The New York Post reports an alarming turn of events in the slow cleanup and apparent incompetence on the part of New York Officials regarding the slow cleanup and chaos resulting from the holiday blizzard.
The blame game has started with city officials pointing the finger elsewhere and reports of miscalculations and mistakes being made all around, but the Post piece indicates that deliberate orders were given by sanitation officials and supervisors to deliberately slow down the cleanup effort.
Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts -- a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.
Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens, to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and a city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions, attrition and budget cuts.
"They sent a message to the rest of the city that these particular labor issues are more important," said City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who was visited yesterday by a group of guilt-ridden sanitation workers who confessed the shameless plot.
Halloran said he met with three plow workers from the Sanitation Department -- and two Department of Transportation supervisors who were on loan -- at his office after he was flooded with irate calls from constituents.
The snitches "didn't want to be identified because they were afraid of retaliation," Halloran said. "They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file."
New York's Strongest used a variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process -- and pad overtime checks -- which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said.
The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.
Two page piece and much more information if you go read the entire thing but it has brought about some very serious questions.
First and foremost, is it true?
No doubt the quotes from Halloran are true and possibly even his word that this was the information given to him from those fearing reprisal.
Did officials/supervisors from the Sanitation Department give orders to slow the snow removal? That needs to be investigated.
If an investigation proves those assertions true, then another larger question comes into play, as asked by Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications, in regards to a baby that died after child birth when the mother was forced to deliver in a Brooklyn building and not having any help arrive to her for nine hours after the 911 call went out for help because "no one could get to her"?.
Worthing asks "If True, How is This Not Criminally Negligent Homicide?"
A three page New York Times' article describes the timeline of events and from it many will see mistakes made on the part of city officials as well as transit and sanitation officials, but mistakes happen and sometimes they do have tragic results.
If any of those so-called mistakes were made deliberately though, then the whole basis for the negligent homicide question comes into play.
This should not be investigated internally nor by the state, this should definitely be investigated by objective outside parties not looking to lay blame elsewhere so it will not reflect on them.
A federal investigation is in order.
A five minute video below of citizens dealing with the cleanup and aftereffects of the blizzard. This doesn't deal with the questions asked above but the video does show a great visual of the massive mess Mother Nature left behind for New Yorkers.
TPM reports that Fox News host Megyn Kelly compares calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented immigrant" to changing the word rapist to "non-consensual sex partners".
She is right. It is not the job of journalists to refrain from using an accurate descriptor because a small segment of the population doesn't like the term.
Video below:
"You could say that a burglar is an unauthorized visitor. You know, you could say that a rapist is a non-consensual sex partner which, obviously, would be considered offensive to the victims of those crimes," Kelly said. "So how far could you take this?"
"What if there was a push by the criminal defense... bar to re-brand the use of the word rapist to nonconsensual sex partner?" Kelly asks her guest. Jehmu Greene, the former president of the Women's Media Center, said that was like comparing "apples and oranges."
Kelly also expressed frustration over the politically correct language dominating American culture.
–noun 1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, esp. a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.
Illegal aliens are not just undocumented, they are here illegally and changing the descriptors does not make that any less true.
Kudos to Megyn Kelly.
[Update]Big Government gets the quote of the day in their article on this issue:
Megyn Kelly picked up on the topic at Fox News. Now, TPM is taking out after her. Given that so many self-professed journalists so routinely perform journalistic malpractice of the JournoList variety today, in the spirit of being certain, I propose we stop calling all of them journalists. We can just call them something fun, like typing monkeys, until we’re absolutely convinced they are capable of producing something akin to objective journalism, as opposed to the usual liberal spew they regularly regurgitate on cue.
The Wrap reports that Fox dominated cable news according to the 2010 Nielsen numbers taking the title of most watched for the ninth year in a row.
In fact, Fox not only beat CNN, MSNBC and HLN in average primetime and total viewers, but Fox had more than all of them combined for total viewers.
The ratings released show that Fox News averaged 2 million viewers in prime time and far outdistanced MSNBC (764,000), CNN (591,000) and HLN (444,000). (Total rounded- 1,799,000)
Fox owned the top 12 cable news shows in average total viewers and swept the top 10 among 25-54-year-olds (MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" came in 13th and 11th, respectively). Even the nightly repeat of the “O’Reilly Factor” averaged more viewers than MSNBC and CNN shows.
(Screen shot from TV Newser, who has the full document up here)
According to Nielsen, the top five cable news programs in terms of total viewers and viewers 25-54 (the metric used by advertisers and considered the most important by networks) were all on Fox: The O’Reilly Factor (781,000 viewers 25-54); Hannity (585,000); Glenn Beck (572,000); On the Record (481,000); and The O’Reilly Factor repeat (447,000).
In terms of total viewers, Special Report joins the top five cable news shows, as host Bret Baier has taken the show to its highest ratings ever.
Fox’s dominance is demonstrated by its ranking across all of cable–coming in as the fourth highest-rated network in primetime (total viewers), right behind USA, ESPN, and TNT. MSNBC is ranked #28 in primetime, CNN came in at #32 and HLN was #37.
As Fox remains the power player in cable news, CNN’s year has been one of notable declines–Nielsen marking this CNN’s lowest-rated year in primetime (for both total viewers and viewers 25-54) in 14 years. For the full day, 2010 marks a tie for CNN’s worst year ever (viewers 25-54).
The numbers truly do speak for themselves about where more Americans prefer to get their news and their commentary from.
As I fly back from Atlanta to Los Angeles, I now know how it would sound if Barack Obama lamented his failures by singing them to Susan Boyle's "I Dreamed a Dream."
Another miracle from our decadence.(and on Christmas Day) Sir Elton John, sires a pup. EXCUSE ME! I am not anti-gay, but, when it comes to children, his choice, seems to leave them no choice.
Levon will grow up wondering. It gets to a point where we allow kids to be exploited, to parental thinking. Whether it is right, or wrong, the kid has no chance here. Raised in a household of.....(way too graphic for me to go further).
You want to be Gay? Cool. Be Gay, Hell, join the Military! You are apparently welcome. Leave the kids out of it. Give them a real choice.
It seems the majority of Americans, or to phrase it more accurately, the majority of Independents and Conservatives (Which equals the majority of Americans) feel that way, but a plurality of liberals feel differently and think the government should regulate the Internet.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
More:
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.
It seems almost every controversial issue has liberals (the 21 percent group) on one side and the majority of Americans on the other side of the issue.
Liberals claim it is because they are "progressive", they arrogantly believe it is because they are smarter, more moral, whatever rhetoric they tell themselves to help them sleep at night because they are scared of the one question they should be asking themselves in the mirror... "could I be wrong?"
Generally speaking, when a liberal answers yes to that question, they become conservatives.. and yes, I speak from experience there.
Once again Obamacare news and it isn't good. Wapo soft pedals it in their usual fashion and added together with all the other Obamacare busts, shows the public's opposition originally was well founded and their continued opposition grounded in reality over hype.
An early feature of the new health-care law that allows people who are already sick to get insurance to cover their medical costs isn't attracting as many customers as expected.
In the meantime, in at least a few states, claims for medical care covered by the "high-risk pools" are proving very costly, and it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient.
Federal health officials contend the new insurance plans, designed solely for people who already are sick, are merely experiencing growing pains. It will take time to spread the word that they exist and to adjust prices and benefits so that the plans are as attractive as possible, the officials say.
A two-page piece from Wapo which leaves gaping questions about one of the more popular aspects of the Obamacare aka health care law in which the writer doesn't even bother to address the variety of other failures that have already shown themselves in the massive bill which Democratic politicians pushed through both house's of Congress and Barack Obama signed into law.
Following the link, Ed points out over at Hot Air:
The failure of ObamaCare’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan has been known for weeks, at least to readers of the Wall Street Journal and Hot Air. The Washington Post catches up to the WSJ a mere 45 days later with this report from Amy Goldstein on the failure of PECIP to attract the 375,000 people the White House and Congress claimed needed the help of subsidies to get health-care coverage. Even with the program falling 97% short of its stated goal, it’s still going to cost more than Congress allocated anyway
This, on top of other Obamacare failures, along with the most recent news that Obama has used regulation to impose the end-of-life planning portion of Obamacare which was dropped from the health care bill when a firestorm was created after Sarah Palin pointed out the likelihood of "Death Panels", shows a bill, a piece of law passed with only Democratic support by a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic president against the continued opposition of the majority of Americans...is a failure already.
The House of Representatives will be controlled by the GOP starting in January and they will control the purse strings and since repeal of the entire obamacare bill is impossible as long as the Senate is run by Harry Reid and Democrats (although much less control now after the midterm elections) and the White House is controlled by Barack Obama who would veto any such total repeal, the GOP in the House must defund every portion of Obamacare they can until the political situation changes to the point where we can undo Obamacare totally.
Choke it, starve it, defund it GOP... we expect it, we demand it and we are watching to make sure you make it happen.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is a law that subsidizes and regulates the menu of federally funded programs that feed children primarily at school, whether it be breakfast, lunch, dinner or summer time schooling.
The law increases spending on school nutrition programs by $4.5 billion over ten years and encompasses a range of provisions, including offering qualified children breakfast, lunch and dinner at school, as well as meals during the summer. It also includes a pilot program for “organic foods.”
President Obama said at the signing ceremony—held at the Harriet Tubman Elementary School in Washington. D.C.--that he was following in the tradition of President Harry S. Truman, who signed the first federal school lunch program into law, and President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Childhood Nutrition Act of 1966.
Obama said that if the bill had not reached his desk for his signature, “I would be sleeping on the couch.”
Obama would be sleeping on the couch because this law has been championed by his wife, Michelle Obama in her cause to battle obesity.
There is the background.. now for the most recent headline news in relation to this law, Michelle Obama gave a speech in where she included the phrase "We can’t just leave it up to the parents."
“Everywhere I go, fortunately, I meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy,” said Mrs. Obama. “They’re doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables. They’re trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime.
“But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well,” Mrs. Obama said. “We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.”
So, we have Michelle Obama's full point.
Now to Sarah Palin, who on her show cooked up some s’mores and stated "This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert."
Once again, that particular comment is all that we see in the headlines about Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama's "food fight". In the name of the same fairness as showing Michelle's full statement, here is Palin's expanded view:
"Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us, according to some politician’s — or politician’s wife’s — priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us, as individuals, to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.”
Funny thing is, Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama actually agree to a point, as Palin has previously stated "Health-care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money and a lot of grief by making smarter choices. It starts by ending destructive habits and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise."
The difference between Michelle Obama's interference and Sarah Palin's previous statements is one prefers to help educate and the other is trying to impose her will on Americans by regulation and federal laws.
Palin's latest statements is what has the far left in such a tizzy for publicly criticizing Michelle Obama's "obvious" good intentions.
Just because the cause is good, does not mean the actions taken are good actions.
A little clarity here and some background puts Palin's statements into context, like the recent war against sweet treats that many have not even heard about.
States regulating bake sales and what can be sold and even banning them in New York. California- "officials are now having to ensure than any food sold in conjunction with a school event comply with strict dietary standards. In Connecticut, classroom birthday parties are a thing of the past, as schools there no longer allow parents to bring celebratory sugary goods."
Those are just a couple examples from a state level.
In fact, the new law authorizes, in fact, mandates the Agriculture Department to write guidelines for all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
Contrary to Michelle Obama's assertions that she is doing this for the parents to respect their desires to expect the schools to feed children what the parents want, bake sales and fundraisers are often run and food is supplied by those very parents that this law is demanding the right to tell them what to sell and what food they can raise money for the school with.
The evidence is, in fact, to the contrary, suggesting that well-intentioned government policies will make the problem worse: To the extent that political action has thus far affected American obesity, it has been a thumb on the wrong side of the scales, subsidizing the worst kinds of foods through the farm-subsidy and school-lunch programs, and often giving out precisely the wrong kind of dietary advice.
Obesity is, in truth, among our least tractable public-health problems. It is an absolute Gordian knot of nutrition, behavior, genetics, child-rearing environments, hormonal biology, economics, and other factors too numerous and too subtle to catalog. As New York University obesity-policy scholar Rogan Kersh has noted, the problem “has proved impervious to clinical treatment or public-health exhortation,” and it is by no means clear what, if anything, public policy can accomplish, or what the best avenue for reform is, if indeed there is one. For an administration prone to smug castigation of its predecessors for their allegedly insufficient deference to scientific expertise, the Obama team is here shockingly cavalier about a scientific question of substantial depth and complexity. If Mrs. Obama, between her undergraduate major in sociology, her minor in African-American studies, and her law degree somehow managed also to acquire a great deal of expertise regarding a medical issue that has proved remarkably difficult for actual scholars and learned authorities, she has not seen fit to share how and where she acquired it.
FACT- Parents, if not satisfied with a school's menu, are allowed to pack a lunch and feed the children something more to their desires.
The $4.5 billion could have been spent creating free gyms, providing low income families with the means to pack their child's lunches... any variety of things that would not encroach on a parents right to feed their children as they see fit and put the government in charge of a right, a responsibility and obligation that belongs solely to a parent, not an overreaching government that wants to stick their nose into every aspect of American's lives.
Sarah Palin's point is valid and she is right. The government continues to expand their power into our lives and that is the point she has been trying to make.
Poll after poll after poll show that Americans favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services.
A solid majority of voters (67%) prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a larger, more active government with more services and higher taxes. Just one-in-four (25%) prefer the larger, more active government, a sentiment that has changed little since polling on the question began.
It is a food fight today between Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, but that is one small battle in a much larger war. The main fight is about preventing government from empowering themselves to the point where they control every aspect of our free lives.
In that war, in that fight, Sarah Palin is on the side of the parents, the people, Americans.
Michelle Obama is on the side of bigger government interference.
Are you a Canadian military spouse, or do you know one? If so, this message is for you:
... I`m a producer with Radio-Canada in Montreal. I`m doing some research for a story that I`m working on about support for military families.
I`m wondering if you can help me with my research…
I know that the Canadian Forces has done a lot the last few years through the Military Family Resources Centres to support spouses and women in particular. But I`m trying to get a sense of how the Canadian Forces treats spouses in general now that their partners are coming back from one or more deployments to Afghanistan. I know that this puts a lot more stress on families, when they`re already very stressed. So far, I`ve talked with a lot of women who are feeling quite isolated.
I`m wondering, if you have an insights on this topic, could you give me a call? We could chat off-the-record and totally confidentially. I`m free any time and you can reach me on my cell at 514-895-0341 or email me at lysanne.louter@radio-canada.ca
The world is run by a shadowy cabal of Powerful Bald White Guys (PBWGs). Here is the list of the Top 10 PBWGs of the last decade, with the 2010 list tomorrow.
Bad business practices will lead to failure. Infusing money into a failing business without said business changing the original cause that created failure, is simply postponing that failure.
An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
WSJ reports the third-quarter financial results shows that 98 of the smaller banks who received bailout funds are in jeopardy of failing. That number has risen from 86 since the second quarter.
Nearly 100 U.S. banks that got bailout funds from the federal government show signs they are in jeopardy of failing.
The total, based on an analysis of third-quarter financial results by The Wall Street Journal, is up from 86 in the second quarter, reflecting eroding capital levels, a pileup of bad loans and warnings from regulators. The 98 banks in shaky condition got more than $4.2 billion in infusions from the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
More:
A Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. spokesman declined to comment on the Journal's analysis, which also calculated that 814 of the nation's 7,760 banks and savings institutions are troubled according to these standards, up from 729 at the end of the second quarter. The FDIC's official list of problem banks, which uses different criteria from the Journal's analysis, includes 860 financial institutions. The banks aren't publicly identified.
Lending money to those one knows cannot pay it bank is a recipe for disaster and failure. Borrowing money one knows they have no financial means to pay back, is irresponsibility.
Handing tax payer money and TARP funds to businesses that are failing because of bad business practices... is incompetent.
TARP was created by George Bush administration in 2008, one decision I and many other conservatives disagreed vehemently with.
It has largely been administered by the Obama administration.
By Tony Lombardo - Staff writer Posted : Sunday Dec 26, 2010 9:19:55 EST
Staff Sgt. Jennifer Brofer/Marine Corps Marines and family members who find themselves battling stress can talk to a trained counselor for free through the "DSTRESS Line," a Marine Corps-sponsored phone hotline staffed 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Marines and their families can call the hotline at 1-877-476-7734 or visit www.dstressline.com.
You’ve got bills to pay, too little family time and new orders from your commander. The stress started as a slow burn, but now your head is on fire.
To help, the Corps is touting a new hot line called “DSTRESS.” Available to Marines on the West Coast, the hope is to expand it Corps-wide.
Faced with mounting stress and not enough support, a Marine can quickly “spiral downhill,” said Col. Grant Olbrich, section head of the suicide prevention program at Headquarters Marine Corps.
“There are widely varying challenges being in the Marine Corps family, and that applies to our Marines currently in uniform, family members and Marines who used to wear the uniform,” Olbrich said. “DSTRESS is for all of them.”
Olbrich points out that DSTRESS is not a suicide hot line, but rather a source for any Marine “feeling the effects of stress.”
The Corps is just launching a media campaign to get the word out. It’s good timing for the holiday season, Olbrich said, when stress typically is high.
The hot line, 877-476-7734, operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Or you can visit the DSTRESS website.
If you want help
• Call the hot line at 877-476-7734. It is operational 24/7.
Bradley Manning, a man, a supposed soldier who stole confidential information using his military position, gave it to Wikileaks, jeopardized his fellow military brethren's lives and sold out the country he swore to defend when he joined the military, is not adjusting to prison life so well.... doesn't that just make your heart bleed for him?
He is being kept in solitary confinement under a POI (Prevention of Injury) order and his blankets are heavy and coarse, he is under constant watch and doesn't get to watch a lot of television or read much news and only gets a little exercise.
Boo hoo.
He is a traitor that did everything in his power to endanger America while sworn to protect Her.
He is scum and personally I think his treatment is too good for him. He shouldn't get any television, he should be happy he even has a blanket.
Oh, and bleeding hearts who complain, loudly, that his is suffering "inhumane" treatment instead of focusing on what damage he has done to our intelligence community or how many of our brave troop's lives he has endangered are simply showing their true colors and proving they don't give a damn about America.
Here is an idea.. the military should take the POI order off and if Manning decides to take his own life as the POI is meant to prevent, no big loss.
"If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it? Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life? When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?"--- Dr. Maria J. Silveira via NYT article.
The New York Times reports that the end-of-life planning portion of Obamacare which was dropped from the health care bill when a firestorm was created after Sarah Palin pointed out the likelihood of "Death Panels" has been reinstated by Barack Obama using regulation starting January 1, 2011.
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Supporters have also deliberately tried to keep it quiet and out of the news for fear of the public's reaction:
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
More evidence of that comes from emails from Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, the author of the original end-of-life proposal which included the following statements "While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet." ~~~ "This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth." ~~~~ "We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded. Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
The underhanded sneakiness of Barack Obama, adding this back in, by regulation, after such a large public outcry against it, should be surprising, but it isn't given that he and the Democratically controlled Congress all passed Obamacare against the opposition of the majority of Americans to begin with, shows that Obama does not care one iota for the public's opinion and will force his agenda down American's throats as long as he can get away with it.
The House of Representatives will be controlled by the GOP starting in January and they will control the purse strings and since repeal of the entire obamacare bill is impossible as long as the Senate is run by Harry Reid and Democrats (although much less control now after the midterm elections) and the White House is controlled by Barack Obama who would veto any such total repeal, the GOP in the House must defund every portion of Obamacare they can until the political situation changes to the point where we can undo Obamacare totally.
Choke it, starve it, defund it GOP... we expect it, we demand it and we are watching to make sure you make it happen.
In honor of the phenomenal New Jersey Governor, I wish Christians everywhere a Roly Poly Holly Jolly Chris Christie Christmas. Heck, let's rename the holiday Christiemas. As for liberals...lumps of coal.
The Huron Carol has become part of the Brat Christmas. It is usually sung by a native Canadian, Tom Jackson - who has an amazing voice - and I tried to find it. . I couldn't but I did find an even better version:All part of the brat edumacational service. ..lol. And if you go here, you can actually hear Tom Jackson singing another song. Did I mention I LOVE Tom Jackson? Enjoy!
The audacity and arrogance of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is astounding when she not only blows off the concerns of the recently murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, but "scolds" reporters for daring to confront her with those concerns of his father, mother and stepmother.
The family of agent Brian Terry had complained that Napolitano had offered them "empty words" when she called to express her condolences. Terry's father, Kent Terry, in an interview with ABC affiliate KGUN, said he told Napolitano to "wake your man up in the White House," to which she replied that he's done more in two years than any president.
Had the Obama administration put as much money and effort into placing more people on the borders to secure them and less on his desire to pass the amnesty DREAM Act, perhaps Agent Terry's family would not be mourning.
After being told the concerns came from his father, mother and stepmother, she continued: "Listen, we are here today, the commissioner is here today, the chief of the Border Patrol is here today and we are here and his comrades are here with the family, who said other things to me by the way, so I really don't think it appropriate for the media to try to pick this as a fight," she said. "This is a moment to remember a fallen agent."
So, when reporters dare question Napolitano, quoting family members themselves, she accuses the media of picking a fight? She should remember that fallen agent's family are the ones confronting her via the media. Then explain why more is not being done to secure the border before anything else, especially trying to push Congress to offer amnesty to those here illegally.
Terry's death falls right on the shoulders of Obama, Napolitano and Congress for not assuring more bodies on the border to secure it.
I don't know whether to put this as a Moonbat Alert or a WTF. I think this one is both.
In Brookline, Maassachusetts a public school principal sent out permission slips to allow students to say the Pledge of Allegiance once a week. Not daily, but weekly.
Gerardo Martinez, the principal of The Devotion School, informed parents that the school would begin reciting the pledge in January over the public address system.
Attached to the letter was a form that asked parents to check either: "Yes, my child will participate in the weekly Pledge of Allegiance" or "No, my child will not participate in the weekly Pledge of Allegiance."
"I urge you to have a conversation as a family to help your children understand why I will be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and to support them in feeling comfortable and confident in the decision on whether or not to participate," Martinez wrote in the letter.
The school also sent parents a copy of the Pledge of Allegiance along with a note that defined the words "under God" as meaning "there is one Supreme entity for every citizen."
School officials told Fox News Radio they are in the process of offering some sort of clarification about the school’s policy as well as the definition of the words "under God."
"It's actually not a permission slip," said Superintendent Bill Lupini, in an interview with Fox News Radio. "There's no intent this was a permission form."
Lupini said students will not be forced to recite the pledge, regardless of a parent's wishes.
"If a student's parent checked yes and the student chose to remain seated, no one was going to compel that student to stand and vice versa," he said.
As for the definition of "under God?"
"My sense is that particular reference will be removed when he (the principal) clarifies it," Lupini said.
Some parents took issue with the permission slips.
"It's uncomfortable," Judi Puritz Cook told the Local Wicked newspaper. "The pledge is a promise, and I've always taught my kids to think very carefully before making any promise. It's not a decision I want to make for them."
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Boston also had some concerns about the situation.
Sarah Wunsch told the newspaper the permission slips were "really strange."
"It suggests that this is a decision for parents alone," she said, noting that children don't lose their right of expression once they walk into a school building.
Under state law, teachers are required to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every school day. Those who fail to do so for at least two weeks could face fines of up to five dollars.
"It's never been enforced,” Lupini said. "We will not be fining anyone."
I think that the State of Massachusetts is competing with the State of California to see which one is the most Moonbattiest.
Whenever one party holds the majority in the Senate, that same party screams about the filibuster procedure when the minority party can force a vote to require 60 out of 100 Senators instead of passing a bill with a simple majority.
It slows things down, yes, but it also gives a voice to the minority party and their constituents. When any one party wins a majority, the minority party isn't supposed to go home and wait for the next election and hope that they win back the majority. The rules are set up the way they are for a purpose and that is exactly what filibusters do.... preserve the integrity of Senate body and force them to compromise in certain areas where no compromise would be made if the ruling party simply could shove through whatever agenda they wanted with no opposition.
With that said... I say if Democrats are so short-sighted that they do not take into account that in 2012 they have 23 seats up for grabs in the Senate with Republicans only a handful and that for the next two years the GOP has control of the House of Representatives, so without cooperation barely anything could make it to Obama's desk for signature, give it to them.
Reform the filibuster and let them take their chances in 2012 and also let them pray that they do not lose control of the Senate and/or the Presidency, because if they do then the reform they are chomping at the bit for now, will come back and bite them on the ass in a major manner.
[Update] William A. Jacobson, from Le-gal-In-sur-rec-tion, makes the point a little more clearly than I just did.
With a solid Republican majority in the House, the filibuster takes on less importance for Republicans. The threat of a filibuster still will play into the politics of judicial nominations, but not much else. With so many Democrats in the Senate up for reelection, the "centrist" block of Democrats may make a filibuster unnecessary in most events.
So if Democrats change the filibuster rule, will they be shooting themselves in the foot?
In 2012 there is a reasonable likelihood of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. If Obama loses, and Republicans find themselves in the position Democrats have been in the past two years, things could get very interesting with relaxed filibuster rules. Even if Obama wins, the ability of a Republican Senate to pass on legislation to Obama -- requiring a veto -- will be an important political tool.
What goes around, comes around. Senators, having the long memories they do, understand this, even if the rabble in the left-wing blogosphere do not.
The proposed changes would not eliminate the filibuster, it seems they would actually makes things move along more slowly in the Senate, contrary to the hype that claims it would speed things up, but hey, the Senate is supposed to be the deliberative body.
I say contrary to the hype because if Senators actually have to get up and filibuster (talk almost endlessly) and they do it, then things slow to a crawl and those of us that watch C-Span from time to time to see the Senate in action, will need pots and pots of coffee and may even expire of boredom, although the media will have more statements and gaffes to report on!! Message to the far left- Go for it!! Do not cry, whine, stomp your feet and beat your chest though, if in 2012, Republicans take the Senate and/or the White House and your party cannot use the same methods to protect their constituents and are forced to abide by the reform rules that Democratic Senators are pushing for now with the help of the liberal blogopshere.
The Swiss Embassy and Chilean Embassy in Rome were the sites of two package bomb explosions, both incidents wounding one person each, according to CNN.
Authorities searched for others but so far have found none, although one suspicious package was found at the Ukrainian Embassy, but was later determined not to be dangerous.
Last month 14 parcel bombs originating from Greece were found and destroyed with one woman wounded at the time.
In November, police discovered 14 parcel bombs emanating from Greece, most of which were sent to various embassies in Athens.
Police intercepted and destroyed most of them in controlled explosions, but a woman at a courier office was wounded by one of the devices and another device exploded in the courtyard of the Swiss Embassy.
Other parcel bombs were addressed to European targets including the leaders of Germany and Italy.
Two men accused of participating in the bombings were remanded into custody after they were arrested in Athens in possession of two parcel bombs, Glock pistols, a bulletproof vest, and a wig.
Panagiotis Argyrou, 22, and Gerasimos Tsakalos, 24 were also in possession of a delivery slip for another parcel containing an explosive device which had been delivered to a courier service and was addressed to the Dutch Embassy, police said.
Hellenic Police spokesman Maj. Athanasios Kokkalakis called the two suspects "important members of a terrorist group."
Before the attacks, Argyrou already faced an arrest warrant for his alleged membership in an illegal organization called the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire.
Greek authorities stressed that they believed the wave letter bombs there was the work of a home-grown Greek terrorist group that does not have ties to international organizations like al Qaeda.
Gateway Pundit seems to be updating as new news comes out so head over there for updates.
First installment of massive European Union aid to the PA for 2011 is announced, while US delays previously-pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for Israeli defense.
European Union foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton announced on Wednesday an initial 100-million-euro ($131.3 million) aid package to the Palestinian Authority for 2011. Sixty million euros will enable the Palestinian Authority "to cover wages and pensions for essential civilian workers, particularly medical and teaching staff," Ashton said, and the remainder will be channeled through United Nations relief programs.
"This decision is a sign of the strong political and financial commitment of the European Union to the Palestinian Authority and to Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's leadership in building a democratic and viable Palestinian state," Ashton said, taking clear sides in the ongoing debate as to whether a Palestinian state is desirable for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. “Palestinian statehood is critical for any peaceful, workable and lasting solution to the conflict."
The latest aid will be added to 696 million euros already given by the EU to the PA, as well as another 265 million from individual EU member states.
At the same time, a special three-month budget for the United Stateshas been prepared – but is lacking promised funds for Israeli defense that U.S. President Barack Obama earlier pledged. The short-term budget is designed to keep the government afloat until a final budget is prepared.
Specifically, a promised $205 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense project has not been allocated. Similarly missing are increased allocations for other missile defense programs that the House of Representatives approved several months ago. U.S.officials said, however, that the funding would appear in the final national budget.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said that he would work to wean Israelfrom dependence of U.S.foreign aid.
Share a Cup asks Canadians to contribute $10 for a Tim Hortons gift card and write a letter of appreciation to Canadian Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan.
5,000 Canadians send Tim Hortons gift cards to troops in Afghanistan
December 22, 2010
Kathryn Stocks Toronto Star
More than 5,000 Canadians will be having coffee with a stranger thousands of kilometres away in Afghanistan over the holidays.
They’ve all contributed $10 to Share a Cup With a Brave Canuck, an innovative program started three years ago by Ric Rangel-Bron, a Toronto Emergency Medical Services commander. It has since spread to paramedic groups across the country.
Share a Cup asks Canadians to contribute $10 for a Tim Hortons gift card and write a letter of appreciation to Canadian Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan.
Over the past two years 23,000 cards and messages have been sent. This holiday season’s 5,000 contributions are now on their way to Kandahar following a handover ceremony to the Canadian Forces at EMS headquarters last week.
It's a year-round program but more cards come in at this time of the year. “People associate Christmas with being away and being alone,” Rangel-Bron says. “At this time of year people want to do more.”
They’re a varied group. For Grade 7 and 8 students at St. Jane Frances Catholic Elementary School in Toronto, the idea of participating in Share a Cup grew out of their Remembrance Day ceremonies. “The kids kept focusing on the soldiers who had passed away in WWI and WWII,” says teacher Linda Pletzer. “I said, ‘Aren't there soldiers around right now that we need to think about?’” So students wrote letters and baked cookies.
Madeline Traub, a Grade 4 student in St. Catharines, raised enough money for 230 gift cards this year. “I asked my school and instead of collecting Halloween candy, I actually collected money for Tim cards.” Her mother, Mayram, is with Niagara EMS and got Madeline interested in the program.
For Rangel-Bron and EMS staff who volunteer their time to read all the notes, it can be a moving experience.
One child sent this message: “I am 5. You are my hero. Thank you.”
Then there was the 11-year-old boy who asked,
“Do you use AK47s or RPGs?”
An adult participant wrote this heartfelt note of appreciation: “Thank you for all you do to keep us safe and free. As you sip your coffee, close your eyes and try to feel all the warm hugs and good wishes I'm sending your way.”
Another sent laminated maple leaves from the backyard.
And, naturally, families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan also send money for gift cards.
The cards are issued by personnel support people to troops as they come in from rotation. They can be used at the Tim Hortons at the base there. They are also an excellent way of cheering up troops. Says Rangel-Bron: “It's as much a morale booster as anything else.”
People who include their address sometimes get a message in return. One soldier thanked Rangel-Bron for the card and told him he bought Tim’s Ice Caps — iced cappuccinos — for his buddies.
“The best part was how he kept the card with the message inside his vest. And he kept that with him for his whole tour. The card is a nice gift, but a message from a Canadian saying ‘Thank you for being there, I appreciate your service,’ that's what was important.”
The bill does include a ban on the transfer of military detainees from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — a blow to the Obama administration, which has yet to make good on a promise to shutter the facility.
Senate Democrats and Republicans passed the bill by unanimous consent after negotiating late into the night Tuesday. If the measure had failed, it would have been the first time in 48 years Congress did not pass a defense authorization.
The defense bill was passed by unanimous consent.
This part of the defense bill also explains the news reports today that Barack Obama's administration is preparing an executive order formalizing indefinite detention without trial for some detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The administration has long signaled that the use of prolonged detention, preferably at a facility in the United States, was one element of its plan to close Guantanamo. An interagency task force found that 48 of the 174 detainees remaining at the facility would have to be held in what the administration calls prolonged detention.
"We have a plan to close Guantanamo, and this detainee review process is one element," said an administration official who discussed the order on the condition of anonymity because it has yet to reach the president.
However, almost every part of the administration's plan to close Guantanamo is on hold, and it could be crippled this week if Congress bans the transfer of detainees to the United States for trial and sets up steep hurdles to the repatriation or resettlement in third countries of other detainees.
Officials worked intensively on the executive order over the past several weeks, but a senior White House official said it had been in the works for more than a year. If Congress blocks the administration's ability to put detainees on trial or transfer them out of Guantanamo, the official said, the executive order could still be implemented.
Instead of simply allowing military tribunals, which have been authorized by Congress already, to try detainees being held at Gitmo after a public outcry about transfering them to U.S. soil, and the spectacular failure of one high profile terrorist, Ahmed Ghailani, being tried in civilian court and being found guilty of only one of 285 charges due to civilian court rules, Obama has simply chosen to do nothing but let them sit in Gitmo.
As to how Congress can get off his naughty list, Santa says, "Just give business owners some clarity. Simplify the tax code. Stop overspending," Brandishing a lump of coal, he warns, "Or you're going to wake up with one of these in your stocking."
The Politico reports on the unveiling of the new rules the GOP will be implementing for the House of Representatives come January when they take control from Democrats and John Boehner presumably takes the gavel from Nancy Pelosi.
Transparency and forcing legislatures to assume responsibility for their votes as well as cutting spending and making sure any new spending is offset without raising taxes to pay for it, seems to be the direction the newly unveiled rules are heading.
All promises made to voters and ones that Boehner and the GOP seem intent on keeping.
The new House Republican majority will force lawmakers to vote when they want to raise the nation's debt ceiling, publish committee attendance records, ban former members from lobbying in the House gym and require new mandatory spending to be offset by cuts to other programs.
Changes to House rules are the first step the newly empowered GOP will take to address the concerns of a lack of transparency that has been seen in the House of Representatives as well as the concerns of voters who expect the GOP to keep the promises made to elect them back into power.
"These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people’s priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending,” Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement issued with the summary.
"[I]t shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day … on which such measure has been publicly available in electronic form,” reads one new rule.
On the spending front, Republicans plan to implement a series of rules called CUT/GO — a conservative answer to the PAY/GO rules instituted by Democrats. Under CUT/GO, increases in mandatory spending would have to be offset by spending cuts in other programs. Mandatory spending refers to the autopilot portion of the budget covering Social Security, Medicare and other programs designed to make payouts based on eligibility criteria rather than a set dollar figure each year.
Under CUT/GO, offsets could not be achieved by raising taxes, according to the summary.
There are some other changes but these appear to be the major first steps in keeping the campaign promises that Republicans across the country made to constituents to be allowed another chance at controlling the House of Representatives.
It is a good start and it seems they are making sure to publicly acknowledge the need to keep those vows and are intensely aware that they are being watched by voters and are expected to do things differently than Democrats have been doing in the four years they have controlled both house's of Congress.
Yesterday's news from the census showed that many so-called red states grew at a rate which will cause a reapportionment of House seats that favors Republicans.
The census determines the population of states and House seats (and electoral votes) are apportioned by the population of the state.
As shown yesterday after the census report was released, some states gained seats in the House due to the 2010 census and other states lost seats.
States gaining Congressional seats: Arizona (1), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (4), Utah (1), Washington (1).
States losing Congressional seats: Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1).
That was the big news but lost in the firestorm of reporting was an observation made by Michael Barone:
First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.
Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas' diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There's a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation's total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
The census report can be found here, as well as the embed code for the handy interactive map above.
The spin from the left is that many of the states seeing the highest growth shows an influx of minorities which favor Democrats, therefore the census report and the reapportionment isn't all bad news.
The flip side of the coin there, which the left avoids thinking about is that minorities like high taxes about as much as everyone else... not at all.
A solid majority of voters (67%) prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a larger, more active government with more services and higher taxes. Just one-in-four (25%) prefer the larger, more active government, a sentiment that has changed little since polling on the question began.
When it comes down to money in their pockets versus money the state takes from their pockets, exactly which party is well known for wanting lower taxes and less government services or programs and which party is well known for consistently raising taxes to pay for more government services or programs?
The answer to that question should concern every far left Democrat that is trying to see a silver lining in yesterday's census report.
