[Update] Progressives will continue to spin everything about Sarah Palin, continuing with the personal attacks on here and her family in true Saul Alinsky tradition. We need to let her know that we celebrate here decision to go full 50 states in bringing her brand of politics to America. She will have my support no matter what she decides to do. 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

When I first saw this article in the NYT's I decided that after I enter the post I would follow the names of some of the people interviewed in the article. It's fairly easy, when you get enough information like:

“When I first heard about Palin, I was impressed,” said Pamela Moore, a mother of two from Birmingham, Ala.,

Then all you have to do is enter the info in a Google search window as "Pamela Moore and Birmingham" and hit the 'Enter' button on your kryboard. I followed this article all the way to The Austrailian and here is what I found, it is being blogged all over:

With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

I’d like to see somebody stand in her way.

“When I first heard about Palin, I was impressed,” said Pamela Moore, a mother of two from Birmingham, Ala. But upon reading that Ms. Palin’s special-needs child was three days old when she went back to work, Ms. Moore began questioning the governor’s judgment. Partly as a result, she plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Yes. Always at home is Obama. And Michelle. Why, she’s hardly been seen.

“You can juggle a BlackBerry and a breast pump in a lot of jobs, but not in the vice presidency,” said Christina Henry de Tessan, a mother of two in Portland, Ore., who supports Mr. Obama.

So that’s two Obama supporters not voting for McCain, and the Times manages to blame it on the working Mum.

I guess you just can't hide from the Internet (Good line, maybe I can sell it for a TV add)

[Editor's Note] For almost 18 months the New York Obama Times has refused to vett (as in examine the background of) any of the most liberal presidential hopefuls this country has ever seen, but now that John McCain picks his VP they are practically telling us which side of the plate she places her fork and knife, left or right. Because they are so far from mainstream America (just like the DNC leaders) they assume that the newly invigorated conservative voters will now reject her (and therefore the Republican Party). This because her 17 year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant and will soon marry her teenage boyfriend. 

Let me give the Liberal-Biased press a lesson in conservatism. We would not condemn or reject her because she is following her conservative Christian values and beliefs; her daughter is having the baby and will soon marry her baby's father. When we look at conservatives, evangelicals, Christians in general; we are the most forgiving people in the world. What we do find hardest to forgive is hypocrisy. Her daughter is having a baby, we do not condemn this, we celebrate it. I have heard some people actually calling her Pro-Choice; as she has chosen to have a baby, not 'abort' the life of a human.  Because Sarah Palin is supporting her daughter we do not comdem her; again the word celebrate comes to mind.

The weekend after her selection the McCain campaign received over 10 million dollars in contributions. Social conservatives are On Fire.

I really think they don't get it, so I am sure that reading this, most liberals will assume that I have no idea what I am talking about. After all, they assume that THEY are mainstream America. I am just someone who lives in Fly-Over country. God Bless America.


The New York Times. ST. PAUL — A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

You can read the rest of the NYT's article here. You can add a comment here.

• The 1987 Stock Market Crash
• Popularity of Starbucks
• Big Boom in Bottled Water
• The Panic of 2008
• The "Bailout Bubble"

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed — as it has in North Korea — or is in the process of failing

"Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors."

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for — most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates — presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice — to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

"Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence."

I highly recommend that you read the entire publication.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Foxy Obama

 “First of all,” said President Barack Obama in an interview on CNBC, “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” Although he never said that it was Fox News, there was little doubt that was the network to which he was referring. Unless one makes a vigil of watching the Fox, it would be hard to concur that the network “is entirely devoted to attacking [the Obama] administration,” but it’s close.

Of course, there may be a little residue of miff left after Fox set up a Democratic presidential debate in 2008 in which Obama and the rest of the Democrats backed out because they thought the questions would be too tough.

But on the other hand, Obama does have exceedingly friendly coverage from the rest of the press. In the economic and military crises of today, how can a press conference challenge Obama with questions like, what has humbled him most since becoming president and how has he battled his cigarette habit? Or how about the latest press conference where the initial question from a blogger was set up in advance?

Why the rest of the press is almost enough to make Fox look objective. Almost.

Lawyers’ nest eggs

In England, a couple wanting a second child – and having a difficult time conceiving – contracted with the University Hospital of Wales to perform in vitro fertilization (IVF). If you’re not familiar with it, IVF is the process in which a woman’s egg is harvested and fertilized outside her body. The egg is then replanted in the uterus and, nine months later, a baby is born.

Well, in this case, everything went like clockwork. The egg was fertilized and planted in the uterus. One problem – it was planted in the wrong uterus.

The woman who received the embryo was in the hospital for an IVF herself (hence the error) and was informed of the hospital’s mistake. She immediately opted for an abortion.

Now, regardless of your opinion of abortion, it is a legal medical procedure – but maybe not in this case. The choice to abort is, legally, the mother’s right. But, who is the legal mother? Is it the woman who produced the embryo or is it the woman carrying it?

If the accident had occurred in the United States (and it probably will, one day), it sounds like a bonanza for lawyers.

Painful probes

When probing the decision to publish a news story or not publish it, Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times said that the Times’ starting point is "not 'why publish?' but 'why would we withhold information of significance?”

It’s a policy not without controversy. If any news organization withholds information, whether through self-censorship or via a request from the government, it requires deep philosophic self-probing – and self probing can hurt. Sometimes the decision can be delusional; does a story warrant being withheld because of a moral imperative or is the story being withheld because of a political imperative masking as a moral one? It’s a tricky probe.

For the past seven months, Keller and New York Times not only sat on a story but asked fellow publications to sit on the story. Why? They were concerned about the safety of one of their reporters, David Rohde.

Rohde had been writing a book on the history of the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan and wanted to interview a Taliban commander. Last November, he set out with his driver and translator and was kidnapped. When the story broke, the Times was concerned that public exposure would endanger Rohde and requested that its sister news organizations sit on the story and they did. Rohde ended the drama when he escaped seven months later.

But from that time to this, as Keller says, the Times “just made a decision that talking about who did what, who decided what, who advised what during this time simply contributes to the playbook of kidnappers.” Kind of makes sense. After all, the secrecy laws of the United States do not provide unfettered access to all information regardless of one’s security clearance: there is a “need to know” requirement and, in the case of the Rohde kidnapping, the “need to know” should be a restriction.

Keller and The Times got it right. The public does not have a “need to know” all the details and, as Keller said, the facts could contribute “to the playbook of kidnappers.” The Times got it right – this time.

In a similar seven-month period beginning in December 2005, Keller and his staff decided that contributing to the playbook of al-Qaida was okay. And further, that it was not necessary to “withhold information of significance.” In those cases, the “need to know” caution went out the window. In that period, the Times published heretofore classified information that (1) the National Security Administration eavesdropped on international phone calls to and from specific countries where a suspected al-Qaeda link existed and (2) that the United States monitored some financial transactions through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) that could have been al-Qaida linked.

Is there a difference in these two situations? Of course. In the Rohde case, the Times was dealing with one of Times’ own and with the financial and eavesdropping case, they were dealing with the Bush Administration. Should they handle both equally? Yes, but it’s hard to be objective when the paper’s tone was set by Keller’s predecessor. Former Executive Editor Howell Raines has referred to President Bush as “dim-witted,” amoral and adopting “the full agenda of redneck America.”

The Times got it right, this time. Will they get the next story on eavesdropping and financial transaction monitoring right? Don’t know; I hope their probing decision is not dependent on who occupies the White House.

Top Drone

Top Gun is the nickname of United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, a pilot training school which became the setting of movie by the same name starring Tom Cruise. And now, a new Top Gun school has been opened for pilots and its first class graduated this month.

Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada runs the Air Force Advanced Weapons School where they provide advanced training for fighter and bomber pilots and now—drone pilots.

Drone weaponry seems to be the way the Air Force is going. For fiscal 2009, the Air Force plans to train 214 fighter and bomber pilots and 240 drone pilots.

Fans who watched the Top Gun movie got adrenalin pumping watching Tom Cruise perform breath taking maneuvers in his F-14 Tomcat as he faced the enemy in combat. In films of the future, it’ll be kind of hard to get excited over Tom Cruise sitting at a screen and keyboard while he is sipping a Diet Pepsi and maneuvering his drone — but we’ll get over it.

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut

The Wall Street Journal notes: "Ms. Sebelius said the administration is seeking new authority so Medicare can more easily share claims data with other agencies in its efforts to trace con artists. The administration, she said, wants that authority to be included in legislation to overhaul health care. Key Democrats in both the House and Senate plan to include more funding to fight health-care fraud" (Zhang, 6/25).

Authorities Crackdown On Major Medicare Fraud In Detroit 

Jun 25, 2009

Fifty-three people were indicted in a major Medicare fraud crackdown in Detroit yesterday, just one day after eight were charged in a similar case in Miami.

The Wall Street Journal: "the two separate cases, a joint effort by the Justice Department and the Health and the Human Services Department, reflect a pickup in the government's pace in combating Medicare fraud. In the Detroit case, the alleged fraud was estimated at $50 million. Those charged included doctors, health-care executives and beneficiaries. The scheme in Miami allegedly used fake storefronts in an attempt to cheat Medicare out of $100 million. The suspects charged in the Detroit operation allegedly submitted bogus Medicare claims for care that was medically unnecessary and often not provided at all. In some instances suspects paid patients to go along with the scheme, the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and HHS said at a joint news conference. Since March 2007, the government's special antifraud teams have produced more than 250 indictments involving Medicare claims totaling more than $600 million in such Medicare-fraud 'hot spots' as South Florida, Los Angeles and Detroit, where abuses of the federal health program for the elderly and disabled are more frequently found."

The charges come as the administration and Congress try to reduce waste and fraud to pay for increased coverage of the uninsured as part of health care reform. The Obama administration has requested $311 million in additional funding to combat fraud. The U.S. pays more than $800 billion on Medicare and on Medicaid and "by some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud." The Wall Street Journal notes: "Ms. Sebelius said the administration is seeking new authority so Medicare can more easily share claims data with other agencies in its efforts to trace con artists. The administration, she said, wants that authority to be included in legislation to overhaul health care. Key Democrats in both the House and Senate plan to include more funding to fight health-care fraud" (Zhang, 6/25).  <<<MORE>>>

The New York Times

June 9, 2009

Israel Kills 4 Gunmen on Gaza Border

By ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — Israeli forces on Monday killed four gunmen from Gaza who attacked an army patrol along the Gaza border in one of the most audacious raids since Israel ended its military campaign in the Palestinian coastal strip in January.

The violence erupted as President Obama’s Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, headed to the region for talks with Israeli officials and Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Israel is embarking on a policy review of the economic blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, which could ease restrictions on the entry of goods meant to help the civilian population.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the early-morning raid near the border fence north of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal and close to the main Karni commercial crossing. But witnesses in Gaza suggested that the militants may have belonged to the Army of the Nation, a small, shadowy group inspired by Al Qaeda, and that they may have included non-Palestinians.

Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, declared an informal cease-fire after Israel pulled its troops out and recently arrested a member of the Army of the Nation for walking around with a weapon. Still, Ismail Haniya, who leads the Hamas government, praised the militants involved in the Monday raid as “martyrs,” and said the violence confirmed Israel’s “aggressive intentions” toward the Palestinians, according to The Associated Press.

Please read the entire article here.

[Comment] HOW COULD THEY?!?

Radical Extremists may have gone too far today. Just as things were beginning to go their way politically, Islamic Extremists may have taken action today that is unforgivable. Early this morning 10 to 15 Extremists attacked the border between Israel and Gaza wearing suicide bomb vests, with the intention of killing innocent Israeli soldiers or Citizens. Nothing new you say? Ah … but this time there is something new, and boy is it going to upset the left in America. This time they made suicide bomb vests for their horsies [sic]. Well, I guess you can’t really call them suicide bomb vests since I’m pretty sure the Horses weren’t consulted on the matter. Imagine that. Innocent, beautiful, majestic horses being used as bombs. That is something to get upset about. It may be hard for them to get misty about a couple a Jews, but I have a feeling this is really going to upset the left wing in America. Perhaps we can even return to calling them what they really are … which is Terrorists. If it doesn’t sway the mainstream left toward the support of Israel, maybe we can at least get PETA [to take notice]. That’s a start.

 

Robert Shapiro
Vinyl Designs, LLC

"U.S. Military Veterans being disarmed Posted on June 3, 2009 by duo Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet BoxCourtesy of Turner Radio Network(TRN) — The U.S. Veterans Administratio n has been instructed by the Department of Homeland Security to ask military vets 3 questions when they come in for any kind of medical check-up or problem. Answering “Yes” to any single question will result in the vet being disarmed by the government."Duo, Project World Awareness, Jun 200

“I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found something very interesting I would like to pass along.. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions.
    (1. Did I feel stressed?)
    (2. Did I feel threatened?)
    (3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?)

    The nurse then informed me, if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

    I am a Vietnam vet and 15 year cc permit holder.

    Looks like they are going after us vets.”
    Be forewarned and be aware.

When I visit my local VA I will determine if the above is likely to be true. I would not be surprised if it is, as even under the Bush administration there were similar requests made by management that would have had similar results. I guess this means that anyone who is stressed by the economy (or anything else for that matter) AND is a veteran, will lose their second amendment rights. Whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality. Just one more inalienable right we are losing under the Democratic Socialist Party.

You can read the whole article here.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
— U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights.

By James Osborne

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights.

At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

"This has been boiling for years, and it's finally come to a head," said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. "With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head."

The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:

The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.