| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you have a problem with America, you have a problem with us.
| ||
| |
| Van Helsing (read all posts) Even Breathalyzers Are Racist (November 20) Community Activists Continue to Exacerbate Housing Crisis (November 20) UN Throws $23 Million at the Ceiling (November 19) Moonbat Media Will Not Lay Off With White Guilt (November 19) |
| Melissa Clouthier (read all posts) Insurance For All...Sounds Good Doesn't It? (November 20) eHarmony Forced To Couple Gays (November 20) Update: Teacher Who Voted Aspberger's Kid Out Of Class Suspended (November 19) Jonah Goldberg On Kathleen Parker's "G-O-D" Shame (November 19) Who Wants A Filibuster? (November 19) David Frum on Rush Limbaugh: "Say It Louder Conservativism"--UPDATED (November 18) |
| rwnadmin (read all posts) Q&A Friday #98 (November 20) Conservative Grapevine Promo (November 20) Doing The Jaz McKay Show At 4:07 PM EST (November 19) Conservative Grapevine Promo (November 19) Tonight: Right Wing News Radio! (November 18) |
| McQ (read all posts) Best Qualified? (November 19) How Out of Touch Are Politicians When It Comes to Energy and Environmental Policy? (November 18) |
| Robert Stacy McCain (read all posts) U.S. solves childhood obesity epidemic (November 19) Frumism.com (November 18) |
| The RWN Website of the Day is: 
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Under Chairman O, get ready for the steady flow of absurd racism claims to become a cataract. It's already beginning:
A lawyer representing a man charged with drunken driving claims Connecticut's breathalyzers discriminate against blacks.
According to the shyster,
research shows that the lung capacity of a black man is 3 percent smaller than a white man and, therefore, black men's test results vary from the sobriety standard set by the device.
That smaller lung capacity must be why you see so few black athletes.
When he's done getting his drunken client off, maybe the lawyer can use this for a race-based suit against tabacco companies — provided they haven't been looted into bankruptcy yet.
On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
The community activist types — like Barack Obama — who helped bring about our financial crisis by using Jimmy Carter's insane Community Reinvestment Act to terrorize banks into making bad loans based on race are still causing havoc. IBD reports on self-described "bank terrorist" Bruce Marks:
Bruce Marks, founder of the leftist Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, makes a good living shaking down banks for loans to deadbeat borrowers that he thinks are entitled to homes.
Last month, he and about 100 urban protesters stormed Fannie Mae's headquarters, demanding it stop foreclosures on subprime houses — the same homes his group pressured Fannie to fund.
As usual, the bullying tactics worked: Fannie Mae is now reviewing every foreclosure, while increasing the number of mortgages it restructures by lowering interest rates and extending loan terms to make payments more affordable. The government-backed firm guarantees some 30% of the nation's outstanding mortgages.
Marks founded Boston-based NACA last decade to fulfill his warped sense of the American dream. He thinks owning a home is a right, not a goal. And he thinks every American should have a house — even those who can't pay for one.
Marks, who proudly calls himself a bank terrorist, has extorted billions of dollars from Citigroup and other large banks to subsidize uncreditworthy borrowers in the inner city, where he accused the banks of "redlining."
Marks believes that expecting The Oppressed to have good credit or make a down payment before receiving a mortgage loan is "patronizing and racist." According to moonbat ideology, it is everyone's right to have the home they want at someone else's expense.
Even before The One ascends to the White House, the government is already infested with leftists who share Marks's viewpoint:
Congress' banking committee chiefs, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, are also demanding banks stop foreclosures. And guess who they've invited to testify about that? That's right: Marks, who has proposed stopping all resets on subprime adjustable mortgages and allowing late payments for up to 90 days. Marks insists that regulators "force" lenders to restructure their loans to prevent foreclosures from going forward.
Marks gives an example of the sort of testimony he'll offer the socialists running Congress:
NACA has done lending the right way. No down payment. No closing costs. No fees. No perfect credit. At a below-market fixed rate.
This must have sounded wonderful, until society got the bill in the form of a collapsed mortgage industry that — combined with the corruption, irresponsibility, and incompetence of our congressional kakistocracy — is bringing down the entire economy.
On tips from Dennis S, Watching, nanc, and Name. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
So the New York Times reports that insurance companies are willing to "deal":
While insurers would be required to sell insurance to any applicant, nothing would guarantee that consumers could afford it. Rate regulation promises to be a highly contentious issue, since it pits the financial interests of insurers against those of consumers.At present, insurance premiums are generally regulated by the states and often vary according to a person's age, sex, medical history and place of residence within a state. In the individual market in most states, a person with a history of serious or chronic illness can be charged much more than a healthy person of the same age and sex.
Mr. Hamm, a member of the board of America's Health Insurance Plans, said the group might offer recommendations to define "a fair and appropriate rating structure."
Alissa Fox, a vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said the individual mandate was an indispensable corollary of any approach forbidding insurers to reject applicants because of health status.
"Insurance works best when everyone is in the pool," Ms. Fox said. "You need healthy people in the insurance pool to help pay for sicker individuals who are much more motivated to buy coverage."
Insurers did not say how the government should enforce an individual mandate: whether through fines, tax penalties or other means. Politicians have also been reluctant to specify details of enforcement, which could prove highly unpopular.
Here is how "health care for all" in this form will wreck the economy but make health insurance companies very rich:
Right now the economy is already restricting. What does that mean? It means that receivables, income, is down. So, businesses are doing their best to NOT lay-off anyone yet. It's near Christmas, and trust me, no one wants to tell people they don't have jobs before the holiday season. So, business owners are doing what they can. They are not buying new equipment. They are not expanding. They couldn't get a line of credit to take on a new project if they wanted to anyway. They are trying to cut costs other ways. They are considering how to increase prices subtly and finding it impossible to do. They are hoping things turn around in January.
In January, if future contracts don't look better, there will be some tough choices made. Employees will have to go. Business operations slowed.
In February, Barack Obama and the insurance industry cut a deal. All Americans are required to own health insurance because right now, sick people buy it because they need it and that cuts into profits. Businesses will be required to offer insurance.
If the company was making any money, it won't after this legislation.
The economy will constrict further. More employees will lose jobs because the companies simply can't afford to pay them. It was already a struggle making payroll in the tough economy. It will be worse.
With unemployment inching up to 10%, the government will decide "something must be done". That something will be this: employers will be forced to submit to egregious employment rules. The government will make it more difficult to fire an employee. Employers will stop hiring, because once they hire, they can't fire. This will further tighten the economy.
Since less people will be working and the government will need more tax revenue, fast food restaurants will be taxed. You name it, there will be a tax here and there and everywhere to help "modify" behavior. Plastic bags in New York. French fried steak in Texas.
No, it won't be socialism. Not strictly, in the Marxian sense. It will be an Americanified socialism where big businesses collude with the government for power. As long as these two groups make money, the individual will be forced into submission. Their choices restricted. Their money not their own.
That is where this legislation will take us. Oh, and at first, unhealthy people everywhere will be so relieved. But then, see, the government will have to make "tough choices". The 400 pound man will not be on a list for a heart transplant because of his poor lifestyle choices. The 80 year old woman won't be given a hip replacement because she's too old and the new joint would outlast her. Bureaucrats will be deciding, even more than now, how your health will be treated.
And the costs will increase, just like they have been anyway.
The rich will still get better health care. They'll pay for what they want. The best doctors won't see anyone BUT rich people because they can get paid more. And the poor people will get the same kind of substandard care, but worse--they won't have a job.
Insurance for all....sounds good doesn't it?
Update: Here's an idea! How about innovation?
Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com
| Rate this article: |
|
"Congratulations to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton - who seem to have won the presidential election, despite the official results on Nov. 4.That's certainly a reasonable conclusion, anyway, based on the folks President-elect Obama is eyeing for his administration - folks such as former Clinton officials Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton herself.
It's déjà vu all over again for Team Clinton - and America. And it's already prompting reminders of all the sordid affairs that attended that era.
On Tuesday, for instance, it was reported that Holder would be Obama's attorney general. As deputy AG under then-President Bill Clinton, Holder played a key role in a Clinton-era scandal: the pardoning of fugitive financier Marc Rich.
Meanwhile, talk swirls that Hillary herself might be secretary of state. Obama's folks are now sorting through Bill Clinton's complex financial arrangements to assess conflicts of interest, a process that in itself recalls the spaghetti-like ethical issues from his presidency." -- New York Post
| Rate this article: |
|
...because that's obviously what they're shooting for,
A plan to give troubled U.S. automakers billions of dollars in government-backed loans is on life support, leaving the fate of hundreds of thousands of workers and Detroit's once-venerable car companies hanging in the balance.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled plans Wednesday for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new auto industry loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans have rejected Democrats' plan to dip into that pot of money.
...Congressional Democrats countered that the Treasury Department already had the power to grant emergency funds to the automakers, but the Bush administration opposed the approach.
...The stakes are high. The Detroit automakers employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other workers produce materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million more people work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the automakers declared bankruptcy, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.
The White House and congressional Republicans have called on Democrats to support a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September - designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles - to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.
Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Kit Bond. R-Mo., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, are trying to broker an alternative that could provide bridge loans or a guarantee that the fuel-efficiency loan fund ultimately would be replenished. Negotiators were discussing a scaled-down aid package of $5 billion to $8 billion to help the automakers survive through year's end.
But it was unclear whether any progress could be made. Democrats strongly oppose letting the car companies tap into the energy loans for short-term cash-flow needs.
Despite the gridlock in Congress, there could be a contingency plan: a return to Washington in December for another postelection session to try to strike a deal.
Here's what it all comes down to: the Democrats don't really want to fix the main problem with the Big 3 automakers -- excessive labor costs -- because the unions are their biggest allies. Heck, the Democratic Party is getting paid off with that money! So, Chapter 11 is out.
This presents a huge problem for the Dems because given how the economy is today, The Big 3 are going to need a lot more than 25 billion dollars. Heck, they'd be back in a year (or less!) with their hands out again after being given that much.
So, what they're going to want to do is give the Big 3 a much, much larger number to kick the can down the road a few years. That's a problem because the Republicans and the public are balking hard at giving the Big 3 ANOTHER 25 billion dollars of taxpayer money (There are already 25 billion in loans on the table that aren't being tapped yet).
Since that's the case, the Dems are going to desperately try to get the GOP to sign on to this whole thing to give them cover (Bush did that!). The smartest thing that the Republican Party could do would be to oppose this bailout & hammer the Democrats incessantly for catering to special interests with taxpayer money.
PS: Would it be too cynical to suggest that one of the car companies may already have some plant shutdowns planned for December? That way, they can stoke the news with "auto workers who are unemployed for Christmas stories" before the Dems inevitably come back later in the year to snooker the GOP into funneling "emergency" funds to the Big 3.
| Rate this article: |
|
Let's see...
* Crippling GOP fundraising by signing campaign finance reform.
* Massive deficits
* Horrifically screwing up the war in Iraq.
* The Bailout.
* Partially nationalizing the banking industry.
* Decimating the Republican Party.
& now...
* Iran with enough fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.
Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design -- a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.
"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."
I'm now officially declaring Bush to be the Republican Party's Jimmy Carter.
| Rate this article: |
|
Michelle Malkin reports:
So, this is "progress?" eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great "sin" was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn't, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users.
The solution to these lawsuits is simple: Start going after every "Rainbow" (aka monochromatic) coalition and force diversity. Gay resort? Sue 'em. Gay only hotel? Sue 'em. Gay porn website? Sue 'em. If they don't have services, you know soft-focused Christian interludes, spas, hotels, etc., they're not being diverse.
GayPatriot says:
Will the attempt of the gay activists to impose equality through the courts never cease?Not content with the numerous websites offering to match him with a male partner, a gay New Jersey man sued eHarmony, a dating service catering to Christians, because it would not match him with a male partner.
I guess maybe I should sue to make sure they provide services for Jews. And while I'm at it, maybe we'll have a Christian sue Jdate, "The Leading Jewish Singles Network."
This is nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit. He just felt hurt because a website offered dating services for heterosexuals, but not for him. His plea for equality has succeeded. With the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, he forced eHarmony to settle.* It will now offer a companion site for same-sex matches.
eHarmony has now lost its freedom to offer the kind of dating services its founder wished to provide. Commenting on a similar suit well over a year ago, I wrote:
The issue here is freedom. It's a shame that in their zeal to root out all discrimination (or perceived discrimination), some gay activists seek to undermine the freedom of others. Their freedom to speak as they will, to associate with whom they choose and to seek romance with the types of people with whom they hope to find intimacy.
Just as eHarmony should be free to focus on heterosexual romance, so should gay.com be free to promote gay relationships.
These kind of suits make my blood boil. Ditto for women who want access to certain sorts of men's clubs. People should be able to form groups based on any diverse characteristic they want. It's called FREEDOM. It may not be politically correct. It may be a stupid group. But that's what freedom is all about--you're as free to be an idiot as you are to be smart. It's up to you. Well, it should be.
Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com
| Rate this article: |
|
Theoretically, it's a good idea for Republicans to embrace the idea of a color blind political pitch. It's what we believe in, it fits with the vision of the Founding Fathers, and it would be better for the country if people cared nothing about race. However, the reality is that philosophy has proven to be completely unworkable in practice with black Americans.
Look to the Democratic primaries where the wife of Bill Clinton, the first "black President," was losing 90% of the black vote to a very similar candidate merely because he was black.
Republicans, although we are and always have been the party of a color blind world, are losing with black Americans and we will probably still be losing with them in 2050 by the same margins unless something changes.
That's particularly grating because if you take color out of the equation, we should probably be getting 30%-40% of the black vote. There is a large black middle class. A lot of them go to church. In fact, probably about a third of black Americans could be honestly classified as conservative.
But, what's happening? Those black, middle class conservatives are going to the polls and pulling the lever for the Democrats.
That's nuts, right? They're voting for a party that disagrees with everything they stand for.
But, why?
It's because being Republican is not acceptable in the black community. It's cultural -- it's an attitude thing.
What we need to do is change that.
That's why I'd like to see a NAACRP, a National Association for the Advancement of Colored Republican People.
How do we do it?
You get a group of black Republicans and load them up with funding under the NAACRP banner and then let them start pursuing "conservative" projects across the country -- community watches, micro-loans for entrepreneurs, projects to reveal government waste that is hurting the black community, etc. -- and just wait a few years.
Once a Republican group like that gains genuine respect in the black community and it becomes "OK" to be a Republican, you could see the GOP's numbers expand relatively rapidly with black Americans.
Would that be cheap? Not so much. Would some conservatives not like the idea of dipping into identity politics like that? You bet. But, what is -- let's say -- 20% of the black vote worth? A heck of a lot in my book...
| Rate this article: |
|
Perhaps because there are a lot of new people hitting CG for the first time because of the election surge, I've been getting questions about the bikini pics on CG in my email every few days. Here's an example,
"Hello John, my name is Andrew, and I have a quick question for you. I believe I read in one of your pieces on Right Wing News that you are a Christian. Is that true? If so, then why does it look like you post bikini pictures on Conservative Grapevine as well as RWN? e.g., Sarah Palin at the pool.Do you think that it's OK to do that as a Christian?" -- Andrew Bell
First off, the pics of Sarah Palin by the pool feature her in a t-shirt and shorts,
Yes, Todd Palin is a very lucky man. Why do you ask?
As to CG, I do post bikini pics every day for a very simple reason: people like them and they help grow the page. How much do people like them? Well, here are the top 10 most clicked links at CG so far this month.
1) Red Balcony: Kelly Kelly bikini shots
2) Egotastic!: Gemma Arterton bikini pics
3) CelebSlam: Heather Locklear bikini pics
4) Popoholic: Sarah Michelle Gellar's Halloween sexy witch costume
5) Egotastic: Kristen Bell bikini pics
6) Double Viking: Sofia Vergara bikini shots
7) Egotastic!: Jennifer Anniston's Vogue spread
8) Cracked: 6 people who died in order to prove a retarded point
9) Egotastic!: Vida Guerra bikini pictures
10) Red Balcony: Maria Sharapova bikini pics
Sharp eyed readers may notice a trend there.
Additionally, I grew up Baptist and still go to church every week -- but, perhaps I missed the sermon where we were told Christians aren't supposed to admire the female form or are supposed to be horrified by women in bikinis. Maybe they just leave that part out because I live at the beach.
I'd also like to add that you see women in bikinis on TV, in advertisements, in video games -- just about everywhere in our society. So, if they help traffic on CG -- and they definitely do (I think it's entirely possible CG may be bigger than RWN by the end of 2009), then why wouldn't I want them on there?
Put another way, the average person who hits CG clicks on 3-4 links. So, if pics like this of Vida Guerra...
...help draw more people over to a page that's largely comprised of links to conservative blogs and columnists, that's a good thing.
| Rate this article: |
|
Tomorrow will be Q&A Friday #98 at RWN.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about just about anything: politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, movies, music, literature, or TV. Then tomorrow, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Ask away!
PS: My co-blogger, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, said it might be fun to answer a couple of questions as well. So, if you have any questions for her, feel free to fire away.
| Rate this article: |
|
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
Ann Coulter: Genius, thy name is ObamaThe American Spectator: Al Franken is challenging this ballot
Cracked: 15 MORE images you won't believe aren't photoshopped
Egotastic!: Megan Fox bikini pictures.
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
| Rate this article: |
|
Or a crony?
And of course, he's another Clinton re-tread who was acting AG and approved including the Marc Rich pardon for Clinton's approval at that time. Then there's his role in the Elian Gonzales kidnapping.
As to the charges of cronyism:
A partner at the D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder served as co-chief (along with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama's vice-presidential selection process. He also actively campaigned for Obama throughout the year and grew personally close to the president-elect.
There's certainly no question he's a Washington insider:
After serving in the public integrity section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division and later a District of Columbia Superior Court judge, Holder was named by President Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He became deputy attorney general in 1997 under Janet Reno and was viewed as a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.
Don Surber has the appropriate chuckle watching the usual suspects:
The am
