Funny Piece

Wil Wirtanen

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=17116?omhide=true

The best line is that they are not anti-Trump demonstration but are pro-Hillary temper tantrums.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Trump 's Life Doesn't Matter Protesters call for Raping the First Lady Elect

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://theresurgent.com/raping-the-first-lady/
Protestors Call For Raping The First Lady
By Erick Erickson | November 14, 2016, 05:00am

Outside Trump Tower this weekend, a protestor held up a sign encouraging people to rape the future First Lady of the United States. Protestors claim they are protesting Donald Trump’s behavior and words, not his election. But if that is the case, chants of "he’s not my President,” "end the Electoral College,” "Dump Trump,” "Less Votes ≠ President,” and this attack on Mrs. Trump have no place.

Had such a sign appeared when Barack Obama was elected, or had it appeared at any tea party rally, the entirety of the conservative movement would have been indicted by the American media complex. The acts of some Trump supporters, in fact, got the entirety of his supporters labeled "deplorables” by Hillary Clinton.

Already, less than a week removed from the election, we see the media has learned nothing. They have blanketly condemned Trump supporters based on the acts of some, but they have refused to cover the violence advocated by anti-Trump protestors after the election.

Leftwing activists are now claiming these people do not speak for them. But in the past they have labeled all tea party activists as racists and bigots. During the 2009 congressional recess, the media covered supposed tea party harassment of members of congress and failed to note the only arrests at the time were union activists disrupting the tea party groups.

Now they will do their best to ignore the left at its worst and, should anyone point it out, lecture them on painting with a broad brush. It is that very broad brush that has gotten us to this point.
It is completely unacceptable that anyone would hold up a protest sign advocating rape of anyone, let alone the First Lady or future First Lady of the United States. That the protestors with that person did nothing to stop the person or denounce that person is a pretty damning indictment on the group as a whole.

These people are not protesting Trump’s behavior or statements. They are whining because they lost an election they did not expect to lose. These are no protests against an injustice, but whining against the constitutional processes of the United States.

I opposed Donald Trump and did not vote for him. But he deserves now our prayers and a chance to succeed. The very Democrats who denounced Rush Limbaugh for wanting Barack Obama to fail, should be the first in line to hope Donald Trump succeeds. Otherwise, they’re playing at "he started it” children’s games and should be treated as such — seen and not heard.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

Crybabies on the Bus go Wah! Wah! Wah!

Timothy Birdnow

Last night the wife and I went out to dinner and decided to stop at the corner tavern before going home. It being Sunday the bar (something of a dive to be sure) was almost empty - two patrons sitting at the bar watching football and the female bartender wiping down the counter. We got a couple of beers (Budweiser, of course, in this blue collar establishment, no fancy micro brews here) and parked ourselves at a table.

After the game ended the news came on and one of the first stories was about "continuing protests against President-elect Donald Trump". One patron - a construction worker type - and the bartender both guffawed, thus getting me to chime in "I don't know what they hope to achieve by this; it's not as though Trump is going to quit." This sparked a word from the other patron, a youngish man, who complained about Trump winning while losing the popular vote. Oddly enough, the construction worker type launched into a quite elegant soliloquies about the Electoral College, why it exists and how it is good for the country. Whoda thunk it? This seedy dive became a salon for the intellectual class! I was very pleasantly surprised; not often does one get into a highbrow discussion of the philosophy of the Founders and the Constitution, and most especially not in a south St. Louis corner tavern!

But it did not sit well with the younger fellow, not at all!

First, he dismissed the notion that the Electoral College was a solid foundation of Federalism, and protested that the Senate was the body to give equal representation to all the states. I pointed out that the Senate is half of the Legislative body and a completely separate branch of government from the Presidency. When the facts went against this fellow he launched an offensive, demanding to know who we voted for. I said "it doesn't matter" because we were having a discussion about the Electoral College and not the last election. He then loudly demanded that I acknowledge Hillary won the popular vote. I did nothing of the sort.

"We don't know who won the popular vote; the votes have not yet been fully counted."

That last fig leaf could no longer contain the man's intellectual nudity. He got up in a huff and stormed out. I said as he was leaving that he was afraid of debate, to which he replied "YOU are the one who's afraid". Huh? That is your classic liberal; throw a temper tantrum when your illusions are shattered.

Bear in mind the Republicans lost almost nothing in Congress or at the State level; that means the People voted Republican, not Democrat, so claims Hillary won the popular vote are dubious. How did she win and her Party lose? There should have been some nice pickups by the Democrats this election cycle as the GOP were defending a lot more than the Democrats. Remember, Barack Obama specifically invited illegal aliens to vote, and no doubt felons or other people who do not have a legal right to vote cast ballots for the Hill. I suspect in the end Trump won the popular vote, too.

But even if he didn't so what? The EC is the law of the land. If you don't like it you should promote a constitutional amendment to change it.

And of course Trump campaigned to win the needed electoral votes, not the popular. Had he campaigned in, say, New York State he may well have turned the popular vote in his favor. He didn't because he didn't have any hope of winning New York's electoral votes. Hillary, on the other hand, disdained "flyover country" and failed to show up to campaign in places like Wisconsin.

At any rate there wasn't any more unpleasantness and the other fellow joined us for a beer and some good intellectual conversation.

So what's the point? First, that liberals and Democrats are crybabies who cannot accept reality when it does not comport with their desires. But it also goes to show how liberals make absolute assumptions of their moral superiority, and demand we remain silent in the face of their displeasure. Political correctness has emboldened people like this fellow; he automatically assumed we should agree with him and if we don't we should shut our mouths lest he be offended.

I suspect we have been witnessing vignettes along these lines across the country. Liberals just refuse to accept the fact that they lost, despite their best efforts. Over the past eight years they fooled themselves into believing they were becoming the majority, and now that illusion has been shattered. It's pitiful, but, like all self-deception it must be confronted.

Normally I would have let this go, because we all were in a bar to have a good time. But I am tired of letting these people have their little tantrums to silence the rest of us. This fellow needs to learn how to disagree. We disagreed, but were not disagreeable, and he simply didn't like the way the system works. Well, it works that way for a reason, and ultimately it is a better system that a pure democracy would be, where whosoever can grab a majority of votes on a given day is king. The EC gives us all a fair shake.

But liberalism isn't about a fair shake so much as forcing a minority view on the rest of us.

It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton used this approach, the claim that she is winning the popular vote, as a tactic in the primaries in 2008. See here.

So what does the future hold? First, Mr. Trump had better watch his back. There have been assassination threats, some even coming from CEO's of powerful corporations. It may well be that Bill O'Reilly will have his newest book written for him in the upcoming months. Trump had better watch his back.

But another possibility is that, should these protests continue, perhaps Barack Obama will suspend the inauguration "for the good of the country" and reluctantly agree to stay on until things can be sorted out. We can't have civil disorder, after all! Of course, Obama and Hillary could end these riots now if they would simply accept the outcome and tell people to cool it. They won't, because it serves their purposes.

Oh, by the way, George Soros is funding the anti-Trump riots.

Revolution is in the air. This election reminds me of the election of 1860, and we know where that went. California is making noise about leaving the Union (and Godspeed, I say!) and the Left is having a collective conniption because they were so close to the fruition of their mindless dreams of socialism only to have it snatched away. And Donald Trump means to drain the swamp - something that would mean the end of the parasites who live off protest and revolution.

Buckle up; this is going to be a wild ride.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1179 words, total size 7 kb.

Now comes the hard, fun and vital part

Paul Driessen

What an incredible week it was – and what changes it portends for the next couple of years. President Trump, Congress, the states and American people have an unexpected and unprecedented opportunity to rebuild and rejuvenate the nation. To that end, my article offers some thoughts on what just happened – and some suggestions for what can and should be done in the climate, energy and environmental arenas, to undo damage inflicted over recent years.

 

Now comes the hard, fun and vital part

"Making America great again” requires deep-sixing punitive energy and environmental rule

The American people have roundly rejected a third Obama term and legacy of deplorable policies that were too often imposed via executive edicts, with minimal attempts to work with Congress or the states.

This election shows that hard-working Americans do not want their country and its constitutional, energy and economic systems "fundamentally transformed.” They want America to be great and exceptional again. They want all people to live under the same laws and have the same opportunities, rights and responsibilities for making their lives, families, communities and nation better than they found them.

We the People also made it clear that we have had a bellyful of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, media moguls and intellectual elites dictating what we can read, think and say, how we may worship, what insurance and doctors can have, what rules, jobs and living standards we must live with.

With the elections over, the truly difficult tasks lie before us. Filling Supreme Court vacancies with jurists who believe in our Constitution, repealing and replacing ObamaCare, reforming the politicized IRS, DOJ and FBI, immigration issues, and fixing the VA and incomprehensible tax code are all high on every list.

However, abundant, reliable, affordable energy remains the foundation of modern civilization, jobs, health and prosperity. So these suggestions for President Trump’s first years focus on critical tasks that can be accomplished by his Executive Branch alone or in conjunction with Congress and the states.

As you read them, thousands of politicians, regulators, scientists and activists are gathered for yet another "climate conference,” this time in Marrakech, Morocco. They are shocked and despondent over the election results, and worried that the Trump Administration won’t support their agenda. They’re right.

Under the guise of preventing "dangerous manmade climate change” and compensating poor countries for alleged "losses and damages” due to climate and weather caused by rich country fossil fuel use, they had planned to control the world’s energy supplies and living standards, replace capitalism with a new UN-centered global economic order, and redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who want it. So:

Job One) Let the assembled delegates and world know America has a president – and a Congress – not a king. Suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty, and send it to the Senate for Advice and Consent (and assured rejection) under Article II of the Constitution. Its impacts are so onerous and far-reaching that it is clearly a "treaty” within the meaning of our founding document, even if President Obama prefers to call it a "nonbinding agreement” to avoid Senate review.

2) Review the assertions, models, "homogenized” data, science and research behind the multitude of climate and renewable energy mandates – to see if they reflect Real World empirical evidence. Many, most or all will be found to be biased, wildly exaggerated, faulty, falsified or fraudulent.

The recent listing of polar bears as "endangered” was based on junk science and GIGO computer models that claim manmade global warming will send the bears’ record population numbers into oblivion. EPA’s Clean Power Plan assumes shutting down US coal-fired power plants will stop climate change, even if China, India and other countries build thousands of new coal-fueled generators over the next 20 years.

The all-encompassing "social cost of carbon” scheme attributes every imaginable harm to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. It ignores the incredible benefits of carbon-based energy, and dismisses the horrendous impacts that abandoning these fuels would have on human health and welfare.

Every one of these EPA, Interior and other regulatory diktats assumes that CO2 has suddenly replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven climate fluctuations throughout Earth’s history – and ignores this miracle molecule’s role in making crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better, with less water.

As reviews are completed, agenda-driven rules and executive orders should be suspended, rescinded and defunded, so that they are no longer part of the $1.9 trillion regulatory drag on job and economic growth.

Grants for biased research can be terminated, agency personnel assigned to climate programs can be reassigned, and those found falsifying data or engaging in other corrupt practices should be punished.

3) A recent White House report lists $21.4 billion in annual spending on climate research and renewable energy programs. That’s in addition to EPA and other federal agency regulatory budgets – and on top of the burdensome impacts the programs have had on families, businesses, jobs and our future.

Terminating biased, needless or punitive programs would go a long way toward balancing the budget and getting our nation back on track. Ending crony corporatist deal-making, power grabbing and enrichment schemes would ensure that The Billionaire’s Club and its government and industry allies no longer have access to taxpayer billions, no longer have a stranglehold on our energy and economy, and no longer get still richer on the backs of American workers, taxpayers and consumers.

4) Revise Endangered Species Act provisions and regulations to require that any listings, permit denials or penalties reflect honest empirical science – not computer models or baseless assertions. Exemptions for bird and bat-killing wind turbines must no longer be permitted, and ESA rules must be applied with equal force to all projects, not just drilling, mining, pipelines, power plants, grazing and timber cutting.

5) Approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines; end the obstructionism and finish the projects. Standing Rock Sioux Indians had multiple opportunities to participate in the review process, but refused to do so. Now they and Soros-supported radicals are preventing work, destroying expensive equipment, butchering ranchers’ cattle and bison, and harassing local families. This can no longer be tolerated.

6) Prohibit and terminate sue-and-settle lawsuits, under which activists and regulators collude to secure a sympathetic judge’s order implementing regulations that they all want. (Or initiate a series of sue-and-settle actions by energy and manufacturing interests against Trump agencies – and then stop the practice!)

7) Reform the 1906 Antiquities Act. Intended to protect small areas of historic or scenic value, it has been abused too often to place millions of acres off limits to energy development and other economic uses, by presidential edict. Losing Senate candidate Katie McGinty engineered a massive land lock-up in Utah that double-crossed the state’s governor and congressional delegation, and even President Clinton.

Congress must more clearly define its purposes, limit the acreage that can be designated by presidential decree, and provide for congressional review and approval of all decisions.

8) Reform the Environmental Protection Agency, and devolve many of its powers and responsibilities back to the states, under a consortium representing all 50 state EPAs. We have won the major pollution battles that EPA was created to address. Now we must devote appropriate funding and personnel to real remaining environmental problems – and shrink or terminate Obama-era agenda-driven programs.

Recent EPA actions on climate, air quality, human experiments, the Clean Power Plan, the war on coal, and "waters of the United States” were used to expand its budget, personnel, and powers over the nation’s environment, energy and economy. EPA needs a shorter leash, less money and a smaller staff.

9) Shrink the renewable energy programs, and jumpstart onshore and offshore leasing, drilling, fracking and mining on federally managed lands. America can again produce the fossil fuel blessings that lifted billions out of poverty, disease and early death – and created jobs, prosperity, health, living standards and life spans unimaginable barely a century ago. We should also encourage other nations to do likewise.

10) If President Obama finishes his term with a tsunami of regulations and executive orders, it should be met with similar suspend, defund and rescind reactions. Mr. Obama, congressional Democrats and their riot-prone base should understand that programs and rules imposed with the stroke of a pen, and without the support of Congress and the American people, can and should also be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Without these difficult but necessary (and fun) steps, it will be very hard to make America great again.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1470 words, total size 10 kb.

NY Times Publisher wants to Start Reporting Honestly (No, honestly!...Stop Laughing!)

Dana Mathewson

When all else fails, ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/new-york-times-publisher-vows-to-rededicate-itself-to-reporting-honestly.html

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising to "reflect” on this year’s election and rededicate itself to reporting on "America and the world” honestly

Jack Kemp replies:


Yes,

This is extremely hard to believe. I guess they will have to prove it over time - or, more likely, disprove it by Jan. 20, 2017, Inauguration Day. Maybe if they fired three quarters of their writers...

Fay Voshell replies:

Reporting honestly depends on knowing what honesty is

Tim replies:

Now that all the remuda is out and running the hills Sulzberger wants to shut the gate. Would he have said the same if Hillary had won? Somehow methinks bias is only a problem to him when it doesn't work.

Here is a shot of Donald Trump's tweet on the matter. Courtesy of the Gateway Pundit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/hes-back-president-elect-trump-tweets-gop-backstabbers-kasich-bush-family-romney/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 2 kb.

Wisdom from the Gossip Section of the NY Post

Jack Kemp

From the Page Six gossip section of the NY Post...

http://pagesix.com/2016/11/12/why-celebrity-endorsements-didnt-help-hillary-at-all/?_ga=1.98572702.1878641660.1478944719
Why celebrity endorsements didn’t help Hillary at all
By Maureen Callahan
November 12, 2016

QUOTED CONCLUDING SECTION:

"We’re more socially isolated than ever,” Vance wrote in "Hillbilly Elegy.” "Not having a job is stressful, and not having enough money to live on is even more so.”

Even Bill Maher, hardly a friend to the GOP, conceded as much on his post-election show on Friday. Noting that no amount of money or celebrity endorsements matter, he said, "The Democratic party . . . lost the white working man. That’s what they used to have. And they made the white working man feel like, ‘Your problems aren’t real.’ Democrats, to a lot of Americans, have become a boutique party of fake outrage and social engineering. And they’re not entirely wrong about that.”

If only those super-vocal A-list celebrities who supported Clinton had such a reckoning — or even took their cues from President Obama, who urged the nation to root for Trump’s success. Instead, they continued throwing public temper tantrums. Alec Baldwin said he’d probably never play Trump on "SNL” again. Lena Dunham mocked those who called her bluff about moving to Canada if Trump won. "Stay busy in your new regime,” she posted. Schumer, who earned $17 million last year, posted that anyone expecting her to move to London, as she promised, "is just as disgusting as anyone who voted” for Trump.

Yet the woman who brought the plight of the white working class into American living rooms two decades ago is a Trump supporter. In a tweet Friday night, Roseanne Barr called the anti-Trump movement "classist assholes” and added: "Whoever thought they would hear Republicans calling Democrats ‘the elites?’”

It turns out a C-list reality TV star — who has no A-list friends — understood that best of all.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

GOP Returning to It’s Vomit

Timothy Birdnow

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so fools repeat their folly"

Proverbs 26:11

Ever quick to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the GOP has not even waited for the weekend to begin systematically dismantling the stunning victory their party achieved despite their best efforts. Trump has barely had time to shower and shave before his party began dictating to him how things should be run - the same way they were run before he showed up on the scene. The Grand Old Party seems incapable of learning from it's mistakes - and it's successes.

First there is the matter of what to do about Hillary Clinton. America has a tradition of a graceful transition of power, and we do not criminalize political disputes. But that has not always been the case, and Richard Nixon should make that assertion perfectly clear; Hillary herself sought to deny Nixon legal counsel, deny him the right to open hearings, and not allow congress to actually see evidence against Mr. Nixon when he was being investigated for Watergate. (In fact Hillary went so far as to suppress documents and someone actually stole secured legal documents that showed there was legal precedent for an impeached individual to have legal counsel.) Nixon was pursued legally until Gerald Ford issued a pardon. Ford paid a price for that; one of the big reasons he wasn't elected President was the public saw his pardon of Nixon as corruption. Why did the Democrats go after Nixon? Because, they asserted, crimes were committed and he was responsible. In actuality Nixon likely had no knowledge of said crimes but showed loyalty to people loyal to him, and the cover-up was worse than the crime, or so Democrats told us at the time.

So the claim that we cannot prosecute Hillary out of some sense of tradition is nonsense; the Democrats themselves had previously argued that crimes overrule the tradition of comity in the changing of the guard.

It is likely, too, that they would have tried to prosecute Ronald Reagan over the Iran-contra Affair had Michael Dukakis won the Presidency in 1988. It was Reagan's popularity with the public that handed a milquetoast patrician George H.W. Bush the Presidency, and that effectively ended any hope of going after Reagan (Bush was the point man in the Iran-Contra Affair, after all.)

The point is that actual crimes are not to be dismissed lightly, and suggestions by Republicans that Hillary should be allowed to skate on the many crimes she is alleged to have committed is nonsense. We are a nation of laws and not of men. Laws are what must matter; nobody is above them, too big to fail. Hillary may well have run for President solely to keep herself and her husband out of jail, I might add. Now, James Comey of the F.B.I. has twice "exonerated" Hillary after railing against her - and ignoring the law in the process by setting prosecutorial standards over and above any set by the law itself. Comey, after his boss met with former President Clinton, claimed there was no criminal intent and so would not refer the matter to the DOJ, despite the fact that intent is not necessary to be in violation of the applicable laws. And even an idiot would understand that Hillary had a private server - and had it professionally wiped after it was under subpoena - as a way to circumvent Freedom of Information laws. If Comey thinks there is no intent the man has no business running a snow cone stand.

This whole affair made it clear that the system of justice is corrupted in the Obama Administration. It is the duty of Mr. Trump to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this affair, and he should not just investigate Hillary, but Comey, Loretta Lynch, and ultimately Barack Obama, who was in communication with Hillary on her private e-mail and so knew she was breaking the law.

It's not vengeance or political in any way; it's about the rule of law.

The Clinton's have always employed their corollary of Joseph Goebbels "The Big Lie". They don't just commit one crime, but commit multiple crimes, each entangled with the other to create a Gordian Knot. The result is a web of corruption so entangled that nobody can adequately unravel it, or if someone does they can never hope to explain it to a jury much less the general public. Complexity is the solution to the Clinton problem of crime. This only works because the Clinton family has so many political connections that they can get cover, and if some weak link in the chain is threatening to break it can be, uh, silenced in any number of ways. Monica Lewinsky, for instance, was given a job and hustled out of town to keep her from testifying at a critical moment. There are other, harder methods, too. At any rate, the Clinton's have been engaged in criminality for decades; Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, pardongate, stealing the White House furniture, perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case and about Monica Lewinski, the Clinton Foundation, stealing the money meant for Haitian relief, e-mailgate, Benghazi, Hillary stealing furniture from the State Department when she left, selling access to foreign governments, etc. Always political influence has closed down any investigation.

Which was no small part of the election of Donald Trump, who promised to put Hillary in jail. Justice, in other words, was to finally be had. A great many Trump voters supported him for little more than a thirst for such justice.

Yet many in the Republican Party are now calling on Trump to simply let it go. LET IT GO!

I was listening to the Michael Medved Show and he was calling on Trump to do precisely that; he said we have a history in America of not criminalizing politics and that in the interest of uniting the country Trump should let it go. Now, Medved has been a NeverTrumper and so should be taken with a grain of salt but this is astonishingly myopic on any level. This is not "criminalizing politics" but rather depoliticizing crime. Medved has it exactly backwards. And to break this campaign promise immediately after winning the election would say that we are going to "business as usual" - the very thing that led to the election of Donald J. Trump in the first place. Half of the country is sick to death of business as usual and we do not want to be united by another surrender by our side. The only way you can unite with liberal Americans is by agreeing with them; they cannot be appeased any other way. They intend to try to deligitimize Trump, and we should have learned the lesson from George W. Bush, who tried to unite the country only to be demogogued as Satan with mangled speech. Trying to unite with the Left is fruitless.

I have news for all you conservative intellectuals pushing this nonsense; the Left HATES us. They do not just disagree, but they actually hate us. If a guy wearing a Trump button were to be stuck in quicksand and a liberal were to walk by he would urinate on the drowning man. The Left has always seen this as all-out war. Our side has a terrible blind spot in this regard; we continue to delude ourselves into thinking we just disagree. We don't, and a magnanimous gesture like letting Clinton go only reinforces the opinion that we are corrupt and weak. See, the Democrats will then be able to say we lied about Hillary for purely partisan reasons. We always knew she was innocent, but attacked her because we are sexist bigots who wanted to keep women out of their place in the sun, wanted them in the kitchen barefoot and baking cookies.

Letting Hillary go would tell the Nation we are hypocrites.

But that is how Bush did things, and how the Establishment likes to proceed. Mustn't make a fuss! Bad form, you know! Meanwhile we prove the claims of the Democrats and media.

Both Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie - former prosecutors and potential cabinet members - have demurred on questions of prosecuting Hillary. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/giuliani-christie-interviews-clinton-prosecutor/index.html

In fact, Giuliani stated:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3923958/Potenial-attorney-pick-Rudy-Giuliani-says-Obama-leave-not-pardon-Hillary-points-foundation-fraud.html

One is we try to get over the anger and everything else about an election after it's over and put it behind us,' Giuliani said.

'And I don't like to see America become a country in which we prosecute people about politics,'

End excerpt.

Agreed, and Giuliani is correct. Remember what was done to Tom Delay, for example, who was indicted by a Democrat operative posing as a Texas prosecutor solely to get Delay out of a leadership position (The GOP had a rule saying nobody under indictment could hold a leadership position, and in true Saul Alinsky fashion this prosecutor made the GOP live up to it's own rules.)

But this was a terrible answer by Giuliani, who should have spoken about the Rule of Law and the higher good of prosecuting a criminal, no matter how powerful. Hillary is not too big to fail.

Chris Christie took it further. He has actually stated that calls to prosecute Hillary were nothing but campaign rhetoric. http://www.northjersey.com/news/trump-call-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-just-politics-christie-says-1.1690463

And yet many conservatives are arguing for us to "move on". Here is an essay in The Federalist making the case that Trump should pardon Hillary Clinton. http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-pardon-hillary-clinton-not-prosecute/

If Trump does that he will anger his base, the people who put him in power. And he will come across as not holding the courage of his conviction.

So, before the ink has dried on the "Trump Wins!" headlines many of the GOP are calling for retreat.

It is even theorized that Trump cut a deal with Hillary's people to get her to concede the election in return for a promise of immunity. http://thedailycoin.org/2016/11/09/trump-make-secret-deal-not-prosecute-hillary-exchange-concession/

And this goes further than simply Hillary.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader and engineer of Italian tanks (all gears go in reverse, as the old joke goes) has announced he will not change the Senate filibuster rules, despite the fact that the Democrats will unquestionably filibuster any Supreme Court nominee put up by Donald Trump. He did this within days of Trump's victory!

When George W. Bush struggled to even get a hearing for any of his judicial nominees there were some Republicans who suggested the "nuclear option" which was to change Senate rules so that debate could be limited on judicial consent in the Senate i.e. to stop the use of the filibuster. The Democrats - who at the time were a minority in both chambers of Congress - had been filibustering every judicial nominee sent up by Bush, and some Republicans, frustrated at the endless obstruction of the President's agenda, called for an end to this practice. It was not unprecedented; the lie Congressional Budget Act of 1974 made it impossible to filibuster reconciliation bills, for instance. The rules are just that - rules. The Senate adopts them, and the Senate can change them.

But the filibuster is an old rule and one most Senators were reluctant to amend. The GOP refused to invoke the "nuclear Option" when the Democrats were employing the filibuster on Bush's court nominees because 1.they feared reprisal when they were in the minority and 2.the Senate has always prized "comity", that cool, gentlemanly agreeability that differentiates the Senate from the more contentious House of Representatives.

But the Democrats have no such reservations. When the GOP was filibustering Barack Obama's choices they summarily changed the rules, forcing an up or down vote. They left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, knowing full well they could change them when the time came.

Being a Democrat means never having to say you are sorry. The media will cover for you.

At any rate Obama got to stuff the courts with his choices. Liberal judges now control 70% of appellate courts http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/04/how-liberal-judges-took-control-of-70-percent-of-us-appeals-courts/ with Obama appointed one third of the 179 sitting judges. Obama has also appointed 268 lower court judges - seven more than George W. Bush.

Senate Republicans never punished the Democrats for this act. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is stating he will let the Democrats filibuster Trump SCOTUS nominees.

According to The Washington Examiner:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-hints-against-nuclear-option/article/2607015

"When Democrats ran the Senate, they changed the rules to allow for simple majority votes for judicial nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, which can still be filibustered. But despite speculation that Republicans will take this next step, McConnell indicated some resistance to it when asked.

He (Mitch McConnell) said "overreaching after an election, generally speaking, is a mistake." And when pressed on McConnell's approach to working with Democrats in the new Senate, McConnell said the way the chamber is structured requires "some Democratic participation and cooperation."

End excerpt.

Politics and war have much in common, and one does not allow the enemy to strike as he chooses without reprisal. Harry Reid and his cronies stole something from the GOP minority - and they let him do it. Now that the tables are turned they should be punished for that act, so that equilibrium is restored. If your neighbor steals your lawn mower out of your garage and you see it in his do you not take it back? Only the cowardly fools of the GOP would sigh and shrug their shoulders.

McConnell and company need a retaliatory act to make it clear that the next time Democrats try something like this they will be punished. Rules only work if both sides play by them. If the concept of retaliation is too antagonistic to the GOP, they should at least view it through the prism of child rearing, where rules are set and consequences follow for breaking them. A child who refuses to eat his broccoli doesn't get ice cream after dinner. Well, the Democrats don't get to block appointments to the Supreme Court if they won't let the GOP block appointments to lesser courts when THEY are in power. Turnabout is fair play.

But the GOP has never understood this, and indeed is not really interested in victory so much as in going along to get along.

McConnell also wants to push through TPP and confirm Obama's SCOTUS pick in a lame duck session. http://theresurgent.com/senate-republicans-want-to-fund-obama-have-a-lame-duck-to-confirm-garland/

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, the Pee Wee Herman of electoral politics, toyed with the idea of passing both Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership deal http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2015/10/pro-morning-trade-behsudi-210744 and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump redefined the Republican Party, and gave the GOP the map to electoral success. Unlike the Establishment which has ignored the blue collar vote in favor of the Thurston Howell III wing, Trump cared about what matters to the old Reagan Democrats. Reagan won them for the same reason Trump did, and the GOP could have turned the rust belt red long ago had they been less interested in internationalism and oil profits. The people in these states have been waiting for a champion, someone who would fight for their interests and not just corporate profits. Trump showed how to do that.

Until the Republican Party figures out that the RINO/Establishment wing is utterly despised by much of Middle America and that a political party must keep it's word they will, like the dog in Proverbs, keep returning to the luke-warm vomit that made it sick in the first place.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2583 words, total size 16 kb.

Harry Reid's Crying Game

Dana Mathewson

What. A. Schmuck.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/11/tears-and-fear-harry-reid-is-not-taking-trumps-election-well.html

"White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump's victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear - especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like America,” the retiring Nevada senator said.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Pardon Assange?

Dana Mathewson

Hmmm...

#PardonAssange - Twitter Search
mobile.twitter.com

Read the full story.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/PardonAssange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw


In Florida, Obama does to Hillary what she did to Gore

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Hillary and the Popular Vote

Jack Kemp

Here's the first half of an Amer. Thinker piece that explains another liberal lie and myth...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html


By Steven Feinstein

Okay, let’s address this "Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

No, it’s not awful. It’s great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the Founding Fathers.
First of all, she’s probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1000 votes counted and there are 1300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore "won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in CA alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33-.667 mil Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from CA’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote "victory.” (That was the headline on the NY Times and it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

But... getting back to the "Win the popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or else CA and NY would determine every election. Every time.

Dana Mathewson replies:

The author of the American Thinker article has not done enough homework. What he says may be true in some states but not in all. States such as Minnesota, which have many rural precincts that rely totally on absentee and mail-in ballots (not the same thing) and have no centers in which to go to cast ballots into machines count every ballot regardless.

My source is "Friend Ken," who lives in one of those counties, who worked as an election judge this year and found that he was busy for months. I sent him the AT article and asked for his comments, and here they are in their entirety:

Well, the "Thinker" has done some 'drive by' research on absentee ballot voting. What may have been true in the past is not true with states with 'no-excuse' absentee voting. I had been informed many times the last few days at the courthouse that the entire State of Minnesota conducts elections the exact same way statewide. There are no 'mavericks' in Minnesota I had the sense that the DNC had mailed info to party members to use the absentee ballot method to vote early (and often) as the info coming out on Hillary may cause some to not vote for her if they waited. I received a 'letter' from the Minnesota RNC to use an absentee ballot just to be sure my vote was counted and I was not unexpectedly incapacitated on election day and couldn't vote.

Cass County does indeed separate 'mail-in' ballots from 'absentee' ballots. Both are sent by registered voters. We processed the MB (mail-in) ballots first, then the AB (absentee) ballots. The results go into the system from both 'counts'. We had BAM count the votes and they were NOT published so no one knew who was leading or losing in any of the races When BAM was done with the 'batch', we put the ballots into a sealed envelope to be stored. We kept every ballot, if one was duplicated, we had to save both the original which was NOT 'read' by BAM and stored in a special envelope and the duplicate went in with all the other ballots, but marked 'duplicate' with the reason noted on it. For auditing, one could retrieve the original and compare, and know who made the duplicate, and see why a duplicate was made. All stored by precincts and batch number for the precinct. Thursday, we had to reconcile the ballot numbers per precinct. that is the number of ballots processed by pre-registered voters and the number of 'new voters' per precinct that were added to the voter list per precinct. That included the mail-in only precincts and the polling place precincts that had absentee ballots as well as the new registers in those precincts.

As for absentee ballots favoring Republicans. In my humble opinion, the ones in Cass County favored Democrats. Of course, Minnesota is heavily Democrat, at least in the large population centers. By my cursory impression of the votes for president, the mail-ins I helped 'process', and I could look at who voted for president, as I had to initial the ballots and the line to initial wasn't far from the first two candidates for president. The 'mail-in ballots seemed to favor Trump/Republican and the absentee ballots seemed to favor Hillary/Democrat. I glanced at every ballot as I initialed it and counted to myself the number of Trump votes in the precinct I was 'processing'. Might be a total of 200 ballots processed, might be a total of as few as 1 ballot, the average was probably around 50 per precinct after the first day of processing. We called them 'batches' and precincts had at least 3 batches, most 4 and some 5 batches. The mail came in twice a day and we had to process the ballots each day. I never saw the precinct totals till Wednesday afternoon and then I only looked at the vote count for president on a couple of precincts, my precinct being one. Of 274 ballots mailed out, over 265 were returned. And our precinct had at least 4 'new registers' vote by what is then referred to as 'absentee' ballot since they were not registered when we sent out the ballots in September. In Minnesota, one only has to live in the state for 20 days to qualify as a Minnesotan. One could have moved into the precinct the day before, but has to prove residency in Minnesota for at least 20 days. And the county does a computer check with the precincts to be certain the voter had NOT voted prior to registering. Many of the precincts in Cass County had new registers, those who had not voted or at least been a registered voter before. I found it interesting, as I had to double check the voter lists for the precencts I helped process that some of the new registers had the same address as what appeared to be a spouse currently registered. Most of the newbies were men, the 'wives' had been registered. And of course, some kids turned 18 and could vote for the first time so had to register.

I had thought/anticipated the absentee ballots would mirror the mail-in ballots in terms of party preference but it appeared to be opposite, and we processed a lot of absentee ballots. Some by business people out of the country or out of the state or out of town, and those in military, some just wanted some time, from all appearances, to consider the candidates, and not be 'rushed' in a voting booth. Coffee stains, jam remnant we has to wipe off, that kind of stuff to deal with. Foot prints on the ballots, doodles. With the 'no excuse', I assumed many simply didn't want to bother with a crowded voting place, nor the drive to there and back. Any ballot received after the polls closed Tuesday was an invalid ballot. We had two certified return envelopes with ballots in them and two ballots sent 'overnight' delivery. Both 'stamp costs were borne by the sender, not the county and they were not cheap.

For me, the weak points in Minnesota's election system is first, the Post Office and its sense of priority with mail ballots. Second, the state has no reference source that can affirm if a new register is a felon from another state. It can only by computer determine if the person is a felon in Minnesota. There is no data base exchange between states for this. Minnesota does have a type of 'protected witness' ballot method to protect abused wives living apart from husbands or people who were critical witnesses in a court of law. Fortunately for us, only a handful of them, but we had them. Third, the state has no data base to prove anyone is or is not a legal citizen of the USA. A driver's license is NOT proof of citizenship, nor of course, is a utility bill, or the 'memory of someone' who vouches for you. So, the state as many states do, relies upon the integrity/honesty of the voter. When a 'new register' is entered into the 'system' he/she signs an affidavit that all the information is correct and it is a felony with a jail sentence of one 'lies' and is caught at it, so there is a consequence when 'cheating' in Minnesota. If one says one is a legal citizen and one is not, it is a felony that can be pursued with the signed affidavit. However, unfortunately, the vote still counts, but the person goes to jail for a time. In Minnesota, I understand one can 'admit' a mistake, such as a wrong address, or wrong birth date, on the affidavit and then one 'walks' is not prosecuted.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1607 words, total size 10 kb.

Snowflakes and Fallen Heroes

Jonathan Dickerson

Few things really anger me anymore, but this article did.

SMU Volleyball Cancels Invitation to Daughter of Fallen Cop, Saying It 'Could Be Insensitive'

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/11/11/smu-volleyball-cancels-invitation-to-daughter-of-fallen-cop-saying-it-could-be-insensitive/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Dewey Wins!

Jack Kemp

from Lucianne.com

The NEWSWEEK screw up with Hillary as MADAM PRESIDENT on the cover is going for over $500 on Ebay right now. One seller has 14 and sold two for $600 each.

If you can find one - GRAB IT!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Dems Win House

Jack Kemp

"We won the House" - Bernie Sanders talking to his wife after Hillary bribed him with money to buy a new home.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

In Florida, Obama does to Hillary what she did to Gore

Jack Kemp

Many readers will recall that before the 2000 Presidential Election, the Clinton's sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba turned Floridians of Cuban descent to become Bush voters. One professor estimated this changed 57,000 votes and gave the Presidency to Bush. At the time, I wrote that the Clintons WANTED Gore to lose so that Hillary could run for President in 2004.

Now we saw, either de facto or otherwise, Obama doing the same thing to Hillary Clinton.

The New York Post states:

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/obamas-legacy-drive-lost-florida-for-clinton/

Obama’s ‘legacy’ drive lost Florida for Clinton

By Mike Gonzalez

November 11, 2016


BEGIN QUOTE

‘Pride goeth before destruction,” Proverbs 16:18 reminds us, and so it was in this election.

The evidence is mounting that President Obama’s overzealous defense of his "opening Cuba” gambit cost Hillary Clinton the state of Florida. That misstep could end up wiping out most of the president’s carefully curated "legacy” achievements.

For the president and his young Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the establishment of diplomatic relations with one of the world’s last communist dictatorships became something they weirdly defended from any criticism. Even the smallest amendment that watered down coddling the Castros drew fulminating threats of vetoes from the White House

SECTION OMITTED

The Cuban-American community in Miami was irritated enough to give a second look to Donald Trump, who quickly reacted by shifting from his earlier tepid support for Obama’s Cuba policy to a promise that he would end relations unless Raul Castro began democratic reforms.

END OF QUOTE

Whether President Obama has ideas of seeing his wife Michelle run for President in 2020 or not, the net effect of his actions is the same as what Bill and Hillary Clinton did before the 2000 Election. By moving to legitimize the Castro regime, Obama angered a great number of Cuban voters who might have voted for Hillary but now voted for Trump. This is on top of the estimated one third of Jewish voters in Florida voting for Trump because of the Obama administrations Iran deal and Obama's insults to Prime Minister Netanyahu. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/jews_helped_trump_win_florida.html ;

So Democrat History repeating itself has come to bite Hillary in the quite ample seat of her pants suit.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Woman in Combat

Wil Wirtanen forwards this:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-weighty-argument-against-women-in-combat/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Trump's Cabinet Picks

Dana Mathewson

I like 'em. Whattya think? Read all the way down before commenting, because some names appear more than once.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

McConnell Surrendering on Filibuster Rule Change

Timothy Birdnow

When George W. Bush struggled to even get a hearing for any of his judicial nominees there were some Republicans who suggested the "nuclear option" which was to change Senate rules so that debate could be limited on judicial consent in the Senate i.e. to stop the use of the filibuster. The Democrats - who at the time were a minority in both chambers of Congress - had been filibustering every judicial nominee sent up by Bush, and some Republicans, frustrated at the endless obstruction of the President's agenda, called for an end to this practice. It was not unprecedented; th lie Congressional Budget Act of 1974 made it impossible to filibuster reconciliation bills, for instance. The rules are just that - rules. The Senate adopts them, and the Senate can change them.

But the filibuster is an old rule and one most Senators were reluctant to amend. The GOP refused to invoke the "nuclear Option" when the Democrats were employing the filibuster on Bush's court nominees because 1.they feared reprisal when they were in the minority and 2.the Senate has always prized "comity", that cool, gentlemanly agreeability that differentiates the Senate from the more contentious House of Representatives.

But the Democrats have no such reservations. When the GOP was filibustering Barack Obama's choices they summarily changed the rules, forcing an up or down vote. They left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, knowing full well they could change them when the time came.

Being a Democrat means never having to say you are sorry. The media will cover for you.

At any rate Obama got to stuff the courts with his choices. Liberal judges now control 70% of appelate courts with Obama appointed one third of the 179 sitting judges. Obama has also appointed 268 lower court judges - seven more than George W. Bush.

Senate Republicans never punished the Democrats for this act. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is stating he will let the Democrats filibuster Trump SCOTUS nominees.

According to The Washington Examiner:

"When Democrats ran the Senate, they changed the rules to allow for simple majority votes for judicial nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, which can still be filibustered. But despite speculation that Republicans will take this next step, McConnell indicated some resistance to it when asked.

He (Mitch McConnell) said "overreaching after an election, generally speaking, is a mistake." And when pressed on McConnell's approach to working with Democrats in the new Senate, McConnell said the way the chamber is structured requires "some Democratic participation and cooperation."

End excerpt.

Politics and war have much in common, and one does not allow the enemy to strike as he chooses without reprisal. Harry Reid and his cronies stole something from the GOP minority - and they let him do it. Now that the tables are turned they should be punished for that act, so that equilibrium is restored. If your neighbor steals your lawn mower out of your garage and you see it in his do you not take it back? Only the cowardly fools of the GOP would sigh and shrug their shoulders.

McConnell and company need a retaliatory act to make it clear that the next time Democrats try something like this they will be punished. Rules only work if both sides play by them. If the concept of retaliation is too antagonistic to the GOP, they should at least view it through the prism of child rearing, where rules are set and consequences follow for breaking them. A child who refuses to eat his broccoli doesn't get ice cream after dinner. Well, the Democrats don't get to block appointments to the Supreme Court if they won't let the GOP block appointments to lesser courts when THEY are in power. Turnabout is fair play.

Consequences have to be dire enough to discourage future acts of this nature. Strangely, the GOP has never understood that.

McConnoll is not the man to lead the Republicans into the future. Donald Trump, for all his faults, has at least shown the spirit to reply in kind when attacked. George W. Bush never did, which is why he fumbled away the legacy he had, giving America Obama and himself one of the lowest popularity ratings of any Presidents in American history.

As the old saying goes "the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but one". Even if the GoP is deafeted, or punished in the future by the Democrats, so be it; it was a clean thing, not the endless bleeding from thousands of papercuts.

Grow a spine, you guys!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

Operation Paperback

Jack Kemp

It is a Saturday afternoon at Postal Connections, a mailing and printing services store located in the New Dorp section of Staten Island, New York City. Yes, for you out-of-towners, that's where the famous ferry ride goes to, a part of New York City that resembles its nearby neighboring suburban communities in New Jersey more than the other four boroughs. Besides the people coming into the Staten Island store to send everything from shopping returns to early Christmas gifts to even an auto tailpipe (complete with muffler) to another state, there is now something people doesn't expect to find in a shipping store: an area set aside for a book drive.

Owner Mike Allen is collecting piles of mostly paperback books to ship to active duty service men and women as well as military veterans no longer on active duty. Those books sit on the floor in cardboard boxes, shopping bags, and also piled on a table. These books are being continuously donated by his customers for the last several weeks - and continuously shipped out. This is a joint project of Postal Connections national management and a charity called Operation Paperback (www.OperationPaperback.org) which gets requests for books from troops on military bases both in the U.S. and overseas, Veterans' hospitals, etc. Around forty of the Postal Connection franchises across the country are participating in this effort.

"When we started, I chipped in a few hundred dollars (at my at cost rate) for shipping of the books to veterans. (As the books came in) I ran through that really fast. After mentioning the costs involved to a local businessman friend of mine, he gave me a $500 donation to cover additional costs," Mike told me. "So far, I have shipped over 1400 donated books from this store to various active duty military and service veterans."

In the almost four hours I spent in the store that Saturday, customers kept coming in to drop off more books, both with and without having other shipping work. Mike has asked them for small cash donations ($5 or so) to cover the overwhelming cost of shipping all those books that will be arriving until the last day of the drive, November 11th, Veterans Day. One woman even "volunteered" her teenage daughter to come into the store to help pack the book requests in cardboard boxes. And one lady wanted to donate books directly to Operation Paperback after this fall charity drive ends, so Mike Allen gave her the website address (the same one as in the above paragraph) so that she could donate directly (what they call a Volunteer Shipper).

"Some people donate old, yellowed paperbacks and I've been told that they are too dry for any hot, dry and windy climate like Iraq because a few of the dried out pages fly away from an old book and a soldier (or other service branch member) may reach up to grab those loose pages and get their hand shot off," Mike tells me as he examines one of the four books I brought that day that is just such a yellowed discard. "Customers have also brought in hardbound books and children's books which we give to local Staten Island charities such as shelters for homeless women and churches," he informed me.  Operation Paperback has been known to get requests for children's books which the "deployed soldiers...read to their children via webcam or on DVDs."

So what type of books are being gathered? The service members request mostly action adventure, history, horror stories, bestsellers and biographies - books under 500 pages that will fit comfortably into a military backpack or duffel bag. No political books or other controversies. And Operation Paperback has supplied each location with a list showing the preferences of each veteran or location site. Mike Allen, being in the shipping business and a veteran himself, can quickly discern whether a mailing address is to a private off-base location or to an APO military address. And there are requests from service women asking for books more suited to their tastes as well as the same topics the men ask for. That day, Mike packed up books that went to Fort Hood, Texas and to Tinian Island in the Commonwealth of the North Marianas Islands in the Pacific, among other places. Each box sent included a letter from Postal Connections with request for a reply note via email asking for comments and suggestions.

The people at the Staten Island Postal Connections - as well as the other stores across the country - have together put in a few thousand hours of their own labor on top of their expenses. It is obviously a labor of love. Many of the other franchisees are also owned by veterans.

Operation Paperback's website About page states:

"Over the years, we have earned commendations from the President of the United States, the governor of Maryland, the mayor of Baltimore, and the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce. We have also been featured on television and in print media. While we value the praise we have received at home, the words that mean the most to us are those that come directly from those we serve. They let us know that our efforts are appreciated every day."

The best conclusion for this article is the notes sent to Operation Paperback by veterans and their families. Here below are five examples from the many, many posted at their website.

Thank you for the box of books. I shared them with everyone at work and we all got something we liked. Thank you for your time and support.
By: Joe F. (Afghanistan)

 I received two books (The Minervan Experience & Encounters with Archdruid) from someone in New York State. The package was mangled & I can't make out the full address. I want to let you know that I received your thoughtful donation & that the books themselves arrived in good condition. Thank you sincerely for your contribution. You are making a difference.
By: Diana M. (USA)

Thank you so much for this. I am a disabled Veteran and do not go out very much anymore. I love to read and appreciate this so very much. GOD Bless and Thanks again.
By: Jeannie J. (USA)

I want to say thank you to Chrissy H for sending my sons all those awesome books. They enjoyed getting the box and going through all the boys. They couldn't believe all those books was just for them. Thank you again for thinking of us. Chandra M?
By: chandra m. (japan)

We just received a box of books from the Farrlie Family, and we would like to thank them for their support. Our children love to read and these books are very appreciated and will be loved then sent on to other military children once our children outgrow them. They are perfect as our children range in age from 2 to 8. Send our thanks and support.
By: Dunton Family (United States)


 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1169 words, total size 7 kb.

Some People Do Remember Our Veterans

Jack Kemp

As we sat in a gym with many other organizations' tables set up, a woman from the Red Cross was explaining to me that they have, in New Jersey, programs called Reconnection workshops where they teach newly returning veterans how to reengage with their families and build communication skills to both identify depression and work through anger. Julie told me of Red Cross programs in Veterans' hospitals where they organize picnics, wheelchair games and other social activities. The Red Cross even has a free Hero Care App (cell phone application program) "designed to help members of the military, veterans and their families identify and access both emergency and non-emergency Red Cross services..." Previously, a staff member of The Veterans Homeless Housing Project explained to me their organization had an electronic website and advanced phone "app" because many homeless veterans either contact the world through their cell phones or through the use of computers in public buildings such as libraries.

In an early November weekday, I traveled to an event called a Stand Down, a gathering organized by non-profits and government agencies to supply veterans with a one stop center of social services, also including what they called a "Free PX" where donated clothing (the items appeared new and clean) were laid out on tables and racks for the veterans to chose new garments. There were backpacks with toiletries, stress counseling and even free haircuts and medical screening information. There was even a table of Rutgers College students educating the veterans on staying away from sweet soft drinks. The women at that table insisted that I go to the lobby and try the special drink they brought, low calorie cinnamon water with apple pieces floating in the jar for added flavor. It was quite good.

All this took place at the Ukrainian American Cultural Center in Whippany, a town in North Central New Jersey. Some veterans came by car but many homeless vets were bussed in by social service organizations to meet fellow veterans as they found out about services available to help then readjust to civilian life.

You often hear that no one is supposed to be willing to help veterans, that even the news from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) is all bad, based on the worst examples that make the news. But even the VA showed up with a big mobile home and a staff inside the gym to offer assistance, alongside such organizations as Catholic Charities (1-855-SOS-VETS), Project Help (www.ProjectHelp.US), Community Hope (www.communityhop-nj.org), the New Jersey state government (www.njveteranshelpline.org and 1-866-VETS-NJ-4), and two I will talk more about later. Other organzations that attended I apologize for not recalling or mentioning here.

Brett D'Alessandro, Marine veteran who served in Afghanistan and the founder of Backpacks for Life (www.backpacksforlife.org), invited me to this event in Whippany. Brett has attended similar Stand Down events in other parts of New Jersey and also in Rhode Island. At all of them he handed out backpacks filled with toiletries for veterans. Brett now includes a female backpack which one of his women volunteers advised him on what to include inside for female veterans (a number of them came to the event) and even included some smaller empty backpacks with image designs for either boys or girls. In the time I spent at the Backpacks for Life table, veterans with children and grandchildren requested these as well. And along with the backpacks, Brett handed out a letter and a stamped envelope where he requested that veterans write him and tell, in words and/or photos, anything they have to say (both good and bad) about their experiences in the military. Brett encouraged them to write stories or poems as well and stated that they could include their name and address or be completely anonymous. Brett also handed out a Resource Information sheet, printed on both sides, of organizations that help veterans. If you want a copy, please contact the Backpacks for Life website at the website in this paragraph.

One of the organizations on that printed list is run by the person who had a table adjoining Backs for Life at the Stand Down. Brett Cotter runs an organization called Stress Is Gone (www.stressisgone.com) which teaches veterans and others how to deal with stress. Cotter's website has a number of free helping tools and also a free account for veterans. Brett Cotter's father was a Marine who served in Vietnam, experiencing some of the toughest battles of that war. When his dad's brother suddenly died, the Marines let Cotter's dad return to the States for the funeral, but he missed it by a few hours. After that, when he returned to Vietnam, he thought he would not survive his last battles, but he did. Still, all these experiences left him a changed person which his son saw growing up. Brett Cotter has a degree in psychology and has studies ancient techniques at the Himalayan Institute (in the U.S.). Today, he "facilitates classes in corporations, schools, hospitals and nonprofit organizations."

In the last hour before he gave away the last of the backpacks, Brett had me volunteering to give out some packages of Girl Scout cookies (donated to his charity by Operation Shoebox) to the vets and also a few of the backpacks as well. I could see the looks on the faces of the veterans as they accepted the cookies from me, thanking me for this small additional gift. I don't think the backpacks and cookies themselves were what Brett and I were being thanked for. It was a thanks for remembering their service and validating them that day in New Jersey, a day so close to Veterans' Day.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

Obama EPA Ban on Wood Burning Stoves

Timothy Birdnow

Barack Obama is coming to get me! Or at least my hvac system at the Ozark Hilton; his EPA has banned most types of wood stoves for heating as "environmentlally unfriendly". Why? Wood is the ultimate sustainable heating fuel, being regularly replenished by plant growth. Why would Obi Bam Balogna want to keep people from heating with wood?

Well, for starters, it allows you to be truly independent of governement. How can the State control you if you live in a shack in the wilderness?  I've discussed the concept of a hydraulic empire before, where the emperor controls all the water and thus you toe the line or die of thirst. This is an energy empire, where government controls the way you heat your home and you toe the line or freeze to death.

I don't live at the Ozark Hilton, which is heated by wood. If I did I would be hard pressed with these new regulations.

Anyway, this is from Americans for Limited Government:

Obama wants your wood-burning stove

By Nathan Mehrens

In a blow to innovation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition to reconsider a restrictive regulation dealing with wood stoves and the types of wood burned in them.

The regulation, finalized by the EPA last year, made changes to the emission standards applicable to residential wood stoves, in bureaucratic speak, "residential wood combustion devices."

The petition was filed by Richard S. Burns & Company, Inc., a Philadelphia waste management firm that challenged the EPA's prohibition on making wood pellets and chipped wood from the "clean wood" which is removed from construction sites. The EPA's regulation does not allow clean wood from "construction or demolition" to be used because it is considered a "prohibited fuel."

The company asserted that it has the ability to separate out wood from other materials, and that this wood could be recycled into products suitable to be burned in wood stoves. The EPA denied the petition, and effectively mandated that these materials be sent to landfills instead. In its denial, the EPA claimed that the cost to those like the petitioner to make "clean wood" fuels as requested would be expensive. "The EPA does not believe this cost on the industry is justified." This, despite the fact that the costs would be borne by industry volunteers who believe they can product a product that meets the EPA's standards.

The EPA is saying, in essence, "we don't believe you can, so we're not going to let you try."

The regulation at issue is a long and complex, but a couple other areas are worth noting.

If you manufacture a wood stove that is to be sold in Canada or Russia, the regulation does not affect you. "Affected wood heaters manufactured in the United States for export are exempt from the applicable emission limits." So, the Canadians and Russians can get an affordable wood stove from a U.S. manufacturer, but a North Carolinian can only buy one that complies with the 83 page regulation which is further explained by the 203 page regulatory impact analysis.

According to the EPA, the average price for a wood stove is $848. In its regulatory analysis the EPA noted that commenters had suggested that this regulation would increase the cost to bring a new model to market by up to 25 percent driving price well above $1,000.00. That is a significant increase that must be passed along to the homeowner in order for the manufacturer to survive as the EPA estimates that they have profit margins of a little over 4 percent.

Representative David Rouzer of North Carolina has offered legislation which would repeal the wood stove regulation arguing, "The EPA has no business meddling with how wood heaters are made — much less putting in place new regulations that would effectively price them out of the market. More and more families are using wood heaters to help lower their energy costs during these tough economic times. That's why, it's imperative Congress continue working together to strike down these unnecessary regulations."

The regulation applies testing standards that must be met before any new wood stoves can be sold. Old wood stoves are not covered by the regulation, so if your house has an existing one you do not have to worry unless you need or want to replace it.

Evidencing the EPA's desire to micro-manage personal behavior, the regulation even places personal prohibitions on homeowners who use one of these new stoves. "No person is permitted to burn any of the following materials in an affected wood heater…. paper products…"

There is an exception; you are allowed to use paper to start a fire. "The prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use of fire starters made from paper." If you use the paper to start a fire you are fine, but if the fire is already burning it is illegal for you to use paper any longer. While the EPA goes to great lengths to describe the emission standards, they do not provide any explanation as to the exact moment when the fire is large enough so that the continued use of paper to make the fire larger is prohibited. There are also restrictions on the types of wood homeowners can use. They "will be required to use only the grades of pellet fuels and wood chips that are included in the owner's manual based on the heater/stove certification tests."

How prohibitions on homeowners regarding paper and wood are to be enforced is not exactly clear from the regulation, but expect the EPA to find a way.

This whole thing is absurd. Federal government, leave our wood stoves alone.

Nathan Mehrens is the President of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 6 kb.