Monday, November 29, 2010

The Great Talker Keeps on Talking


If a hard-hitting, investigatory interview was her aim, we could say that Lisa DePaulo failed miserably in her dialogue with Joe Biden for Gentlemen’s Quarterly. And we would, if we thought for a moment that she was trying to achieve those ends. Rather, she avoids having to feign an unbiased approach by declaring, in the very first paragraph, that recent accolades for Joe Biden in the Atlantic are “long-overdue.”

We appreciate her honesty. In continuing past that first paragraph, the reader knows exactly what to expect with her piece: the equivalent of a rock-star being interviewed by a devoted groupie.

DePaulo sets the tone early by gushing praise. She recognizes Obama as “The Great Orator,” Biden as “The Great Talker,” and refers to them collectively as “two of the best communicators we've ever had running the country.” She continues, “The two major things you've done, you and the president, health care and the stimulus, are both successes.” Despite dismal polls and a flaccid job market that signifies the opposite, Joe doesn’t miss a beat and just confidently replies, “Yep.”

She then asks, “So how come you can't get that across?” Joe responds, “I think people will grant us that they were, on balance, the important things to do. But other than in the health care industry, they didn't create many jobs in their mind.”

Biden takes unwarranted liberty in assuming that Americans believe the healthcare bill created jobs in any industry, but there is a very legitimate reason that the legislation he references, stimulus and healthcare, didn’t create jobs in American minds. It’s because they didn’t create jobs in reality.

In the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that Joe Biden finds difficulty keeping his rhetoric within the confines of reality. And this interview doesn’t alter that pattern, as he goes on to suggest that people will wake up and embrace the healthcare legislation. “That's why you're gonna see health care turn around—they're starting to find out that what they're told is simply not true. Their premiums haven't gone up. They're not in a position where their companies are dropping health care.”

I’m sure the battered Democratic Party that backed the healthcare bill is glad to hear that, Joe. It’s just too bad that nothing could be further from the truth. First, consider that 60 Democrats lost their seats in the House to their more conservative counterparts earlier this month, with many of the victors running on the platform of repealing this healthcare bill. So it’s not at all accurate to say that it looks like the American people are any closer to accepting it.

Furthermore, it is obvious that hundreds of thousands of Americans are facing significant premium increases or the loss of their company-sponsored coverage. In fact, the administration has selectively distributed waivers for privileged companies and unions, admittedly to keep them from experiencing the premium increases and dropped coverage that are a direct result of this healthcare bill. So when it comes to healthcare, Joe's opinion doesn't come close to reflecting what we Americans see.

Joe Biden's obviously living in his own alternate reality when it comes to healthcare and fiscal issues, but it even seems as if his moral compass seems is askew from what we Americans see in him. For example, at various points in the interview he quotes proverbs, and one in particular stands out. He relates to DePaulo that he believes that "The cardinal sin one can commit is to abuse power.” The average American will undoubtedly chuckle at this. Any member of Barack Obama's administration imparting maxims to educate us about the moral crime of abusing power is the very personification of the term "hypocrisy."

Ultimately, there is very little of value in this interview. Outside of some tidbits about the Vice President’s personal life and his intense admiration of Barack Obama, the only political value that this ridiculous puff-piece offers is the evidence that Joe Biden is unable to feel the distance that lies between him and the American people, and that he is incapable of comprehending how contrary his beliefs are to reality.

And it seems like every time Joe Biden talks, that sinks in a little more for Americans, whether he’s scolding an audience for being dull, delivering financial wisdom like “We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt,” or simply having a conversation with one of his fans at GQ. And since the Great Talker shows no sign of stifling his trademark talent, Republicans welcome an Obama/Biden ticket in 2012 as happily as they welcome Nancy Pelosi’s insistence to remain a figurehead of her Party.

William Sullivan

Monday, November 8, 2010

Doggie-Bombs


Fundamental Islamists continue showing that they lack even an ounce of human decency. A plot has just been exposed, revealing that Al Qaeda operatives surgically implanted explosives and detonators inside of two poor pooches, and placed them in crates to be loaded onto a flight to America.The idea was that they would be detonated mid-air, killing innocent men, women, and children. As a result, Allah would be appeased by the blood sacrifice, and then upon dying, the terrorists would go to their mythical paradise of wine, fine foods, and carnal orgies with young virgins.

Thankfully, it turns out that these soulless Al Qaeda nutjobs are not much good at anything beyond mindlessly killing themselves (a talent we wish they would practice alone), least of all surgical operation. So the pups died from the shoddy stitching prior to taking off, and the plot was thwarted.

While this does not scratch the surface of fundamental Islamic terrorists’ moral depravity (they have been known to recruit mentally-challenged women as unknowing suicide-bombers), it does provide another excellent example of how fundamental Islam uses our compassion against us. Animal rescue groups and American GIs often bring Middle Eastern dogs to our country in an effort to provide them a more humane lifestyle, and we can plainly see that Islamic terrorists attempted to exploit that fact.

This event is just another in what has been a series of clear reminders that there is a very real threat posed by fundamental Islam. Though many Americans choose to ignore this threat’s existence, and our president refuses to call it by its name, it does not change the fact that there are fundamentalist Muslims that seek to indiscriminately kill as many Americans as they possibly can. This is evidenced by the fact that hundreds of randomly chosen Americans have been targeted for death over the last year by Islamic terrorists. However, the attacks have been glossed over, because these Americans were granted an unintended stay of execution, owed to a careless bomb placement in Times Square, a poor tailoring job on a plane over Detroit, and a recently botched veterinary procedure at the Baghdad airport.

I shudder to think the consequences of our luck running out. But maybe that is what it will take for our media to spread the word that we are under attack. Because I find it frightening that an attempted terrorist attack that could have killed hundreds seems to be flying under the radar of the mainstream media outlets.

William Sullivan

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Sanity... Indeed.


And the cirque-du-so-left continues. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" looked nothing like a gathering of sane or rational Americans. Rather, the crowd appeared to be a hodgepodge of zany caricatures, all too strange to be fictional.

Feel free to glance at the pictures, found here.

The one positive result of the rally? We now have evidence that Jon Stewart's idea of "sanity" is personified as Code Pink, 9/11 Truthers,* and perpetually under-employed and over-drugged activists whose only purpose in life seems to be attending anti-establishment rallies.

Even the hosts themselves looked ridiculous, donning eccentric costumes and exhibiting flamboyant body language. Or perhaps the wacky outfits and crazy demeanor were simply intentional hyperbole, an exaggeration meant to expose the insanity of the conservatives in this country?

Who cares. They look like absolute shmucks. So their relevance continues to wane in the eyes of sensible Americans.

William Sullivan

*Excellent article in Huffington Post regarding 9/11 conspiracies

Friday, October 29, 2010

The NAACP’s Last Desperate Effort


For some time, the NAACP has insisted that the Tea Party is comprised of racists and extremists, and have done everything possible to label it as a "whites-only" club.

Repeatedly, though, they have failed to provide any real evidence. Of course, that fact hasn't stopped those who want to believe it from doing so. Some people feel that any negative word regarding Barack Obama is an unquestionable sign of racism. And the Tea Party is certainly guilty of speaking out against our president, so many of Obama’s supporters have no doubt that the Tea Party is a racist hate-group.

But outside of these aforementioned people, the Tea Party is earning respect and influence in the political landscape, while the NAACP has lost nearly all credibility with the American public. And they had been doing so long before the Tea Party was even a whisper. Essentially, the NAACP is now considered by most as a dinosaur civil rights organization that has little useful potential in today's world beyond rabble-rousing, race-baiting, or community organizing. And there's not much real value in any of those things, except perhaps the latter, which perplexingly became a vital tool for any presidential skill-set in 2008.

The NAACP is gasping its last breaths of relevance before leaving the spotlight. And this is a good thing for most Americans. While we thank the NAACP for its contributions to the struggle for civil rights decades ago, we are tired of more recently shaking our heads at its outlandish claims of racism, and its efforts to prey on Americans’ fear of bigotry.

So now, desperate to remain relevant, they have produced a document meant to expose the Tea Party's racist roots and anti-Semitic values.

I would not doubt that there are very isolated segments of the Tea Party that hold bigoted or racist views. There are bad apples in every bunch; even Barack Obama’s supporting electorate has been proven to consist of blatant racists that suggest the infanticide of white children. But let's be honest. Most people who find the Tea Party to be racist usually think that way because of the perceived lack of racial diversity that the media loves to exploit.

But the Tea Party doesn't get a fair shake with this whole diversity thing. Membership may be largely Anglo-American, and African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans may hold a minority membership, but isn’t that reflective of the actual ethnic ratio of the American tapestry?

Furthermore, the Tea Party is even more disadvantaged by the fact that its counterparts are not even playing by the same rules. The NAACP, for example, is not held to the same standard of ethnic diversity, as its supporters are largely African-American. But we do not see Keith Olberman asking blacks at NAACP rallies, “Where are the white faces?”

The Tea Party is comprised of men and women of all races, bound together by a common set of principles, a shared sense of injustice in the government levying unwanted taxes, and a staunch desire to preserve traditional American values. Race is not a pre-requisite to be in their club, nor is any person denied membership due to their race.

I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud.

So as usual, the NAACP’s claim of racism seems very manufactured and outlandish. But what about the claim of anti-Semitism in the Tea Party?

This is a futile, utterly outrageous attempt to paint the Tea Party some sort of Neo-Nazi organization. The NAACP’s argument is that some (again, very isolated) conservative elements of the Tea Party have been associated with anti-Semitic groups in the past. This is an absurd generalization that would equate to suggesting that the entire Democratic Party is a racist organization because Robert Byrd, a formerly prominent member of the Party, had been an influential member of the Ku Klux Klan. But that would be nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. And as we know given the evidence in the last few decades, the NAACP is certainly not above that.

But since the NAACP is so eager to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps we can take a glance at the broadly anti-Semitic rhetoric of a few African-American political figures that associate with the NAACP.

Barack Obama sat under the tutelage of a man that for twenty years spouted anti-Zionist rhetoric deriding America for its efforts to establish and defend an Israeli state, and is prone to making such comments as “them Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me.” Louis Farrakhan is a well-known and militant anti-Semite. Both were invited to speak at an NAACP event this past summber.

While running for president in 1984, Jesse Jackson claimed that the Jews were conspiring against him after he made a negative comment about Jews in New York, calling the city “Hymietown.” In 1991, Al Sharpton fueled an anti-Semitic riot by delivering speeches demonizing “diamond merchants” (code for Jews), which resulted in a rabbinical student being stabbed to death by a mob shouting, “Kill the Jews!” Both have been associated with the NAACP in the past.

The NAACP’s accusing the Tea Party of anti-Semitism seems to hold little water. But when you consider the anti-Semitic past of these African-American political figures associated with the NAACP, it really hearkens to the proverbial pot and kettle.

The Tea Party should have no problem deflecting these nonsensical claims. If anything, it furthers the damage to the credibility of the NAACP. Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express suggests that this event makes it obvious that “the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democrat politics.”

And that should come as no surprise to most Americans. Strong-arming, race-baiting, community organizing and activism are the NAACP’s calling cards, commonly used to extract money from private business and the wealthy under the guise of “social justice.” I’d say the organization meshes rather nicely with the current administration in Washington.

William Sullivan

Friday, October 1, 2010

The EPA's Showdown in Texas


In May of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency alleged that Texas was not meeting the expectations set forth by the Clean Air Act, so the federal agency would take over permitting and licensing for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the Clean Air Act is 40 year old legislation that is meant to address public health concerns and has nothing to do with the deterrence of global warming, so it is suspect that the EPA is using it as justification to regulate carbon output.

But the state of Texas is prepared to fight tooth and nail to preserve its right to regulate the emissions of its vast energy industry. And they have good reason to do so. As Peggy Venable of the Washington Times notes, “shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law [the Clean Air Act] would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt.” Naturally, the EPA wants to ease the friction for Texans, so they have been willing to apply a “tailoring rule” to “reduce the number of regulated sources.”

But for Texas, that just isn’t good enough. In the event that you’ve never heard of the Alamo, suffice it to say that we Texans are pretty big on taking a stand where matters of principle are concerned, and we know that what the EPA is trying to do just ain’t right.

Federal law does not give the federal government the right to regulate greenhouse gases, so the addressing of such issues is left to each state respectively, per the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, the imposition of federal oversight in Texas’ energy industry is a direct violation of its Constitutional right.

Beyond this fact, dramatic reductions in pollutants have taken place throughout the last decade, making it quite apparent that Texas is doing a terrific job meeting its stated obligations as declared by the Clean Air Act. And as far as those carbon emissions that the EPA is so eager to consider pollutants, Peggy Venable goes on to address their concerns on that matter, too:

According to Department of Energy and EPA data, since 2000, Texas' carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage have fallen more than those of almost any other state and every country except Germany as a result of our policies to foster renewable energy, make the electricity market more competitive and efficient, and improve our environment.

So even in regard to the greenhouse gases that are not addressed in the Clean Air Act, Texas is still way ahead of the curve. The EPA could be focusing of something else and addressing real problems rather than fabricating them. So why is this administration pressing Texas in an effort to take over its energy regulation?

Certainly, considerable revenue could be obtained by forcing energy companies to purchase licenses. And sure, Texas would be the biggest cash cow as it will require more licenses than any other state. But there’s an allegorical significance that makes the Texas vs. EPA showdown particularly interesting.

The EPA’s recent power-grab closely resembles the shenanigans of Barack Obama’s administration, which has exceeded the bounds of its federal authority to impose oversight upon all sectors of American production via makeshift and erratic legislation.

And Texas is representative of the kind of place that Americans have always gone to get away from that sort of thing, dating back to frontiersman and politician Davy Crockett who, when he became tired of the politics of Andrew Jackson’s cronies in Tennessee, left his political career and took up residence in the state after allegedly telling them, “You can all go to Hell, I’m going to Texas.” He viewed Texas as a land of opportunity, free of the bureaucratic yokes that were found elsewhere. And today, American families and American businesses flock to Texas for the exact same reason. Texas has no state income tax, low cost of living, thriving job markets, and a lot of room to grow.

And we Texans like it that way, so we will not back down. If the EPA and this administration insist, we and our leaders are more than willing to make our state the venue where Americans will see a political fight of epic proportions.

This figurative bout is bound to be a manifestation of the struggles between liberalism and conservatism, authoritarianism and republicanism; a battle royal for the very soul of our country. And perhaps we can declare, for good and all, whether we want to be ruled by kings who can change our laws as they please to impose their will, or whether we want to live as free men whose laws protect us from such tyranny.

William Sullivan

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Breaking News: California still prefers ignorant protest to common sense


A police officer has recently killed a man in Los Angeles for threatening the lives of civilians and charging the officer with an upraised knife in-hand. Beyond all perceivable logic, the citizens of Los Angeles are protesting the shooting.

From an article reporting the incident:


Police said three bicycle officers were patrolling the area Sunday when someone flagged them down and said a man was threatening passers-by with a knife.

When officers confronted the man, they ordered him to drop the knife but he refused, Lt. Andrew Neiman said.

"Instead, he came after the officers with a knife raised in the air, leading one of the officers to fire at the suspect," Neiman said.

Authorities have not released the man's name. However, friends identified him as Manuel Jamines, 37, a construction worker and father of three.

Protesters contend the man was not dangerous and say officers should have used a non-lethal weapon to subdue him.


They contend he wasn't dangerous? Really? They couldn't have come to that conclusion rationally. Seriously, in what universe is a knife-wielding man charging at you not dangerous? What knowledge do these idiotic protestors have that was not at the disposal of the officers and witnesses who saw firsthand the danger he posed? How ignorant and misguided can these protestors possibly be?

William Sullivan


Update 9/8/10: There has been an escalation by the protestors overnight.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Less Ambiguous Eco-Terrorism

Eco-terrorist James Jay Lee has recently been shot and killed for taking and threatening hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters. In his later years, he was awoken by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and he had become a militant environmentalist and supporter of the anthropogenic global warming theory. A recently released manifesto reveals that he held a grudge against the Discovery Channel for their lackluster efforts to support the theory and demonize the skeptics. And as purveyors of information offered for public assimilation, he felt it is their duty to do exactly that.

The manifesto he leaves behind is truly frightening. The diatribes found therein read nothing like the musings of a student of science or a concerned environmental activist, but rather like the ideological ravings of a lunatic. And it raises the disturbing question, how closely does his fanaticism align with that of the current environmentalist movement?

Unlike other manifestos espousing hateful ideologies, James Jay Lee’s does not direct his hate at any religion, race, or culture. Mein Kampf, for example, presented the evil yet focused arguments that the Bolsheviks and Jews were cancerous elements, a threat that must be purged. Lee, on the other hand, espouses a more holistic hatred, as all human beings are equally malignant in his eyes. At numerous points in his rant, Lee references human civilization as “filth,” and he demands that the Discovery Channel’s programming expose humanity’s “disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.” There are few other binding values in his ideology beyond these labels of humankind.

But the clues to Jay Lee’s eccentric sickness do not end there. He delves to deeper abysses by proclaiming, “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

Talk about a “final solution.” Most cultures across the globe correctly perceive children as innocent and understand the need for their protection. Only a sick and twisted mind could hold the idea that children are the disease of the Earth. The sane inhabitants of this planet view children as the potential means by which humanity can better the world for nature and mankind.

If James Jay Lee were alone in such environmental fanaticism, there might not be significant cause for alarm. But thousands of activists and even accredited environmentalists have professed such ridiculous beliefs and been absolved in the past. For example, David Graber, a biologist of the National Park Service, is quoted as saying something remarkably comparable to Jay Lee’s recent appeal for the culling of mankind:

I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
Even though few environmentalists vocally espouse these extremes, such unnoticed rhetoric is frightening because these sentiments about the human detriment to the planet are foundational in the environmentalists’ ideology. Rarely do these beliefs manifest themselves as violence or destruction beyond anomalies like Lee’s attack or random acts of destruction like the torching of a Hummer dealership, but they often manifest themselves as political rhetoric. In recent years, procreation and population growth have been accused as the inevitable culprits of prophesied environmental catastrophes, and have been used as arguments to promote tax credits for non-procreating individuals and as ammunition to expand abortive practices, including support of federal abortion funding.

So James Jay Lee’s actions may have been extreme. But when set against the ideology of many anthropogenic global warming activists, how radical were his core beliefs?

William Sullivan

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Brad Pitt Ponders Punishment for BP


Brad Pitt has voiced his opinion on the BP oil spill, and like most Americans, he thinks it has been a terrible disaster. Of course, it hits home a little harder for Pitt because he and his significant other, the inimitable Angelina Jolie, sometime live in the vibrant French Quarter. And it's clear that he loves the city of New Orleans, as he has generously given dollars and precious effort to rebuild the city after the disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

So much does he love New Orleans, and so passionately does he hate BP for their crimes against the Gulf Coast and the environment, that he has made the recent comments, "I was never for the death penalty before - I am willing to look at it again" in regards to BP executives.

Likely, this was just said for some sort of dark comic effect. I mean, he couldn't possibly be serious, could he? Richard Ramirez, aka The Night Stalker, is an unrepentant mass murderer guilty of heinous crimes of the worst order, including multiple rapes and murders, and he lives on the government dime in California after more than 20 years of incarceration. The only reason he still lives is because of bleeding-heart Hollywood types like Brad Pitt who argue that capital punishment is never the answer. Crimes of this caliber have not given Brad Pitt pause to reconsider the death penalty, but now that the rich executives of BP are vilified by the media as the culprits of some fabricated environmental holocaust, he is ready to start casting stones?

I do not think that Pitt was serious when he made this comment. At least I hope not, or he's far more deluded than I give him credit for.

Though I thoroughly enjoy his work and find him very talented, the simple fact is that Brad Pitt is a performing artist. Nothing more. His position as a performing artist does not lend his opinions on political matters credibility, and those opinions are no more validated or profound than those held by mimes or trapeze artists. In light of this, it truly boggles the mind to consider that Hollywood icons like Brad Pitt are the most influential figures for the progressive agenda.

His comments, and any who would agree with such comments, are downright misguided and stupid. After all, if Mr. Pitt was abreast of current political affairs and if he really cared about his adopted home state of Louisiana, he'd likely be directing his ire to the more important culprit of Louisiana's pressing issues: the Obama admistration that has fiscally pounded families and businesses in the state via senseless drilling moratoria.

William Sullivan


Monday, August 2, 2010

Spencer Ackerman Exposes the Socialistic Media Dysfunction

In a new report, Spencer Ackerman, once a journalist for the Washington Independent, despondently confirms the assertion that Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary rhetoric has always been indefensible for the left. In the recently exposed Journolist correspondence, regarding the national attention being paid to Rev. Wright in the 2008 campaign, he laments, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us.”

“The game,” as he describes it, could better be described as “the truth” about the kind of spirituality Jeremiah Wright imparts upon his congregation, and the kind of moral education that was imparted upon our president. As Wright’s teachings helped to shape Obama’s world view for 20 years, the subject was certainly relevant to the campaign. But Ackerman knew well that such potentially negative news could reach independent voters and be disastrous for his preferred candidate’s agenda, so he plotted a new route with his fellow “journalists.”

And we now know that this route entailed nothing short of depraved, yellow journalism and unjust slander. He suggested, “Instead, take one of them [on the right] — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?” This is a confession that he and his cohorts are guilty of falsely labeling innocent people as “racists,” a tactic meant to keep Obama’s opposition in perpetual fear of political attack.

Generating fear in the opposition is key for any propaganda machine, and our leftist media is no different. Ackerman states:

“It’s not necessary to jump to Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."
This idea is certainly not original, and more importantly, it provides a vital glimpse at the true ideology of the leftist media. Upon reading this passage about what the left needs to do to win their propaganda war, it took only a moment’s pondering to realize where I had heard something similar in the past:

We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent
him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move.
I found this fascinating piece of “rhetoric” while reading Humberto Fontova’s book, Exposing the Real Ché Guevara. They are the words of Ernesto “Ché” Guevara, the murderous socialist that remains responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths in the name of the Communist ideals that he believed. Many of his victims were sought out and attacked, both politically and physically, for a simple difference of opinion and ideology.

Though it may come as a surprising revelation to the counterculture that reveres him, Ché Guevara was a staunch believer in Stalinism, a brutal political code involving statist propaganda and the absolute suppression of free speech and individualism.

The primary American standard of the First Amendment runs entirely antithetical to such an ideology. Yet Ackerman and many of his colleagues share with Ché a belief in the Stalinist plank that those who differ in opinion and ideology should be hunted and attacked, and that they should be made to live in constant fear for their free expression of opinion, should it differ from the necessary state-media conglomerate.

The real tragedy is not that our more prominent media organizations are comprised of morally vacant, socialistic, and thoroughly un-American people like Ackerman that claim to be “journalists” or “reporters.” The real tragedy is that even though we have hard evidence that our trusted media outlets manipulate information to deceive Americans into believing as they do, these reports do not get the wide exposure warranted by such a scandal, because the media has continued protecting themselves and the administration with which they align.

And that is why this story, along with countless others that could incriminate Obama’s administration, has been largely buried by the mainstream media beneath heaps of irrelevant commentary about Sarah Palin’s family, audio clips of Mel Gibson’s rants, or President Obama’s insipid clucking with the ladies of The View.

William Sullivan

Monday, July 19, 2010

Oakland continues its downward spiral


In January, 2009, Johannes Mehserle, a 28 year old Bay Area Rail Transit (BART) officer, shot and killed a man in a confrontation. The fatally wounded man, 22 year old Oscar Grant, was unarmed and had been previously involved in a fight. Witness’ accounts have described Grant’s demeanor as anything from relatively compliant to violently resisting. Nonetheless, Oscar Grant was tragically killed when Mehserle drew his pistol and fired, though he claims to have done so in error, having attempted to draw his taser.

But more important to the public than any of the facts in the case is that the man shot was black and the officer who shot him was white, so the assumption that Mehserle killed Grant simply because he was a black man ran wild before any other facts were considered.

The first response to this incident by citizens that want to prove it was a racially motivated killing is probably similar to Barbara Plantiko’s, a protesting immigration lawyer. She just doesn’t “buy that he got confused” when he drew his firearm rather than his taser. A cop should be able to tell the difference between a taser and a gun. Anyone could tell the difference, right?

When calmly presented the choice between the two, I'd wager most citizens could. But what escapes these firearm “experts” like Plantiko is that the situation provides the variable, not necessarily the discrepancy between the weapons. Most citizens have never been in a scenario where a perceived assailant threatens them, and they have never been made to manage the fear that such that such circumstances create. And in this situation, Mehserle, in haste and fear, made a dreadful mistake that cost Grant his life. At least that’s what a jury of his peers found to be the truth.

Still, being ignorant of such scenarios doesn’t stop racially sensitive citizens with a healthy disdain for authority from playing armchair judge and jury to condemn Johannes Mehserle. Apparently, the citizens of the City of Oakland are far more convinced of his murderous intentions than the jury that deliberated and came to their verdict based upon all of the facts presented in the case.

Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a sentence that carries a certain weight beyond the guilt that will likely plague him throughout his life. But that is not enough for the Oakland citizens thirsting for justice and retribution, so they decided to deliver their own brand of "justice." Riots littered the City of Oakland after the verdict, as its citizens destroyed their own neighbors’ property to express outrage.

I can't say with a straight face that our justice system is infallible, and I cannot say that the verdict was absolutely justified with a ruling of involuntary manslaughter. But what I can say with certainty is that Oakland’s citizens destroying their own community is not a justifiable means of expressing the anger that results from their paranoia of racism, and they should be held accountable.

So perhaps we should finally take the rioters of Oakland to task for their crimes. After all, we can certainly establish their extremely questionable character when it comes to knee-jerk allegations of racially motivated violence and the vilification of the authorities that risk their lives to protect its citizens.

The nation watched in disgust just two years ago, as Lovelle Mixon, a black man with a highly felonious past, killed four police officers after a traffic stop gave way to a shoot-out. He killed the officers, of white and mixed race, while holed-up in his sister’s apartment before the police finally brought him down. The officers slain were family men, and heroes.

But how did some of the scummy elements in Oakland react? They called Mixon’s actions a response to police brutality, and his death a murder. They held ceremonies to mourn the death of a lecherous villain, guilty of breaking our laws and robbing innocent families of their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. And some even heralded the villain as a martyr whose death spotlighted a racial rift between the city’s police officers and its minority citizens.

Around the nation, we retched in disgust at their shameful display of misjudgment and misplaced ire by the citizens of Oakland. And now, we are to believe that these same citizens have a right to riot because they think Grant’s death was a racially motivated crime?

Not a chance. They’ve lost their credibility in gauging such issues. Therefore, many Americans recognize that the riotous citizens of Oakland are guilty on the counts of provocation, destruction of property, and an inability to act as human beings.

Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, however, don’t find Oakland guilty of those crimes. He finds them victims, and the carnage they have self-inflicted must mean that some kind of wrong was done to those people who are creating the havoc. Therefore, they will take further measures to investigate Grant’s death to see if it was racially motivated, biased against a black man. And if they deem Mehserle guilty of the crime, you can bet they’ll prosecute the case as an example of racism.

And the Department of Justice’s desire to zealously investigate this alleged crime of racism is ironic when you juxtapose it with the fact that they just threw out a case of proven voter intimidation, committed by a man that is unequivocally biased against white people in Philadelphia. But I guess since the citizens of Philadelphia haven’t destroyed their own communities out of anger about that injustice, it’s just not worth the Department of Justice’s time.


William Sullivan

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Federally financed abortions, and the sorrowful conclusion



In spite of the efforts of countless Americans and some of our more honest politicians, Barack Obama has just approved the first taxpayer funding for abortions, to the tune of about 18.5 billion dollars.

So we've been had. Again.

It's irrefutable. When Obama said his Executive Order would prevent federal subsidization of abortions to get the healthare bill passed, he was lying. When Pelosi and her ilk said "there is no public funding of abortion in these bills" to get the healthcare bill passed, she was lying.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm, says it perfectly.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are."

We cannot sugar-coat it anymore. There are lying, evil bastards running our country.

And thanks to them, we are all morally implicated. Just think, a month from now, a baby may be violently dismembered and siphoned from his mother's womb. And whether you're pro-life, pro-choice, or anywhere in between, you will have paid for it.

I feel sick.

William Sullivan

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Interesting Viewpoint on Obama and His Views on America


Normally I wouldn't post editorials that are readily available online on this blog but this particular one really struck a chord. Krauthammer takes a step back and analyzes Obama's perceptions about America versus Obama's perceptions of himself.

Obama can be selective when it comes to modesty
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Obama's vision of NASA's mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden:

"One was he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

Apart from the psychobabble — farcically turning a spacefaring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer - what's the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far - but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence - lauding, for example, Russia's contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.

For good measure, Bolden added that the U.S. cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President Kennedy's pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.

There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in Strasbourg, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is.

Take human rights. After Obama's meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we too are working on perfecting our own democracy.

Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. side brought up Arizona's immigration law - "early and often." As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.

Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America's alleged failing - from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11. It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be nonchauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun - I.

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as "my" - "my secretary of homeland security," "my national security team," "my ambassador." The more normal - and respectful - usage is to say "the," as in "the secretary of state." These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution - not just the man who appointed them.

It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies - both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence - yet not of his own country's.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Paglia Blames the White, Middle Class for…Viagra?

Camille Paglia, professor of humanities for the University of the Arts and New York Times contributor, has recently written an opinion piece that identifies middle class values as the sociological reason for America’s search to find a pharmaceutical remedy for our epidemically waning libidos.

Well, that’s one way to describe the piece. Another way would be to describe it as an elitist’s indictment of the American middle class, purposefully delivered in what is perceived as high-brow lexicon, seasoned with liberal doses of Marxist disdain for anything “bourgeois.”

Her opinion seems to be that specifically the white, upper-middle class is the root of sexual anxiety that causes our culture to seek a pill that can increase our sexual desire. “The real culprit,” as she describes, began with the “bourgeois propriety” that became prevalent in the nineteenth century. Paglia relates that “as respectability became the central middle-class value, censorship and repression became the norm.” This trend is what she believes led to the “social conformism and religious Puritanism” that attributed to female aloofness from sexual expression in the 1950’s.

She is quick to note that sexual repression of the 50’s “erased the liberated flappers of the Jazz Age from cultural memory,” and suggests that “since the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, American society has become increasing secular, with a media environment drenched in sex.” She goes on to lament, “only the diffuse New Age movement, inspired by nature-keyed Asian practices, has preserved the radical vision of the modern sexual revolution.”

She hearkens to the days of flappers and flower children, as if these eras were periods of sexual enlightenment, and vigorous sex was practiced by all. I would wager, however, that the “sexual liberation” in those eras was largely centralized in speakeasies and universities, respectively, and among the younger, unmarried crowd.

And from that perspective, it doesn’t appear that much has changed. From tweens to forty-somethings, American singles today are practicing wild, random, and uninhibited sex copiously, and our cultural media slather this fact in our face by delivering everything from youthful sex romps to “Sex and the City.”

Kids and singles are still having plenty of sex, so Ms. Paglia must deduce that, outside of older singles that yearn for the sex drive of their younger years, the majority of those seeking pharmaceutical means to have more sex are married men and women.

There are two reasons for this. The first, which she recognizes, is that marriage and family assure that any couple will be forced to meet exhaustive and difficult challenges with children, career, monogamy and monotony, and dealing with those challenges often takes precedence over the desire to satisfy their own primal desires. The second, which she does not seem to recognize, is that there is a multimedia complex that goes to great lengths to convince them that they should be having more sex than they do, because doing so would make their lives much more enjoyable. And it is the social elite, not the middle class, that choreographs this multimedia campaign that has fabricated a sexual crisis in America.

Thanks to technological advances, there is a global trend of people wanting quick solutions to make their lives easier. Given this trend and the middle class’ propensity for juggling jobs, kids, social engagements, housekeeping, and hundreds more obligations, can we blame them for embracing the idea of a magic pill that could make them as sexually satisfied as those happy and interesting people they see on television?

Camille Paglia can blame them. She suggests that it is their fault they’re not as sexually happy as the enlightened ones that are unhindered by such shackles. You see, family life and the obligations therein are precisely the white, middle class’ problem, according to Paglia. She claims that America will never find healthy, sensual bliss until they forego the middle class values that have “driven and drained” our culture. She seems to chide the middle class for their go-go attitude, their drive to excel, their craving of the utmost efficiency in maintaining a family, career, and social life. She bemoans the androgynous relationship between men and women in the workplace, where both sexes populate a professional playing field in their quest to achieve money and success. She contends that such “bourgeois” sensibilities must be the cause of America’s sexual frustration.

But she doesn’t stop there with her assault. She goes on to blame the contemporary white, middle class influences in rock and roll for taking the sexiness out of music. Paglia writes, “The Rolling Stones’ hypnotic recording of Willie Dixon’s “Little Red Rooster,” with its titillating phallic exhibitionism, throbs and shimmers with sultry heat. But with the huge commercial success of rock, the blues receded as a direct influence on young musicians, who simply imitated the white guitar gods without exploring their roots.”

My guess is that for Paglia, when Clapton drew upon the source of Delta bluesman Robert Johnson, it was sexy and cool. But when rock bands today draw upon the source of the legendary Clapton, the music somehow loses its flavor. Perhaps she would conclude that Clapton isn’t poor enough or soulful enough to be the source of passionate music.

Ridiculous as that is, she continues her condemnation by holding white, middle class tastes responsible for Hollywood making a practice of turning boyish waifs into Aphrodites. She says of actresses, “Their current Pilates-honed look is taut and tense — a boy’s thin limbs and narrow hips combined with amplified breasts. Contrast that with Latino and African-American taste, which runs toward the healthy silhouette of the bootylicious Beyoncé.”

She conveys this opinion very matter-of-factly. But the truth is that there are huge swathes of middle class whites that find Beyoncé sexy, and legions of both rich people and poor people, white people and black people, who find Megan Fox sexy. What people find exciting and sexy is extremely personal, ever-evolving culturally, and the variations often transcend race and social class. But Ms. Paglia thinks that only the voluptuous female frame can be found sexy, and the white culture’s apparent inability to agree with her is part of the reason for their sexual woes.

And this highlights the most significant fact that escapes her. American society, including the middle class that makes up its majority, is extremely complex, comprised of many people of different cultures, races, sexual orientations, preferences, and levels of wealth. These aspects of our culture cannot be painted with a broad brush and a palette of ideological generalizations, but those seem to be the only tools at Paglia’s disposal.

Camille Paglia is a very eloquent, talented author, but she is obviously and absolutely disconnected from the middle class, and thereby disconnected from the majority of Americans. And in this article, she simply uses the recent explosion of interest in pharmaceutical aphrodisiacs as a platform to express her vehement disgust for white, middle class’ values, aspirations, and most of all, its utterly “bourgeois” doldrums.

And why shouldn’t that work for her? It’s enough to appease the likewise disconnected editors and readers of the floundering New York Times.

William Sullivan

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Racism's Alive and Well, But Not Like Eric Holder Would Have you Believe...



This video is shocking. All at once, upon seeing it, I was speechless and filled with rage.

I remember watching this guy at the polls with his Panther garb on YouTube back in '08, intimidating voters with his baton and hurling racial epithets. Bad as that was, this video proves his hate goes well beyond racism to the point of evil. He personifies a militant element of racism, and he is not fit to be called a human being. His worth is leagues beneath that of a human being.

And for the love of God, how does this soulless administration exonerate such a man of a federal crime?

It goes without saying that if Klan members sat outside a polling station threatening blacks, they would be rightfully and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, because they would be guilty of selectively threatening someone because of the color of their skin. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and militant and violent black activists selectively threaten white voters based solely upon their skin color, the uproar is silent and the Department of Justice refuses to do their job.

Eric Holder has chosen to drop the charges in order to discriminately protect these men because of the color of their skin, and therefore he is a racist. And he, and the wretched vermin of the New Black Panther Party, must be taken to task for this unprecedented travesty.

See link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw&feature=player_embedded

William Sullivan

Friday, June 25, 2010

Disillusionment for the Cult of Che


The myth surrounding Che Guevara is, in my opinion, among the greatest lies of the 20th century. Many Americans, before ever hearing of his name in a history book, know that he is worthy of reverence simply by looking around and seeing the masses that wear his likeness.

I’ve had many friends wear Che’s face on their shirt. I’ve known people who have had posters of the man in their college homes. I have always been a huge fan of Rage Against the Machine, who considers Che a fifth band member. I tried to understand the fascination, and why he is so admired by so many. I've waded through some of Che's biographical accounts, and even read most of his “Motorcycle Diaries” of his humble beginnings, and at the request of friends, saw the film.

Yet I always found it strange that he was considered so iconic, courageous, and humanistic, while so closely aligned with Stalinism, which is a ruthless political breed of propaganda, fear, and oppression.

Then I read Humberto Fontova’s “Exposing the Real Che Guevara.” This book provides a snapshot of the true Che, and it validated the skepticism I had about his legacy as a great man. The book is comprised of both scholarly and firsthand accounts, referencing the testimony of many eyewitnesses and reporters that covered his revolution in Cuba.

I wish that all Americans could read this book.

The common American perception of Che is that he was a brave guerilla, a doctor, a humanitarian, and a scholar. He was intelligent, forceful when he needed to be, and the spearhead of a benevolent revolution that ousted the capitalist pigs from Cuba, returning the mandate to the people of Cuba.

But that’s the myth. In reality, Castro’s Cuban Revolution was about brutally purging the political opposition to Communism, and Che was his lapdog and an architect of death. Even young, idealistic American reporters traveled to Cuba, wanting to love Che because they believed in the Cuban revolution, only to find mass executions of political prisoners and show trials.

Angelina Jolie, the humanitarian, has a tattoo of Che Guevara on her body. But does she know that Che signed thousands of orders to execute men, women, children, and the mentally handicapped with little or no evidence? It is well documented by many journalists. Sure, many “trials” took place, but these farcical events would make Stalin's show trials seem like the pinnacle of legal justice. The names of those to be executed were marked with X’s prior to any hearings, and the hearings themselves would often consist of the same woman in a black veil fingering every man that was guilty, sending dozens of them to the firing squad a day, each one guilty of being "the Batista rebel" that killed her husband. And on the strength of such false testimony, many Cubans were killed by the wave of Che’s pen, in order after order of execution.

According to Che’s brand of justice, “It is not necessary to prove someone’s guilt in order to execute him. I need only to prove that his execution is necessary for the Revolution.”

And yet he is viewed as a humanitarian?

Rage Against the Machine and Carlos Santana love Che, as he has become a legendary icon for the counterculture. But do they know that Che waged a political war against the “lumpen,” who were essentially anyone with long hair or anyone who listened to rock and roll? Yes, they were executed in rather large numbers by Che's authority, because long hair and affection for rock and roll were symptoms of a bourgeois sickness.

And yet musicians and the hippies in Berkeley love Che?

Any Che Guevara fan will tell you that he cared little for material possessions. But it is obvious he was very materialistic. Shortly after taking power, he secured (read: STOLE) one of the largest homes in Cuba that had many of the greatest luxuries, including multiple swimming pools and a massive television with remote control. In fact, he wore his prized Rolex until he was captured and killed in Bolivia.

This opulent mansion was modified so that he could view the handiwork of his firing squads over lunch. At some point, he realized, much like a filthy capitalist would, that they were killing so many Batista "rebels" and letting their blood go to waste. He then began draining their blood prior to sending them to the firing squads so it could be exported for profit. Often, the prisoners were so weak they had to be carried to meet their executioners.

And yet many Americans believe that money, power, and material possessions were not important to him?

Che's supporters deny that anything Che did could be associated with terrorism. But it seems Al Qaeda and Hamas have even learned a thing or two from Che.

Colonel Cornelio Rojas was a Cuban war hero and the Chief of Cuba’s police. He was a good man, loved by many, but he was guilty of two distinct crimes: he was representative of the “old” Cuban regime, and he was anti-Communist. So he was rounded up, and his family was promised by Che Guevara that he would not be harmed. But of course, Che knew that a figurehead of the “old” regime would need to be eliminated. Without warning, millions of Cubans turned on the television to a nationally televised execution of Cornelio Rojas, and even his family witnessed firsthand as the crown of Col. Rojas’ skull was separated from his head by a powerful rifle shot. The sight of this caused Rojas' wife, watching in her home, to have an immediate and fatal heart attack. This live display was an example, meant to inject fear into anyone who would defy the revolution.

Is this any different from the public beheading of Nick Berg by Al Qaeda? Not really. But you don’t see people running around with hip shirts of Osama Bin Laden like they do with Che, the terrorist.

And if these things aren’t enough to shake the perception that he was a courageous and humane hero, it has been proven that he planned attacks against American cities, and he stated that if the Soviet weapons remained in Cuba after the missile crisis, he would have used them to inflict a nuclear strike against New York City.

Cuban refugees that left the country penniless and embraced the American culture find him a murderer and assassin, because many of their families were killed by his secret police. Yet many Americans believe Che was a hero, because a Communist regime dictated after the fact that he was not the bloodthirsty killer that he was, and some Communist-sympathetic academics in this country embraced the notion.

But he was not who our culture has made him out to be. As I said earlier, I wish all Americans could read Fontova's book, especially those who admire Che Guevara. But sadly, people who have spent years admiring Che will probably blindly dismiss the book’s revelations as propaganda, just as quickly as they had once blindly accepted the lie that Che was a great man.

And that, like Che Guevara's false legacy, is an absolute travesty.

William Sullivan

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Jon Voight on Israel

An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

June 22, 2010

President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

Monday, June 21, 2010

A Preventable Disaster


As everyone in the country now probably knows, the oil spill caused by the Deep Water Horizon explosion is the greatest man made environmental disaster in US history. The environmental impact of this spill sent almost instantaneous ripples through many gulf coast industries affecting thousands of workers whose livelihoods are directly linked to the waters and marshes off of the coast of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. In the current shaky economic climate, this region, which has already been pummeled with many natural disasters in the last decade, is suffering yet another economic blow due to the destruction of the marine habitats on which many residents make their living. While these tragedies alone are enough to cripple the workers in the gulf coast region, the Obama administration has dealt yet another devastating blow in the form of the six month deep water drilling moratorium.

After the oil spill, the Obama administration charged the Secretary of the Interior with producing a safety report on deep water drilling. The report, which has 22 new safety measures, was then presented to fifteen engineers , seven of who were recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, for peer review and approval. The engineers reviewed and signed the report. Then on May 28th the Department of the Interior, as part of the report, issued the six month deep water drilling moratorium, which ordered that all deep water drilling cease and notified all lessees and operators that no new permits would be issued for the next six months.(1) Eight engineers on the peer review panel then came out saying that the six month moratorium was not in the safety report which they had signed off on:

“[T]he experts say they never agreed to the administration’s six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling on the outer continental shelf…” A group of technical experts who advised the Obama administration on how to bolster the safety of offshore drilling operations say they oppose the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling. Halting the work risks “harming thousand of workers” who “were and are active responsibly and are providing a product the nation demands,” they said. The eight experts – all longtime petroleum engineers, some affiliated with major universities – are listed in a report published by the Interior Department last month as having “peer reviewed” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s recommendations on improving the safety of drilling on the outer continental shelf in the wake of the April 20 oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The experts said the language about the moratorium did not appear in the draft they had reviewed. (Wall Street Journal, 6.9.10)(2)

So the moratorium itself was not in the draft, and yet was presented as peer reviewed and approved by petroleum engineers as to lend credibility to the ban. Benton Baugh ,who was on the panel, stated that not only were they not aware of the changes but they didn’t approve of the idea at all. In a letter sent to Baugh on June 3, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Interior said, "We did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deepwater drilling. We acknowledge that you were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium."(3)

Now the economic impact of the moratorium is starting to become apparent, and although the full financial scope is hard to calculate due to vastness of the oil industry, the preliminary numbers are mind blowing. The oil and gas industry is Louisiana's biggest economic engine and accounts for about 16 percent of the state's gross domestic product, vastly overshadowing fishing (1 percent) and tourism (4 percent), according to the Tulane University Energy Institute.(4) Initial estimates are between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in the entire region and with one dormant well costing upwards of $750,000 to $1 million of lost income a day, yet another gulf coast industry seems poised for absolute devastation. Companies who can not afford to take such losses, and should not be expected to for that matter, have already begun to move operations out of the gulf to places like Brazil and China, where local laws demand that employees on the rigs come from local countries. Simply put, the jobs will not be going with the rigs.

Unlike the hurricanes and the oil spill, which have ravaged this region, this economic disaster was directly caused by the Obama administration and could be stopped at any time. Instead, the administration has done everything to prolong and uphold the ban, even to the point of trying to delay the ruling on a lawsuit filed to stop the moratorium. Although a judge stated that he will rule on rather or not to impose an injunction on the moratorium by June 23rd, the Obama administration has urged that a ruling not be presented until late July.

This is simply a preventable disaster. If BP could have stopped the leak with the wave of a pen, then they would have. If the numerous hurricanes that have consistently pounded the Gulf Coast could have just disappeared over water with the retraction of a bad federal mandate, then it would have been done. So, why does Obama and his political allies continue to let this moratorium compound an already bleak economic situation in the Gulf Coast? That’s what one must ask themselves.

Calvin Parker


(1)http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/display/5097877025/articles/pennenergy/oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-2010/doi-implements_deepwater.html
(2)http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/06/11/deepwater-gate-administration-modifies-peer-reviewed-report-after-it-was-reviewed-by-scientists/
(3)http://www.khou.com/news/local/Local-expert-says-moratorium-on-new-deepwater-drilling-could-be-detrimental-95909754.html
(4)http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN219887920100621

Friday, June 18, 2010

Rosie Clucks Anti-Semitic


White House correspondent Helen Thomas’ comments captured international attention a few weeks ago as she suggested that the Israelis should just “get the hell out of Palestine.” Her crass comments have given others in America the courage to stand up and express their opinions about Zionism. Not surprisingly, similar rhetoric came spewing from the gaping chasm between Rosie O’Donnell’s cheeks, as she vehemently expressed that Helen Thomas is right, and that her comments toward Israel were not offensive.

Thankfully, few people actually entertain O’Donnell’s political musings. After all, this is the same woman who once said that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam,” a statement so stupid that most Americans don’t dignify it with significant thought, but rather just chalk it up as another idiotic belief held by only the most wacky of the left.

It is worth pointing out in this instance, however, that Rosie O’Donnell clearly has no knowledge of the regional history of the Middle East other than the ludicrously false belief that “the homeland was originally the Palestinians’.”

It appears that Ms. O’Donnell is in dire need of a history lesson if she finds Israel to be an occupier in what was originally a Muslim-Arab land. The land that is now Israel was settled by the Jews nearly two thousand years prior to Muhammad’s birth, when the Israelites fled captivity in Egypt and made it their home. The territory was inhabited by Jews and Christians long before Muhammad’s followers forcibly conquered the land and declared that it would henceforth belong to Allah and his prophet.

Rosie O’Donnell’s comments have no historical base, but it is strikingly odd that Rosie O’Donnell finds herself in opposition to Israel, and thereby in alignment with the Islamic nations that surround it. Would Rosie O’Donnell actually prefer if Israel was stripped of its dominion and the land were turned over to the aggressors that preach the destruction and genocide of the Jewish people? Does Ms. O’Donnell agree with the executions of homosexuals that commonly occur in many Middle Eastern countries, for example? How about the public stonings of accused women adulterers that are not given the privilege of a fair trial? How about the practice of recruiting mentally handicapped women to unwittingly commit suicide bombings? These are among the fundamental practices condoned by entire theocracies in the nations in Arabia, some of which would almost certainly be employed if the Palestinians usurped Israel’s sovereignty.

Something tells me that if Rosie O’Donnell was a gay woman living in Israel, she would not be longing to oust the Israeli government and let the Arab Palestinians take the political helm.

But setting religion and ideology aside, the more sensible spectators of the world can recognize two undeniable truths when they look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The first truth is that Israel has been constantly attacked since its inception by hostile Arab forces that surround it. In a bid for peace and an in an effort to live on their sliver of Middle Eastern soil, Israel has given back acquired lands and it has returned the spoils of defensive wars to its enemies. The nation seeks to live as a sovereign country in coexistence and cooperation with its neighbors, and Israelis allow worship at holy sites within its land to people of all faiths.

The other truth is that Palestinians and their allies in Arabia will not be happy until Israel is either destroyed or engulfed by Arabs.

So the real question is, how can so many Americans like Helen Thomas and Rosie O’Donnell choose to vilify a survivalist Israel and by proxy defend the violent and aggressive forces that encircle it?

For some, the simple answer is because Israel is a supposed symbol of American imperialism, and anti-Americanism is all the rage. Yet for others, it is because anti-Semitism has again become fashionable. Of course, the term “anti-Semitism” has fallen out of favor with a racially sensitive public, and it has been replaced with the term “anti-Zionism.” But most anti-Zionists are clearly anti-Semites, from Mahmoud Amedinejad who recently made another pledge to destroy Israel, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-Israel hate speech once filled our president’s ears, to Helen Thomas who thinks the Jews should leave their homes and return to the land where their people were nearly exterminated.

Rosie O’Donnell is simply a useful idiot for the anti-Semitic agenda. She probably does not hate Jews, but she is adamantly anti-American and therefore she finds herself in league with the anti-Semites that do.

And the anti-Semites of the world count their lucky stars that people like Rosie have a microphone, and that other useful idiots listen to her and support the “anti-Zionist” cause.

William Sullivan

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Bravo, Yoram Dori!

It’s no secret that anti-Semitism is alive and well, and Helen Thomas’ comments that the Jews should just “go home" to Germany and Poland has proven that such hatred is burrowed even within our “impartial” press corps.

Of course, most anti-Semites in America can’t just be forthright and say that they hate Jews, because those same people are constantly at conservatives’ throats for being racists and against black people, brown people, whatever. So anti-Semitism has become anti-Zionism.

Regardless of how she wants to paint her prejudice, how dare she make light of the sacrifice and hardships the Israelis have suffered for their small plot of Middle Eastern soil! As some sort of purgatorial penance, perhaps when Helen leaves this Earth, it would be fitting for our Maker to exile her to an ethereal version of Germany or Poland. In the guise of a Jew, circa 1939.

Helen Thomas, all Americans, and all Israelis should read this letter found below, written by Yoram Dori. This wonderful letter expresses relevant history, a longing for peace, and a wish that that Israel's enemies prosper in their own endeavors. This is compassion the likes of which I have never seen in any Palestinian representative.

And Ms. Thomas, rather than being blinded by your hatred, perhaps you can pay attention for the few minutes while reading this letter to pick up on the facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have eluded you in your decades of “reporting.”

William Sullivan

As published on The Jerusalem Post:

By Yoram Dori

Dear Ms. Thomas, I read on numerous Web sites the remarks attributed to you (and I did not see any denial) that we, the Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland. I am convinced that you are aware of the events which took place during the years 1939-1945 but, to be certain, I think it appropriate to tell you a little about my parents and their families.

My mother was sent to Palestine from Germany in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis to power by her farseeing parents. The British blockade, which prevented Jews fleeing the Nazi horrors from entering, made it difficult for her and only the pretext of coming on a tourist visit enabled her to enter and remain alive. Her older sister, Sarah, her husband and three children aged 12, 10 and seven did not succeed in finding a way of coming to Palestine and were sent by the Nazis to Poland and from there, their journey to the Auschwitz gas chambers, was short. I understand that it is there that you wish to send me.

My father, who lived in Austria, also showed resourcefulness and immediately on the German invasion and sailed to Palestine. On the way – again the British blockade – he was forced to throw his passport into the sea so that, heaven forbid, they would not send him back to Austria, another country you wished I was moving to. His older brother and his wife, who did not go with him, were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators.

My parents, who, as mentioned, with lifesaving initiative, fled from Europe before they were murdered, arrived in a desolated and barren country, worked in orchards, barely supported themselves and, by the way, were happy with their lot. In 1947 upon hearing of the UN resolution on the partitioning of the country, they danced in the streets, even though most of the area of Israel was torn from its sovereignty. For brands who survived the fire, it was enough.

The Palestinians and Arab countries, who gained most of the area, refused to accept the UN resolution and began a war to annihilate us. Only three years had passed since the liberation of Auschwitz and again we – the Jews – faced the danger of annihilation. To our joy, 600,000 Jews were victorious over millions of armed Arabs. It appears that justice has power and strength of its own.

IN THE 62 years of our existence, we have had seven wars, thousands of terror attacks, buses which have exploded in streets, firing into schools, mortars fired on kindergartens. Yet you wish to exile us back to the inferno, as if nothing happened 65 years ago in Europe, as if our hands have not been stretched out for peace since the establishment of the state?

We were victorious in the wars imposed upon us by Egypt and we signed a peace agreement with it after yielding all the territory and all the oil. We signed a peace agreement with Jordan. We yielded all the territory and much water. We withdrew from Lebanon to the international border and, in return, we received Hizbullah katyushas on our citizens. We left Gaza and in return, we received massive firing on our citizens in the South. Are you aware, Ms. Thomas, that many children from Sderot and the area around Gaza wet their beds until a late age out of fear of the Hamas missiles? And it is us that you wish to exile? Why? Because you think that we are weak or because it annoys you that we are not defeated?

As someone, who throughout his adult life has been a member of the Israeli “peace camp,” notwithstanding you and your strange and angering views, my friends and I (and I hope also my government) will continue to turn over every stone and scour every corner to attain peace. Peace, which will enable us to the smallest extent to live and our neighbors, the Palestinians, to establish a country and to flourish and prosper. To achieve this, we are prepared to make great concessions, to give back all the territories gained as a result of wars which our neighbors forced on us. There is only one thing we want in return – life. A quiet life, a life without terror, a life without missiles, a life like the one you have in Washington and which I, in Israel, also deserve.


Original article found here:
http://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-edcontributors/article.aspx?id=177668

Monday, May 24, 2010

Amnesty and the Social Security Paradox


Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is running for a Florida Senate seat as an independent after trailing badly in the primary to candidate Marco Rubio, has argued that Social Security and immigration reform go hand in hand, and that the support of immigration reform is a useful step in assuring the solvency of Social Security funding. He uses this argument to campaign for a much shorter path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

The broad idea behind this strategy is that while immigration reform is a heated conflict where two sides of an ideological debate clash, the preservation of Social Security is an endeavor that will likely find backing in the prized body of independent voters. He appears to believe that saving Social Security is a cause that a great number of Americans can rally behind.

There are two problems with this strategy.

First, Americans are sick of hearing that the answer to their prayers is comprehensive federal overhaul, and the legislation of amnesty for illegal aliens would be exactly that. Beyond this, there is a growing anxiety about the taxpayer liability represented by illegal aliens, as millions of them take advantage of healthcare, education, and welfare programs that they are not entitled to exploit as non-citizens.

Second, many Americans are not exactly enamored with Social Security in general. Particularly, younger Americans view it as a complex and obscure investment, and few of them believe that they will reap the benefits of their investment.

Crist’s is among latest suggestions to offer fast tracks to citizenship or amnesty to illegal aliens, which would require them to contribute more into Social Security and thereby help to rectify the universally recognized fiscal shortfall of the Social Security Trust Funds.

On the surface, this seems like a rational hypothesis. If more money goes into the Social Security piggybank, it would seem that there will be more money to spend on the benefits of the program. But this logic is tragically flawed. By legalizing these aliens we would be increasing the burden upon the system by drastically increasing the number of those receiving Social Security benefits. Providing unjustified payment to millions of new recipients that have paid a pittance into the system is not only logistically destructive, but it is also ethically unjust to those who spent their entire lives funding the system.

Beyond this, it is also obvious that the massive influx of low-income wage earners would drain Social Security rather than increase its solvency, because they will inevitably receive far more in benefits than they would contribute to the system.

Amnesty for illegal aliens will certainly not stabilize Social Security, despite the liberal agenda telling us that it will. They appear to be desperately seeking the means to protect Social Security funding, but paradoxically, it is the policymaking of the left that provides the greatest obstacle to the application of more useful solutions.

If immigration law were more tightly enforced, for example, employers would likely offer increased wages for unskilled American laborers. Higher wages and more American workers would yield increased contributions. As another example, if extended entitlement programs like welfare were limited rather than expanded, more Americans would be encouraged to join the workforce, thereby increasing American employment and increasing contributions.

The most significant boon for Social Security would be for Americans to increase fertility rates to assure replacement levels to sustain the system. But even that possibility is stifled by liberal sensibilities. For decades, a European-style agenda has caused a decline in fertility rates that has assured that Social Security cannot support itself, the result of incessant campaigns about detriment to the planet’s resources or carbon footprints. All the while, Democrats in America strive to provide unlimited contraception, and some even advocate federally funded abortions as means to keep our population from growing.

Honestly, it seems apparent that it is the liberal agenda that is both the creator and destroyer of Social Security.

Of course, none of this will be addressed once Congress finds the “appetite” to tackle immigration reform. But I can assure you that we will see the left spewing variations of Crist’s argument that amnesty could provide a boost to Social Security funding. They will suggest in broad tones that it makes sense fiscally, and supporters will be assured of this belief over and over by Barack Obama’s soothing tenor. And educated by nothing beyond the left’s propaganda, legions of zealots will argue the soundness of the idea, and chant their mundane mantra about opposition to amnesty being choreographed by racists.

The argument tying Social Security and immigration reform has taken definite shape, and I would wager it will become common rhetoric for Democrats in their march to legislate amnesty for illegal immigrants. After all, what better way to make a push for amnesty than to argue that we could save Social Security for all Americans by levying a mandatory tax upon the fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens that are working in this country? That way, a massive federal program like Social Security could appear sustainable and illegal aliens could be granted amnesty and a legitimate vote in future elections.

Talk about two birds for the Democratic Party.

William Sullivan

Friday, May 7, 2010

Republic in Reverse

When broken down into its most basic form, the United States’ system of government is a simple one. The founding fathers formed what is known as a federal constitutional republic. By definition this is a nation where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. The fact that the elected officials’ decisions are subject to judicial review makes this form of government a republic. The key principle here is that the elected officials are supposed to be representatives of the people. This is a corner stone that appears to have been ignored, not only by the Obama administration, but also by the Democratic members in both the House and the Senate.

Although poll numbers are not always completely reliable, and can sometimes have a tendency to be skewed due to how the questions are worded, when multiple polls tend to show similar results one can generally believe the information to be accurate. When polling of Americans show the majority are opposed or in favor of legislation, according to the United States system of representative government, logic would follow that the congressional voting on the issue would closely mirror these numbers. After all, a representative’s only job is to vote how the majority of their district or state would vote if every single eligible voter were to cast a ballot on any given issue. Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Obama administration or with the majority of Democrats in Congress, in fact just the opposite has occurred with no foreseeable change in tactics in sight.

The first glaring example of this disturbing trend was evident with the new health care laws. Although many different kinds of questions were thrown out by pollsters, the general consensus was that a majority of Americans disapproved of the actual bill that was passed. The fact that the Democrats had to use reconciliation to pass the bill, which had never been used on any major legislation before, speaks volumes about the laws popularity with citizens.

Now Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law which closely resembles the existing federal immigration enforcement mandate. This new law is supported by the majority of not only Arizona citizens, but the majority of Americans as well, and yet many Democrats and Obama himself have come out and said that the Arizona state legislature‘s efforts are “misguided“. Misguided? Actually the Arizona legislature is a prime example of how the our government is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to pass laws that the people want, not pass laws in which they are against. Its truly mind blowing how the overall simplicity of the process seems to escape the liberal powers that be.

With legislation on issues such as “cap and trade” and immigration reform forthcoming, it is imperative to not only recognize but also demand that our “representatives” be just that, representatives. George Washington urged against the forming of political parties. He simply saw no need for them. If every elected official was to vote in a manner consistent with the beliefs of their constituency on every issue, then the whole party system would, in turn, be unnecessary. In his farewell speech in 1789 he stated, “they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Sound familiar?

Calvin Parker