last eight futile years and cost both nations hundreds of thousands of lives. No need to wonder why Iran hates and distrusts the U.S.

The essential problem of a nuclear Iran is that it has been an extremely aggressive nation since 1979. Iran is widely regarded as the primary supporter of terror in the Middle East. It sponsors two Palestinian organizations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran’s support for bombings and other acts of terror would fill a book.

Even if the current negotiations come to an end, Iran still has friends. Two of the nations involved in the negotiations are an example. Iran is allied with Russia in supporting the civil war to overthrow Syria’s Assad regime. China is a major customer for Iran’s oil.

"Though Iran may be isolated from the United States and Western Europe,” says Katusa, "Tehran still has allies. Venezuela has advanced $4 billion for joint projects, including a bank. India has pledged to continue buying Iran oil…Greece opposed the European Union sanctions because Iran was one of very few suppliers willing to sell oil to the bankrupt Greeks on credit…South Korea and Japan are pleading with the United States for exemptions (to the sanctions) because of their reliance on Iranian oil.”

"Economic ties between Russia and Iran have gotten stronger every year since Putin became president in 1999,” notes Katusa. "Finally, there’s China. Iran’s energy resources are a matter of national security for China, as Iran supplies 15 percent of China’s oil and natural gas.”

Writing in The Washington Times on November 19, Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, took note of the November 24 conclusion date for the negotiations and asked, "What are the odds they will end with Iran’s rulers agreeing to verifiably dismantle their illicit nuclear weapons program? I’d wager 100 to one against that outcome, but I doubt I’d find a bookie willing to take my bet.”

May suggested that there may be "a ‘framework agreement’, a statement of principles that will be the subject of another round of talks. Such a deal could include another sweetener, e.g., billions of dollars of additional sanctions relief for Iran.”

If the U.S. and co-negotiators arrive at a deal that allows Iran to become a nuclear power it will lose the trust of important Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who already feel threatened by Iran.

Ultimately it does not matter how long the negotiations continue or not. Only one man in Iran will decide how they end and that is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and there is no indication he wants anything less than Iran’s ability to manufacture its own nuclear weapons to put on its missiles or as bombs. Among Iran’s neighbors are Russia, China, India and Pakistan, all of whom have nuclear weapons. Israel too.

The Iranians have been negotiating a very long time and a recent statement by an Iranian official sums up what they have been saying for years. "We need more time to resolve technical issues and don’t forget that the time frame for lifting sanctions is still a huge dispute.” The longer they negotiate, the closer they get to having the nuclear weapons they want.

If the negotiations continue, it will be because the negotiators have once again caved into Iran and there will be no surprise about that. The real surprise will be the announcement that Iran has tested a nuclear weapon and, in the end, that should not be a surprise.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 9 kb.

November 22, 2014

Bill Cosby Receives a Standing Ovation after Performance

Timothy Birdnow

Accused rapist Bill Cosby received a standing ovation after a performance in the Bahamas.

Cosby, performing at a charity benefit for The Links, a non-profit womens organization designed to promote "enriching, sustaining and ensuring the culture and economic survival of African Americans”.

Apparently not everyone is buying the allegations against Dr. Cosby - or they don't care about them. I suspect the former.

While the number of women accusing Cosby is disturbingly high, only one has ever tried to file any sort of legal action, and she settled out of court for monetary gain. (She filed a civil, not criminal, suit.) None of these women have police reports, none of them have been treated for rape, none of them have any physical evidence. In point of fact, one of them - supermodel Janice Dickinson - has a story that is shot full of holes. She claims Cosby gave her a pill which he did not identify and she simply swallowed. {?}

She states:

"After dinner in my room, he had given me wine and a pill," she said. "The next morning, I woke up, and I wasn't wearing my pajamas. And I remember before I passed out that I had been sexually assaulted by this man."

Why did she expect to pass out and be wearing her pajamas? She clearly passed out.

But there's more:

"The last thing I remember was Bill Cosby in a patchwork robe, dropping his robe and getting on top of me,"

If Cosby had come to HER room, why was he wearing a patchwork robe? Would he not have been dressed, or in underwear, or naked? People usually don't bring robes to girl's hotel rooms. IF he had a robe it was because she had invited him to stay.

I don't believe this particular allegation one bit.

That is not to say other such allegations are untrue. Certainly Cosby has admitted to marital infidelity in the past (not unlike many prominent men, such as another Bill, who was also accused of rape and aggressive sexual advances.)

These allegations are all very old, I might add.

Again, that is not to say that they didn't happen, but it is common for wealthy and powerful people to have such allegations made against them. And Cosby has antagonized the Left with his pro-family, pro-American culture, anti-thug message to the black community. Cosby has been a renegade, unwilling to remain on the black plantation.

This sudden explosion of rape allegations is reminiscent of the attack on Clarence Thomas. It smells like a hit on Cosby.

It may well be that the Liberals have always tolerated Cosby's non-participatory sexual approach because he was a successful black man and they didn't want to reinforce the stereotype of the randy black rapist. It may further be that, like Bill Clinton, they don't really see anything wrong with the what of Cosby's actions; in the leftist mind it is understandable to slip a mickey to a potential sex partner if you are a moral man, and by moral they mean you hold the right political, racial, and social positions. Rampant sexuality is common in leftist circles; look at the large number of rapes at the Occupy camps, for instance. The Occupy crowd thought it was no big deal.

So it may be they tolerated Cosby's behavior until now. Why now?

Could it be that they are planning a big push with the Ferguson verdict hours away, and a dissenting voice in the unanimity of the black community has to be silenced?

I don't know, but this has all the earmarks of a liberal crusade. There is a reason for this coming up now.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 6 kb.

Rebels Harass Motorists in Ferguson, Mace Police

Ferguson, MO ( KTRS ) Wednesday nights Ferguson protests has left at ...

Timothy Birdnow

Rebels in Ferguson forced a car off the road, causing it to crash into a telephone

This when there hasn't been a decision by the Grand Jury yet.

Someone I work with told me a friend of his had his car surrounded by a gang of black thugs who began shaking and kicking the vehicle while he - a white man - was inside. There was no provocation for this act.

What the law has succeeded in doing is shackling good people who would act in their own self-defense - and the defense of others, while liberating the lawless and the evil. Ferguson is a triumph of the multicultural dynamic; the rebels are free to make mayhem because of the color of their skin.

In other Ferguson news, rebels used mace on police after blocking traffic.0

That sort of thing CANNOT be allowed to stand; the police must always the upper hand when dealing with mobs. If this is the case the cops need to go to more aggressive tactics. Rubber bullets, salt in shotguns, water hoses. I know they fear the last, since the rebels want the imagery, reminiscent of the civil rights era. I think, given the cool weather, hoses could be shot upward, giving the rioters a nice bracing shower. Let's see them continue to raise hell in soaking wet clothes in 3* temperatures!

Whatever course they choose the police must not allow this kind of tit-for-tat. As Obama said "if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun". The Bible states that the authorities are given "the power of the sword" to "punish evildoers" and they cannot be overwhelmed by such evildoers. These "protesters" are not there because of Mike Brown; he was just a catalyst. They are there because they seek revolution. Many of them are black supremacists, dreaming of a horrible vengence on the white community that they believe represses them. That this "repression" is not at all the fault of the white community but rather their own failings never occurs to them. If they would play by the rules and devote their energy to success in life rather to hatred and rage they would do very well in America. Most immigrants do precisely that.

They would rather loot and raise hell; it's more fun than working.

Booker T. Washington, a man among men, once said;

"Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.

Yet this is lost on the gang in Ferguson. Another point they should ponder from Washington:

"No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem."

A fact lost on the hip-hop generation, who seem to find satisfaction in writing clumbsy, vicious, racist and misogynistic poetry but despise honest labor.

More from Washington:

"I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." and "Character is power."

Martin Luther King understood that last, and his was excellent character which shamed the nation into changing her ways. The rebels in Ferguson are just thugs trying to bully people.

Dr. King would be very disappointed with what his successors have done.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 5 kb.

Defund Amnesty

Timothy Birdnow

I received this e-mail from Senate Conservative Action. Tought it worth sharing; Cuccinelli calls for a provision in the budget explicitly forbidding Obama from using money for amnesty.

Fellow Conservative:

The president just announced his plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.

UrgentWe must stop him!

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to defund the president's executive order, and that's exactly what Congress must do.

Please make an urgent contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more to help us force Congress to take a stand.

Winning this fight requires a well-executed plan that reaches millions of Americans and mobilizes them to make their voices heard.

We also need to be prepared to run hard-hitting ads that shine a light on specific politicians who refuse to listen to we the people.

This goes for Republicans too.

If they refuse to defend the Constitution, their records should be exposed and they should be challenged in their next primary by a true conservative.

Take a stand right now and make a contribution to help us mobilize Americans across the country to stop this unlawful amnesty.


Stop the AmnestyRepublicans in Congress need to include a provision in the upcoming spending bill that prevents the administration from using taxpayer money to carry out this executive order.

It's not unusual for Congress to defund executive actions. Even Democrats like Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) have admitted that it "happens all the time."

Republicans used this strategy to stop the president from closing Guantanamo Bay, and they must use it to stop his unlawful amnesty.

If the president vetoes a government spending bill to protect his unlawful amnesty, it is he – not Congress – who will be responsible for any government shutdown.

Republicans MUST NOT capitulate and allow themselves to be bullied by this lawless president. That's not why Americans voted for them this year.

Will you help us send Congress a message?

Some Republicans will surrender to the president unless they fear a fight with the voters more than they fear a fight with the president.

But if we work together to make our voices heard, we can unite Republicans and put enormous pressure on the Democrats to abandon the president.

Americans just rejected the president's liberal policies in the past election and Democrats who side with him on amnesty do so at their own peril.

Please don't sit this one out. We can't let the president succeed in enacting such a bad policy in such an unlawful way.

Help us put maximum pressure on these politicians by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more right now.

There's no time to waste. We need to respond quickly.

Thank you for your consideration and thank you for supporting the principles of freedom that make this country great.

Ken Cuccinelli II
Ken Cuccinelli II
Senate Conservatives Action

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

November 21, 2014

An Empire, if He can Keep It

Photo courtesy of 9link= in Red.

Timothy Birdnow

His Pissant, er, Puissant Majesty Barack Hussein Soetero Obama has officially claimed the imperium by openly violating the Constitution and his oaf, er oath of office by proclaming amnesty for illegal invaders.

Strange; Mr. Obama has said previously that he did not have the authority to do this, and that he was not an emperor. What does that mean? He now believes he IS an emperor? That is certainly the conclusion one must draw from this. He just crowned himself tyrannus.

Here is his speech, with my editorial commentary:

2:09 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. This morning, Secretary Napolitano announced new actions my administration will take to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just -- specifically for certain young people sometimes called "Dreamers.”

(No, it is NOT a good afternoon. And this isn't "immigration policy" as these are not immigrants but colonists who have invaded the country illegally.)

These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents -- sometimes even as infants -- and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.

(No, they live in largely hispanic neighborhoods, play with other invaders, and dishonor the U.S. flag. The whole problem is that the illegals are not enculturating, and see themselves as displaced Meixcans/Guatamalans/Hondurans etc. And American students at a mixed school were forced to rid themselves of American flag tee shirts after illegal children raise hell about it - and assaulted some of the American kids. What of MecCha Mr. President? They are a separatist Hispanic student group seeking to create Aztlan, a new Hispanic country in the "occupied territories".)

Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’ve done everything right your entire life -- studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class -- only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country that you know nothing about, with a language that you may not even speak.

(Horsepoop. The children of illegals all speak Spanish, or just about. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but their parents knew exactly what they were doing, knew the risks. This is akin to saying we cannot arrest someone because it's tough on the kids.)

That’s what gave rise to the DREAM Act. It says that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here for five years, and you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship. And I have said time and time and time again to Congress that, send me the DREAM Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away.

(Tough luck; people do not have the right to colonize our country and stay here just because they managed to make it in. And you do not have the right to compel Congress to give you legislation you want.)

Now, both parties wrote this legislation. And a year and a half ago, Democrats passed the DREAM Act in the House, but Republicans walked away from it. It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it. The bill hasn’t really changed. The need hasn’t changed. It’s still the right thing to do. The only thing that has changed, apparently, was the politics.

As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans -- they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country -- to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents -- or because of the inaction of politicians.

(This will American citizens go unemployed. This plan will cancel out every job created during your tenure of office.)

In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places. So we prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history -- today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years. We focused and used discretion about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education. And today, deportation of criminals is up 80 percent. We've improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. Well, today, we're improving it again.


That lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is --

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: -- the right thing to do.

Q -- foreigners over American workers.

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, sir. It's not time for questions, sir.

Q No, you have to take questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Not while I'm speaking.

Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act. There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments. And we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic and security needs -- reform that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they'll have. Reform that gives our science and technology sectors certainty that the young people who come here to earn their PhDs won't be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries. Reform that continues to improve our border security, and lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

(A Nation of Laws? Huh? He's breaking it in a monumental way and he dares speak of laws!!!)

Just six years ago, the unlikely trio of John McCain, Ted Kennedy and President Bush came together to champion this kind of reform. And I was proud to join 23 Republicans in voting for it. So there’s no reason that we can’t come together and get this done.

And as long as I’m President, I will not give up on this issue, not only because it’s the right thing to do for our economy -- and CEOs agree with me -- not just because it’s the right thing to do for our security, but because it’s the right thing to do, period. And I believe that, eventually, enough Republicans in Congress will come around to that view as well.

And I believe that it’s the right thing to do because I’ve been with groups of young people who work so hard and speak with so much heart about what’s best in America, even though I knew some of them must have lived under the fear of deportation. I know some have come forward, at great risks to themselves and their futures, in hopes it would spur the rest of us to live up to our own most cherished values. And I’ve seen the stories of Americans in schools and churches and communities across the country who stood up for them and rallied behind them, and pushed us to give them a better path and freedom from fear --because we are a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids.

And the answer to your question, sir -- and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question -- is this is the right thing to do for the American people --

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.

Q I'd like to --

THE PRESIDENT: It is the right thing to do --

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: -- for the American people. And here’s why --

Q -- unemployment --

THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the reason: because these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions, and are already making contributions to our society.

(The President's oath is not to "do the right thing" as he sees it but to uphold the law.)

I’ve got a young person who is serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom. The notion that in some ways we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. If there is a young person here who has grown up here and wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that’s the right thing to do. Giving certainty to our farmers and our ranchers; making sure that in addition to border security, we’re creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration -- these are all the right things to do.

We have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants, as well as a nation of laws, and that’s going to continue. And my hope is that Congress recognizes that and gets behind this effort.

All right. Thank you very much.

Q What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?

2:17 P.M. EDT

America has become an Empire with this. All hail Barack I!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1582 words, total size 11 kb.

Ebola Comes to Missouri?

Possible Ebola case in Jefferson County, Mo.

Timothy Birdnow

Missouri may have seen its first case of Ebola.

KPLR News reports that the nurse, who just returned from Liberia, broke with a fever and backache - classic signs of an Ebola infection, but preliminary reports say she is not infected.

She is being treated at Mercy Hospital in Crysal City. Jefferson County is the county immediately south of St. Louis County.

Why don't I believe we are getting the truth?

There are reasons to believe the government is lying to us about this Ebola outbreak; rumors are swirling that there is an ongoing government coverup to avoid panic, and well, this from the Examiner:

"According to Dr. Lawrenzi, his suspicions first arose shortly after news broke that Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian visiting family in Dallas, Texas, was diagnosed with the deadly disease in September of 2014. Lawrenzi claims that he was told by a doctor at Truman Lakewood Medical Center in Kansas City that the hospital was also treating a patient with Ebola like symptoms who was demonstrating a high fever and was bleeding profusely from multiple orifices after having recently returned from West Africa. The following day, claims Lawrenzi, the same doctor told him that the patient had "disappeared" but that it was highly unlikely that the patient could have left of his own accord giving his grave medical condition.

Another patient displaying classic Ebola like symptoms was then admitted to Kansas City's Research Medical Center the following day but also quickly "disappeared,” said Lawrenzi. Neither patient has ever been found.

"These patients are disappearing, they’re doing something with the patients and God knows where they’re going,” the doctor said.

Lawrenzi said he did not know why the federal government would be intentionally trying to hide the number of patients infected with Ebola, or where they may be taking the infected patients to. but speculated that the cover up may be being carried out by the Centers for Disease Control as a means of preventing panic. "They’re preparing for something,” the doctor added, conjecturing that the illness may be used by the Obama administration as a means of implementing a medically induced "martial law".

The doctor's suspicions were validated, he said, when health officials told workers at his own health clinics that they were not to use the term "Ebola" when dealing with the public.

Dr. Lawrenzi's claims mesh with reports published by the New York Post, who recently broke the story that New York City's 911 operators have been banned from using the term "Ebola" over public radios. According to the Post's report, a NYFD memo dictates that all employees refrain from using the word effective immediately. "At no point shall a dispatcher transmit over the radio any message containing the word ‘Ebola’ or related terminology,” said the memo. Instead dispatchers have been told to use the code letters "F/T,” as in Fever/Travel, to communicate that a person for which 911 has been called is demonstrating a fever and has a history of travel to West Africa."

End excerpt.

And let us not forget the nurse who died suddenly in a New York City hair salon; authorities said it was caused by a heart attack, although witnesses said she was bleeding from her eyes, nose, and mouth. She had been on the Ebola watch list, but authorities assure us it was not Ebola (even though a heart attack can well be caused by clots thrown by Ebola in the blood stream.)

Given the secrecy of this Administration, their obvious contempt for the intelligence of the American People and willingness to deceive the public in medical matters (such as Obamacare) one must ask if we are being given the truth from them about Ebola. Certainly Mr. Obama can ill-afford to jeapordize the executive amnesty he just illegally granted invaders last night with fears of foreign diseases. And those diseases are pouring in with the colonists; tuberculosis, swine flu, dengue, enterovirus, as well as old forgotten things like measles, scabies, lice, and a host of others. Obama does worse than nothing; he invites more people in. But in the Progressive worldview we have lived too well for too long and deserve to take our mumps - and our medicine.

Ebola, a horrifying illness, could change all that, turn the public against his open border policy. Ebola must be hidden, at least for now.

I wonder about this possible Ebola case in Jefferson County; how many people has she been in contact with since developing that fever?

Red Cross official tells Beijing meeting 6 months to contain Ebola

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 754 words, total size 8 kb.

November 20, 2014

Still Making Things Up at the New Republic

Timothy Birdnow

Does anyone remember the name Stephen Glass? Glass was a former writer at the New Republic caught faking stories back in the late '90's. Forbes Online discovered that Glass had faked a story about hackers, and once that came out it became clear that virtually nothing the man wrote was true; 31 of his 42 NR stories were shown to be fraudulent. The New Republic fired Glass as a result - and the State of California denied him a licence to practice law for his lack of ethics. (Why? He would have made an outstanding trial lawyer with such ethics.)

Glass joined such luminaries as Jayson Blair of the New York Times, who was caught lying in more than 35 of his articles.

But the firing of Glass was not the end of the lies coming out of the New Republic. Here is just the latest

From the dishonest desk of Brian Beutler:

"By contrast, the right’s bid for control over the narrative is based on mythos and false piety and, now, the idea that the law itself lacks legitimacy. The challengers’ claims about the ACA’s meaning and intent are fabrications. Their appeals to humility are unctuous. And the law itself was hotly debated, passed by wide margins, signed, upheld by the Supreme Court, and ratified once again in a presidential election. It’s also working as intended. If Congress held every significant bill to the standards of openness that it applied to Obamacare, it would amount to a massive, massive increase in legislative transparency. That’s incontestable. And it makes the law as legitimate as laws get."

End excerpt.

This may as well be Stephen Glass writing these words; Congress barely passed the Affordable Care Act, and on a strict party-line votes. It passed 220 to 215 in the House and was passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve. It was passed illegally, too; the Senate took the House version and substituted their own bill, keeping the name only, then passed that. The House should have killed it by issuing what is known as a blue slip, killing the Senate version (since the House never actually voted on that bill) but Nancy Pelosi slammed the door shut on that. Bear in mind, all revenue bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare did not do that. Harry Reid originated the bill by substituting his own version then having the Senate vote. The House members never voted on this particular bill.

Andrew McCarthy explains:

"Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.

Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a "bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not."

End excerpt.

Which also puts the lie to Beutler's claim of transparency; Obama's people claimed this was a regulatory act, something authorized by the authority of Congress to promote the general welfare and was not a tax increase. Yet, when facing the Supreme Court, they said it was a tax, meaning that it should have been struck down by SCOTUS since it was a revenue bill and did not originate in the House of Representatives.

So much for transparency. So much for passing by a wide margin. It NEVER PASSED AT ALL in the House.

Beutler continues:

"Whatever the law’s supporters and authors claim about the intent and meaning of the statute, the right no longer needs a fact-based response. They can instead deny the existence of a basic truth about the law because as Gruber suggests, the law was designed to hide the truth about itself. The scheme to compel states to set up their own exchanges was just another crude mechanism hidden within the text—and when it failed, the Obama administration pretended it never existed. "

End excerpt.

Who is ignoring a fact-based response? There is nothing but fact here. The fact is the text of the law states unequivocally that the states, and the states alone, could set up the exchanges. Period. That is why so many states banned the exchanges in the first place (my home state of Missouri did, for example.) Without the exchanges there was no Obamacare. Yet Mr. Obama simply altered the law to suit himself. Beutler is engaged in as large a flight of fancy as Glass in Hacker Heaven.

Apparently Beutler doesn't remember the Cornhusker Kickback, or the Louisiana Purchase; Obama had to buy the votes of fence straddling Democrats to get this thing passed.

Beutler continues:

"to explain away a hugely controversial ruling.

That doesn’t mean the Court will reach that ruling. And it doesn’t mean the right alone is working the refs ahead of this case. But the claims the law’s supporters make about King—that it’s flimsy, that it’s a naked solicitation of judicial activism, that the stakes include the lives of people who have made irreversible treatment decisions based on a shared belief that their benefits were durable—are all true. For the most critical patients, the proposed bait and switch is akin to granting public land to worthy recipients without telling them the water supply's been poisoned."

End excerpt.

Judicial activism? When has that bothered a liberal like Beutler? And how is it activism for the court to strike down a law passed illegally and illegally modified when it did not comport with the President? Presidents do not have the right to change laws; only Congress can do that. They are Executives, the guys who implement and uphold the laws passed by Congress. Beutler seems mystified by this concept.

And he's making the appeal we knew was coming; this is a fait-accompli, move along! This is exactly what was said when Bill Clinton was impeached; his staunchest defender on the internet was actually named Move On, and they are still a major force in the Progressive blogosphere. The Left is ever gleeful to break down long-standing traditions but rage when someone tries to roll back their novelties.

If Beutler doesn't like that, then he and his chums should stop pressing for gay marriage, for transgendered bathrooms, for forcing the catholic Church to pay for birth control, any of these. Note that we never hear that this is established law and should be upheld.

Obamacare is helping few at the expense of the many, and Beutler has to know this. I myself lost my insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and the Obamacare insurance is substandard, to say the least. I will probably lose THAT as well, and my health is poor. But I want to lose it, because I do not matter as much as the nation. I'll find a way to pay for my healthcare needs - the nation will ultimately crash from this.

They may call themselves new, but the New Republic is the same old tired liberal lies. Stephen Glass was a piker at this rag.

Hat tip: Jammie Wearing Fools

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1367 words, total size 9 kb.

The Bright Side to Amnesty

By Selwyn Duke

To many, the above title may seem much like speaking of the bright side to malignant cancer. And did it really come out of this writer’s pen? Long a staunch immigration critic, I’ve written many articles on the subject; Pat Buchanan used one of my lines in his book Death of the West; and Congressman John Conyers quoted me in the House on May 16, 2007,  HYPERLINK "" saying, "onservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned, ‘eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West.’” (Conyers wasn’t exactly in agreement.) And, no, it’s not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or, worse yet, that I’ve become a liberal. I inveigh against all immigration still. I still oppose amnesty in all forms and under all guises. Nonetheless, the latter would have, perhaps, a small bright side.

This cannot be understood without grasping that illegal migration is not the problem.
It is an exacerbation of the problem.

What does this mean? Aren’t the only problems posed by migration ones unique to the illegal variety, such as an uncontrolled entry into our country that can allow diseases, terrorists and WMDs to cross our borders?
The real problem — the only one that really matters over the long term — is that we are importing socialist-oriented voters with mindsets contrary to Western ideals. This is because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA65), which created a situation wherein 85 percent of our new immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. Moreover, the legislation has led to an increase in overall immigration from a historic average of 250,000 a year to approximately 1,000,000.

If you’re Obama and his fellow travelers and believe in "fundamentally” changing America, you love this because, upon being naturalized, approximately 80 percent of these newcomers will vote for you. You know Republicans get close to 90 percent of their votes from whites, so the formula for ideological conquest is simple: reduce the percentage of whites in America as much and as fast as possible. And INA65 certainly fits that bill. Non-Hispanic whites were close to 90 percent of the population in 1965.
Now they’re just under 63 percent.

And California is the model for the leftist hegemony in question. Once a solidly Republican state that launched Ronald Reagan to national prominence, it would not be carried by him in a presidential election today. The last time the state went Republican was 1988, when George H.W. Bush edged Michael Dukakis by four points. Since then no Democrat has carried the state by less than a double-digit margin; the best showing the GOP had was when it held Lurch-like John Kerry to 10 points. Obama won the state by 24 points in 2008 and 23 points in ’12. And in this year’s Republican wave election, it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP  HYPERLINK "" denied the Democrats supermajorities in CA’s legislative chambers.
Oh, did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?

And here’s the reality:

Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically, it will look like it politically.
This isn’t to say Republicans would disappear. They’d reinvent themselves as parties and politicians do, winning some elections by moving, to use our provisional terminology, "left.” It also must be mentioned that immigration isn’t the only factor in our decline; the media, academia and entertainment arena do a superb job fashioning leftist foot soldiers. And we should also note that with a world generally to the "left” of the US, it’s hard to imagine where we could find traditionalist immigrants; importing socialist Swedes, Germans and French is problematic as well. (A notable difference, however, is that while the latter assimilate into our more conservative white population, Hispanics often operate within America’s Hispanic milieu, which reinforces their socialist beliefs.)

Yet this is simply another reason why I adamantly oppose all (im)migration. When Ben Franklin famously answered the question of whether the 1787 Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy by saying "A republic, if you can keep it,” there would have been no "ifs” about it if our nation had comprised mainly monarchical Englishmen. So the message here is simply a statement of the obvious: foreigners cannot be relied upon to preserve authentic Americanism because they’re not American. Full stop.

This is especially true when they harbor deep-seated un-American ideologies, hail from non-Western cultures and enter a multiculturalism-infected land that tells them "When in Rome…feel free to do as Ostrogoths would do.”

Despite this, most conservatives don’t get it. Imbued with what I’ve termed " HYPERLINK "" immigrationism” and Proposition Nation pap, they’re very diligent about conserving the Immigration and Nationality Act status quo. An example that will shock many is Senator Ted Cruz, who last year  HYPERLINK "" proposed not only increasing the number of "high-skilled temporary workers fivefold” — as if there aren’t high-skilled Americans looking for jobs — but, unbelievably, also the doubling of legal immigration (the relevant portion of the  HYPERLINK "" video starts at 3:27).

Given that Cruz seems like a good man, I’ll just assume he’s out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But let’s be clear: if you had to pick your poison and choose just one culture-rending policy, a giant amnesty one year would be preferable to a giant legal-immigration increase applicable every year.

So what’s the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs can’t sense incremental temperature changes, a very low flame under that pan may mean the creature will remain fixed in his position until he boils to death. In contrast, turn the burner up high enough and he’ll jump out and save himself.

Along with our many other problems, "Americans” (insofar as they still exist) are enduring the slow boil of cultural and demographic genocide. And executive amnesty, as with other kinds of leftist overreach, just may serve to turn that flame up high and rouse people from their torpor.
Yet this is the dimmest of bright sides, a 1-in-50 shot whose mention is mainly valuable in service to a larger point: we do need fundamental change. We need a revolution of mind, heart and spirit in which we return to our Christian foundation and dispense with moral relativism and all its corollaries — of which cultural relativism is one. Related to this, John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….

The "American experiment” was never meant to be one in which we could learn if, for the first time in history, a nation could intensely balkanize itself and — by rebranding it "diversity” — survive.

I do not believe the US will survive long in its present form. And when chroniclers finally write The Rise and Fall of the American Republic, they may record that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was the most destructive legislation in her history, a turning point from which there was no turning back.

HYPERLINK "" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK ""

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1275 words, total size 9 kb.

Impeach Obama

Joseph Dalton Leatherwood

The purpose of Congress is to oust a lawless president; it is their duty because such action is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system.

Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter.

...short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty.

...(a) impeachment is not a criminal-law process but a political one; (b) ... the constitutional problem was not Obama’s policies ... but his unconstitutional manner of imposing them, with which everyone should disagree; and (c) ... the goal of highlighting presidential lawlessness should not be to impeach the president but to revive impeachment as the credible threat that the Framers intended it to be — the idea is to try to bend Obama into honoring his oath to execute the laws faithfully, such that the political case for impeachment would become viable but resorted to only if Obama remained defiant.

... the best thing for the country would be for Obama to finish his term as a law-abiding president but that the country would be endangered if he chose to remain obstinately lawless — something that could not be ignored without grave consequences.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

November 19, 2014

Hal Rogers Trick to Let Obama do Amnesty

Timothy Birdnow

Some conservatives are getting on-board with the GOP's House Appropriations boss hog, Hal Rogers, who is proposing passing an omnibus spending bill and then, after the new Congress settles in, rescinding funding for agencies designed to implement Obama's executive amnesty.

In other words, give him what he wants now and take it back.

Quinn Hillyer demolishes this sophistry at The Corner.

From the article:

"Several reports are emerging that appropriations chairman Hal Rogers and others are floating the possibility of passing a clean omnibus appropriations bill now and then later "rescinding” the funds that could be used by Obama to implement his amnesty plans. This is sheer and utter nonsense. Balderdash. Tommyrot. And Rogers darn well knows it. Whereas withholding funds for a particular purpose in a larger approps bill at least in theory puts the onus on the president to decide whether it’s worth vetoing the whole bill in order to save the one part, rescissions do just the opposite — and they play entirely into the president’s hands.

In a rescission, Congress is trying to withdraw funds that already have been signed into law. All it takes to block the rescission is a presidential veto — which, it must be noted, is an easy call for him. Absent some pressing motive, his easy answer is to veto it in two seconds flat. After all, he would no longer be needing to choose between that program and all the others in the bill; instead, he would already have his program in hand — so why should he sign the bill taking away what he already has?

It’s sheer lunacy.

What’s astonishing is that some members seen not to understand this basic, obvious, simple fact of lawmaking."

End excerpt.

Hillyer points out that, yes, the GOP pushed this off on Bill Clinton in the '90's, but only because Clinton was in such political trouble that he had no choice but to sign the recscission.

A President MUST sign the rescission or be overriden; Rogers is lying when he says the bill does not require the Prez signiature.

The Heritage Foundation agrees.

This is really idiotic; it means giving Obama the money to fund amnesty and then trying to take it away after the fact. A fait-accompli is always extremely difficult to overturn, especially in politics. This is like trying to get the money back after a bank has been robbed.

Rogers is a staunch amnesty advocate. His donors also stand to make an enormous profit from amnesty.

And why must we have an omnibus spending bill? Why should Congress hand over their power of the purse, when the Democrats relied on continuing resolutions?

This thing stinks.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 4 kb.

Fishy Cosby Rape Story

Jack Kemp

Websites have speculated that the Cosby rape stories are liberal payback for his "learn the language and get a job" remarks. This woman's accusation reinforces that opinion. Cosby was already a big star (a deep pockets easy target if it were true) and feminism was a significant force when she claims this happened.

Here's her quote from the NY Post, followed by my questions:

The former "America’s Next Top Model” judge is the latest woman to come forward with allegations of being attacked by Cosby years ago.
Dickinson told "Entertainment Tonight”Tuesday she was summoned by Cosby to Lake Tahoe to discuss a role on "The Cosby Show” and so he could advise her on "a singing career.”

But the meeting took a disturbing turn, she claims, after the comic legend offered her a glass of wine and a pill. "The next morning I woke up, and I wasn’t wearing my pajamas,” she told "ET.”


Do you know any woman, particularly a beautiful model, who would unskeptically take an offer of a pill from some guy she just met? Most of the real stories of date rape drugs involve the pill being dissolved into a drink and the woman not knowing about it beforehand. Here is a woman saying that she KNOWINGLY took this date rape drug pill. Either that she is assuming she was slipped a drug without going to a hospital the next day to have her blood contents tested - so she had and has no proof now. She mentioned she was going through drug detox at the time, so how does she know THAT didn't make her sleepy? If there were any truth to this, since Cosby was then a wealthy man, she could have gone to a hospital to get her blood tested and later sued him.

The model says they had dinner in her room. What woman would invite a millionaire to her room to discuss business. Couldn't she had suggested that Cosby buy her lunch or a cup of coffee in a public place? What exactly did she think was the message she was sending by inviting him to her room (her words on "Entertainment Tonight")? This story has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

As is, the model's story could be entirely made up. But for the sake of argument let's briefly assume it has some truth. Can you imagine her on a witness stand? What's her defense when cross examined? From the linked-to Entertainment Tonight story, it states:

"Dickinson says they had dinner in Lake Tahoe, and claims that he gave her a glass of red wine and a pill, which she asked for because she was menstruating and had stomach pains."


Some story. Did she now think that Cosby was, in fact, REALLY Dr. Huxtable - a character he played on tv - and carried pills on him to relieve menstrual cramps? If she asked him to take a pill out of her purse, wouldn't she recognize a pill different from the ones prescribed to her? Or was she claiming Cosby carried various shape and size rape drug pills on him in case some woman would ask him for a pill? You've heard of the "Reasonable Man Defense" in law. How about the "Reasonable Woman" argument used BY Cosby AGAINST her? Do you know any 21 year old - your sister or cousin at that age, for example - who would just trust some strange man to gave them an unknown pill? No wonder this accusation never went to trail. Even Gloria Allred didn't take this case decades ago. This case is thinner than the dubious accusations against Herman Cain. This story has legs as a rumor for the "Dumb and Dumber" crowd, but it has no basis as a court case.

To quote Justice Clarence Thomas, this is a high tech lynching.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 5 kb.

Senate Rejects Bill to Rein in NSA Surveillance

Timothy Birdnow

After a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate, the USA Freedom Act went down in flames.

This act was intended to curb the abuses of the intelligence community, particularly to end the PRISM metadata collection practices of the NSA. The vote on this bill went largely along party lines, with just a few Republicans supporting it. (Sen. Ted Cruz was one.) Here is the roll call vote.

Our Progressive friends at Communist, er, Common Dreams have made much hay over this, and yet they conveniently ignore the fact that this bill originated in the House of Representatives, a body controlled by the GOP. Its author was James Sensebrenner, the author of the Patriot Act. This is hardly a Republican plot to subvert the Constitution.

Many of the original supporters of the act bailed on it after the Democrats got through amending it. One of the major amendments to this bill was to not end the collection of data but to shift it from the government to a mandate placed on the service providers. This would have greatly increased costs to consumers.

Another amendment made it possible for the NSA and other agencies to collect data on "reasonable articulable suspicion" set before a judge, meaning that if they want it they can get it - up to two degrees of seperation, meaning they can tap someone who has been speaking to someone who has been speaking to a suspicious character.

The House bill was highly criticized by the Senate Democrats, and Patrick Leahy offered his own bill. The Democrats certainly had a point; the bill did little to end mass surveillance.

Here is the bill that was just defeated.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Russia and the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

Vashakmadze 01
Image courtesy of Democracy and Freedom Watch.

Timothy Birdnow

The Russian foreign minister is warning Western countries that they may take action to stop the trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to the Ukraine.

From Itar-Tass:

"The project of delivering Turkmen natural gas to Ukraine falls into the category of economic undertakings that affect Russia’s interests, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.
© ITAR-TASS/Mikhail Metzel

Real breakthrough reached at 4th Caspian summit — Putin

"We proceed from the fact that each country has the right to choose economic partners, given the understanding that this process does not violate the legitimate interests of its neighbors,” the foreign minister said in the lower house of Russia’s parliament.

"The project of the trans-Caspian gas pipeline falls into the category of projects that affect the interests of the countries that do not participate in the talks on its creation,” Lavrov said."

End excerpt.

Given that Vladimir Putin has already attacked a sovereign nation over a natural gas and oil pipelines (Georgia) and has been willing to invade the eastern part of Ukraine, one wonders what action is hinted at here?

Russia's propsperity is tied to it's production of oil and gas, and dominating the flow of oil and gas to the West has been the cornerstone of Russian geopolitical strategy. Fracking is catastrophic from the Russian perspective as is any new source of energy that bipasses Russia or her allies. It CANNOT be permitted. They can't stop Fracking in the U.S. except through diplomacy (which means they will support and likely even finance opposition to it on environmental grounds) but they can stop a pipeline running along their southern border.

Keep an eye on this; it could become a major issue in the near future.

Turkmenistan has one of the richest gas reserves in the world, but has trouble getting that gas to viable markets. China is too far, India and Pakistan require a pipeline throught the Himalayas, through a war-torn region. Their only option is to get it to Turkey and Europe, and the Russians are adamant this not occur.

This from the center for energy economics:;_ylu=X3oDMTEzMThkOG9kBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwNF8x/RV=2/RE=1416431993/RO=10/

The Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP) project was initiated in 1997. It is a 750-mile
pipeline system that was planned to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to markets in
Turkey at first and Europe eventually. It was planned to be developed by a consortium of
Amoco and a new pipeline joint venture owned by affiliates of GE Capital and Bechtel
Enterprises (PSG), and later joined by Shell. The estimated cost of developing the pipelines
was around $2.4 billion and the term of construction was 3 years. The TCGP was to include
engineering, design, procurement and construction of a gas pipeline from Western
Turkmenistan, going across the Caspian Sea and ending at a point near Baku in Azerbaijan.
It will then continue across Azerbaijan and Georgia to Erzurum in Turkey, where it will be
linked into the principal Turkish gas transportation grid, a route similar to that of the Baku-
Ceyhan oil pipeline into northeastern Turkey. The planned capacity was to be 30 billion
cubic feet (840 million cubic meters) a year. The legal grounds for the project were laid
down by a Framework Declaration signed by the presidents of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey in November 1999. The Declaration was also signed as a witness by
U.S. President Bill Clinton to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to support the pipeline
construction. Working with BOTAŞ, the Turkish national pipeline company, Bechtel has
completed technical and economic feasibility studies for the project.

Russia and Iran opposed the TCGP for the same reason – building the pipeline would divert
Turkmenistan from using their pipelines systems, thus the dependence will be decreased.
Turkey favored this pipeline just as much as any other pipeline that could be built sooner
and could start transmission of gas to its market.

End excerpt.

Russia went to war against Georgia before. How long wil they tolerate this attempt to bipass them?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 5 kb.

Stl. Mayor Slay Surrenders to Rioter Demands over Ferguson

Ferguson Protesters Give Police List of Pre-Riot Demands | The ...
Timothy Birdnow

According to the Gateway Pundit, the Hon. Francis Slay, Mayor of St. Louis and the man who flipped the Missouri Constitution and the Missouri People the bird by authorizing the marriage of homosexuals in the city despite a Constitutional ban, has surrendered to the demands of the mob of Street Thugs for Vengence for Michael Brown.

According to Jim Hoft:!

"Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 7:56 PM

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay released a letter tonight regarding preparations for the grand jury decision in St. Louis County.

Mayor Slay's letter to aldermanic Public Safety Committee re preparations for grand jury decision in St. Louis

— Chris King (@chriskingstl) November 18, 2014


Mayor Slay was happy to announce that local police agreed to half of the proposed rules put forth by the protesters.

The Mayor also said local police would honor safe houses and will consider churches to be sanctuaries.

End excerpt.

Here are those "rules":

1. A swift and impartial investigation by the Department of Justice into the Mike Brown shooting, and expanded DOJ investigation into civil rights violations across North St. Louis County.
2. The immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson
3. County prosecutor Bob McCulloch to stand down and allow special prosecutor to be appointed.
4. The firing of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
5. Accountability for police practices and policies, including effective civilian review of shootings and allegations of misconduct.
6. The immediate de-escalation of militarized policing of protestors to protect constitutional rights.
7. The immediate release of individuals who have been arrested while attending a protest.

The fastest way to energize a revolutionary movement - or a riot - is to cave to demands under pressure. Slay shows he is beyond ignorant by trying to give these people what they want. Didn't he ever read about Hitler?

Safe houses and church sanctuaries are breaking the law, and to make this promise as does our dear Mayor is to encourage further lawbreaking. I ask, wouuld I be given sanctuary if I burned a bag of dog poop on the Mayor's lawn? Somehow I doubt he'd accept my claim to sanctuary, and yet he will offer it to rioters.

It's time for a challenge to our good Mayor here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 5 kb.

November 18, 2014

Refutation of Global Warming

Wil Wirtanen forwards this outstanding refutation of Global Warming:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

High Legal Immigration Makes Second Class Citizens of Native Born Americans

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in American Thinker Thomas Lifson argues for streamlined legal immigration.

Mr. Lifson argues:

"In this position, I differ from the views of my colleague Selwyn Duke, whose article today argues that immigration weakens the United States, and despairs of the problems inherent to the Nationality Act of 1965, as if no fundamental restructuring along the lines currently followed by Canada and Australia is conceivable. Those two Anglosphere siblings of the United States give preferences to educated and prosperous immigrants who can add value to their economies, and are the most receptive to immigration among Western nations precisely because they are benefiting from the immigrants they let in.

A member of Congress recently told a group I was in that he spoke with an official in the Canadian embassy who only half-jokingly pleaded with him to not allow the United States to change its immigration policy, because if we did something rational along Canada’s lines, we would lure away the sort of immigrants Canadians so powerfully benefit from. The United States is unquestionably the most attractive nation for strivers to seek to enter. While both Canada and Australia are fine places with wonderful people, neither offers the scope and variety that America can offer.

A cursory look at the Silicon Valley workforce makes the point that highly educated immigrants are vital to the success of the high tech sector that currently powers America’s economy. Those who claim that jobs are merely being taken away from qualified American tech workers by low-paid temporary workers are mistaken. A study fifteen years ago found that one quarter of the firms in the Silicon Valley area were run by CEOs of Chinese or Indian origin, and the portion today likely is even higher.

There is a phenomenon that has proven a serious harm to many of the countries of Western Europe and to Japan: what some people call the "rich country disease.” Children who grow up in affluence, or who are raised with a sense of entitlement, tend to lose their edge, their energy, and their aggressive pursuit of success in dismaying numbers. Social welfare programs only aggravate this problem.

Immigrants who come here for the opportunity we offer suffer from no such ailment, and they provide a bracing dose of competition for Americans who might be tempted to slack off."

End excerpt.

I beg to differ. My own life experiences contradict this claim.

I started college in 1983 at St. Louis University, not an ivy league school by any stretch but a solid Jesuit-run institution with a solid pedigree. Not sure of what I wanted to do I drifted into the history program (I took enough courses simply out of interest and decided it was worth majoring in) and in the Russian Program. It occured to me that, given the Cold War, a guy who knew Russian history and who had at least an ability to read the language would be highly desirable in the job market at that time. I majored in history and received a certificate in Russian Scientific Translation, and was just short of getting a double major with an Eastern Area Studies certificate (I needed a course in the philosophy of Marxism and Leninism, but the professor went on sabbatical and I didn't want to re-enroll just for that one class.) I graduated with what should have been a very marketable degree.

But history was not on my side; where in 1983 Ronald Reagan was building up our military in response to the Soviets, and the Cold War was as hot as it ever had been by 1987 the U.S. was at the point of victory. The U.S.S.R. had been around since 1917 and it chose to collapse right when I got out of school.

That was my classic luck.

So here I was, a young man with a degree that offered little promise. I began sending out resumes, hoping to find some sort of a job.

It never happened. I worked for years in dead-end jobs at nominal wages; grocery store clerk, bill collector, bread truck driver. I finally was hired to work for a property management company, a small family affair who hired me because, while I was overqualified, I was also willing to work for the pay they offered. They were looking for someone with a brain, at any rate.

But what galled me through the years was the fact that I rarely got a second look from most employers of any note; they were more interested in women, in minorities, in immigrants. A white man with a more classically-oriented education and a somewhat obscure linguistics training was not worthy of a rejection letter, much less an interview.

I wasn't alone in this; my brother Brian pursued his Ph.D. in American history, and he hoped to be a professor - something he was born to do. He had considerable teaching experience and was given superlative marks by his students. He has written several books. But he cannot get past adjunct, because he teaches AMERICAN history and academia wants feminist studies or lesbian follklore or some other such imbecilic nonsense. After years of pursuing the chimera of academia, Brian remains a field hand in the scholastic plantation, ever laboring to just survive despite being far more qualified than the people who wind up getting the jobs he applies to fill. Many of the winners are immigrants.

So no, I do not think it necessary to go outside of the American People to find willing and capable employees.

There's a reason why a quarter of the firms in Silicone Valley are run by Chinese or Indians, and that is the same reason why Silicon Valley is a huge supporter of the Democrats and the welfare state. The two are interlinked.

There is a bias against American workers in this country, and it is compounded by an unwillingness on the part of corporate America to train people for the top jobs. They want to hire someone who already knows how to do the job, someone who will just walk in and take over. This is understandable but it is ultimately not in America's interest nor in the interest of the company; what happens when the Chinese boss leaves (and possibly steals secrets in the process?) American firms aren't building a bench, prefering to simply import help as a quick and easy solution. But is a company served by hiring a competent manager to supervise incompetent underlings? Is it not better to train people who can step in whenever the need may arise?

This mindset has come about because of political correctness. Companies know they will have to hire and promote incompetents because of race or sex or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, and they don't want to be in a position where they have to promote some guy who is well above his competency level even higher. So they make a practice of hiring the top management from outside, the further the better, and thus create a ceiling that stops the affirmative action hires from getting into a position where they can do real harm. Of course, this means that for people such as myself or my brother competent people can never get their foot in the door to begin with.

And this internationalizing of corporations means they lose their "American" character, become more concerned with profits and with their world citizenship than with the country that created and fostered them. America becomes, well, a liability to a company run by foreigners. If the chance comes to move out of the U.S. to a better deal they will take it, where an American CEO may think twice because he would be leaving the homeland.

Bringing in skilled foreigners may seem like a good idea, but in the end it hurts America, makes us second-class citizens in our own country.

America is full, no vacancy. How many people are we going to bring in? When a motel has rented all it's rooms it turns on the no vacancy sign. America, on the other hand, keeps making people double up.

There is a point where cheap foreign labor, be it high tech or picking grapes, becomes a liability. We have passed that point.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1387 words, total size 8 kb.

Ultimate Schadenfreude: Democrat is Twice Bitten, Not Shy

By Selwyn Duke

There’s stupid. There’s really stupid. There’s really, really stupid.
Then there’s Democrat stupid.

A prime example is a Friday Wall Street Journal article titled "This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare.” It’s  HYPERLINK "" penned by one Burke Beu, someone I describe as "ethnically Democrat,” as he says "I grew up in a Democratic family. I have been a registered Democrat since age 18.” He also tells us, " a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Colorado and a party precinct captain in that caucus state. I’ve volunteered for numerous Democratic candidates and contributed to party causes and campaigns. The 2014 election results were extremely disappointing for me….”

And, of course, Mr. Beu has soured on ObamaCare. In fact, he wants it repealed. All good so far. Except that he doesn’t have any explicitly harsh words for Obama, hasn’t given up on his party, wants a single-payer system and seems to believe Hillary Clinton is the solution in 2016. (Note: In fairness, Clinton is different from Obama — she has two X chromosomes.) But here are the money lines:
I voted for  HYPERLINK "" Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession. I was lucky; my brother lost his job and his house. I survived on part-time jobs while paying out-of-pocket for my health insurance.

I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance. This was due to ObamaCare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. However, I couldn’t afford anything else.
Does this guy wear a "Kick me” sign?

He wears a "Kick me harder” sign.

There’s a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” What do you say about a guy whose life consists of being fooled?

Beu believes Medicare should be "a model for health-care reform” and says "We Democrats need to get over ourselves, start anew on a national health-care policy, and return to our progressive principles.”
Actually, sir, you need to get over your party.
First, "progressive principles” is an oxymoron; liberals don’t have principles, but provisional positions. This is because they’re governed by emotion, which changes with the wind. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” No, I won’t explain that, Mr. Beu. You figure it out.

Beu also mentions the "stupidity of the American voter” remark by ObamaCare designer Jonathan Gruber, taking umbrage and saying "Such comments…are insults to every citizen regardless of party.” So Goober is offended by Gruber.

And Beu is one of those very "useful” people. He doesn’t get that elitist snobbery and superciliousness define the left. Just think of the revelations about socialist French president François Hollande, who is "a cold, cynical cheat and a Socialist who ‘doesn’t like the poor,’”  HYPERLINK "" writes National Post about insights provided by the leftist’s ex-girlfriend Valérie Trierweiler. "He presents himself as the man who doesn’t like the rich. In reality, the president doesn’t like the poor” and in private calls them "the toothless ones,” reports Trierweiler. Oh, too anecdotal? "Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned”? Then read the 2008  HYPERLINK "" \l "ixzz3J0qLYU00" piece "Don't listen to the liberals — Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” It relates what some of us without "Kick me” signs figured out for ourselves long ago.

Beu also says, when pointing out that Democrats need to exhibit humility and admit error on ObamaCare, "We resent Republicans who act morally superior and pretend to have a monopoly on patriotism, but….”
It’s not pretense, Bucko. As  HYPERLINK "" this Pew poll from this summer shows, while 72 percent of "steadfast conservatives” and 81 percent of "business conservatives” "often feel proud to be American,” only 40 percent of "solid liberals” do. That, Mr. Beu, is by liberals’ own admission. (Pew also has a category in the poll called "Faith and Family Left.” I’ve never heard of such a thing — unless it refers to faith in government and the family of the person the liberal is cheating on his spouse with.)

Note also that when liberals and conservatives don’t feel proud to be American, it’s for very different reasons. Liberals don’t like what America was, was meant to be, and what they often imagine it to be ("We’re so Puritan!”); conservatives don’t like the cesspool the liberals are turning it into.

I know schadenfreude isn’t a feeling reflective of a charitable spirit, but the best I can say about the Beus of the world is that they need tough love. Mr. Beu reminds me of a guy who’s being held by the back of the neck, is being repeatedly and violently kicked, and complains about how something needs to be done about the foot. Tend to the foot. Regulate the foot. Repeal the foot.
Mr. Beu, that foot happens to be attached to a man, a being with intellect and free will. And he is not your friend.

 HYPERLINK "" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK ""

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 6 kb.

EPA’s next regulatory tsunami

Paul Driessen

President Obama and his EPA appear to be thoroughly un-chastened by the midterm elections – and more determined than ever to impose their executive and regulatory agendas, from immigration to climate change and ozone. As my article points out, the much lower ground-level ozone standards that EPA is about to propose could cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020, for what many experts say would be no measurable health benefits … and many adverse health effects.

Just as bad, the proposed standards are the product of yet another collusive sue-and-settle lawsuit – this one involving the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and EPA. That’s the clever but sleazy tactic in which agitator groups meet with government officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, "forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment "forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees!

My article examines this practice and its harmful results in detail – and offers solutions that the new Republican Congress might want to consider.

EPA’s next regulatory tsunami

Trillions of dollars in ozone compliance and economic stagnation costs, for fabricated benefits

Paul Driessen

Looming Environmental Protection Agency ozone regulations personify the Obama administration’s secrecy, collusion, fraud, and disdain for concerns about the effects that its tsunami of regulations is having on the livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare of millions of American families.

Virtually every EPA announcement of new regulations asserts that they will improve human health. Draconian carbon dioxide standards, for example, won’t just prevent climate change, even if rapidly developing countries continue emitting vast volumes of this plant-fertilizing gas. The rules will somehow reduce the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, and protect "our most vulnerable citizens.” It’s hogwash.

But Americans naturally worry about pollution harming children and the poor. That makes it easy for EPA to promulgate regulations based on false assumptions and linkages, black-box computer models, secretive collusion with activist groups, outright deception, and supposedly "scientific” reports whose shady data and methodologies the agency refuses to share with industries, citizens or even Congress.

It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which US counties met new 2008 ozone standards that cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion to 75 ppb. Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, equivalent to 70 or 60 seconds in 32 years.

The lower limits are essential, it claims, to reduce smog, human respiratory problems and damage to vegetation. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says a 600-page agency staff report strongly recommends this reduction, and her Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee agrees. They all say the lower limits are vital for protecting public health, especially "at-risk populations and life stages.” Her decision will ultimately involve "a scientific judgment” and will "keep people safe,” Ms. McCarthy assures us.

Under terms of a convenient federal court settlement, EPA must issue its proposed new standards by December 1 of this year, and make a final decision by October 2015. The process will be "open and transparent,” with "multiple opportunities” for public hearings and comment throughout, she promised.

EPA has offered little transparency, honesty or opportunity for fair hearings and input by impacted parties thus far, and we should expect none here. But other problems with this proposal are much more serious.

If the 60 ppb standard is adopted, 85% of all US counties would likely become "non-attainment” areas, making it difficult to establish new industrial facilities or expand existing plants. Even in Big Sky, clean-air Wyoming, Teton County could be out of compliance – mostly due to emissions from pine trees!

A Manufacturers’ Alliance/MAPI study calculated that a 60 ppb ozone standard would cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020. A Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and National Association of Manufacturers study concluded that a 60 ppb rule would penalize the state $189 billion for compliance and $53 billion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. That’s $10 billion per year in just one state.

But the standard would save lives, EPA predictably claimed, citing 2009 research directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett. The study purportedly tracked 448,000 people and claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.

Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett’s work. His study made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not rely on clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health effects, and failed to gather critically important information on the subjects’ smoking patterns, they pointed out. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, says Jerrett and EPA exaggerate health risks from ozone. The Texas Public Policy Foundation told EPA the agency needs to consider "the totality of studies on this issue, rather than giving exclusive weight to a single study,” the foundation emphasized. Unfortunately, EPA almost always focuses on one or two analyses that support its regulatory agenda – and ignores any that might slow or derail its onrushing freight train.

Even worse, those lost jobs and GDP result in major impacts on the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of millions of Americans. And yet, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider these regulatory impacts: for ozone, carbon dioxide, soot, mercury and other rules.

Then there is the matter of outright deception, collusion and fraud at EPA, via these and other tactics.

One such tactic is sue-and-settle lawsuits. Agitator groups meet with EPA officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, "forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment "forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees! American Lung Association, NRDC, Sierra Club and EPA sue-and-settle collusion resulted in the new ozone proposal.

This clever sue-and-settle tactic was devised by none other than John Beale – the con artist who’s now in prison for bilking taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. It defies belief to assume his fraudulent propensities did not extend to his official EPA duties as senior policy advisor with his boss and buddy Robert Brenner, helping Ms. McCarthy and her Office of Air and Radiation develop and implement oppressive regulations. Indeed, his own attorney says he had a "dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior” and "manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives.” A US Senate report details the sleazy practice.

As to the "experts” who claim lower ozone limits are vital for protecting public health, there’s this.

The American Lung Association supports the EPA health claims – but neglects to mention that EPA has given the ALA $24.7 million over the past 15 years. Overall, during this period, the ALA received $43 million via 591 federal grants, and Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million. But no one is supposed to question the ALA’s credibility, integrity or support for EPA "science.”

EPA also channels vast sums to its "independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations. Fifteen CASAC members received over $181 million since 2000. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. Both EPA and CASAC stonewall and slow-walk FOIA requests and deny requests for correction and reconsideration. Even congressional committees get nowhere.

As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House on Science, Space and Technology Committee, noted in a letter, 16 of the 20 CASAC members who "peer-reviewed” the ozone studies also helped to write the studies. That makes it even less likely that their reviews were "independent.”

That Senate report, The Chains of Environmental Command, also notes that the Obama EPA has been deliberately packed with far-left environmental activists who work with their former Big Green colleagues to shape policy. They give radical groups critical insider access and also funnel millions of taxpayer dollars through grants to their former organizations, often in violation of agency ethics rules.

These arrogant, unelected, unaccountable, deceitful, dictatorial elites think they have a right to impose ozone, carbon dioxide, ObamaCare and other diktats on us, "for our own good.” They are a primary reason American businesses and families are already paying $1.9 trillion per year to comply with mountains of federal regulations – $353 billion of these costs from EPA alone. The damage to jobs, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health and welfare is incalculable.

The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity – no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1583 words, total size 11 kb.

<< Page 1 of 491 >>
154kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.0515 seconds.
31 queries taking 0.009 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.