Saturday, July 23, 2011

Something Odd about the Massacre

As you've probably already heard, Anders Breivik has been identified as the killer in the Oslo Massacre. 

The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.
It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.
According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of 'Nordisk' which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.
But then, shortly after the massacre and bombing initially occurred, we have this statement:

A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad), issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at CNA, a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces’ presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad. “We have warned since the Stockholm raid of more operations,” the group said, apparently referred to a bombing in Sweden in December 2010, according to Mr McCants’ translation. “What you see is only the beginning, and there is more to come.” The claim could not be confirmed. 

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Gun Control and Project Fast and Furious: Worst Straw Man Ever?

In short Project Fast and Furious, and it’s off shoot, Project Gunrunner, used money from the Stimulus Bill (remember, all spending equals stimulus) to prove that if you sell weapons to known straw purchases for drug cartels members and let them illegally cross the border, they will use those guns to kill people.

Obama has been known to use straw mans when debating opponents; this might be his administration’s worst yet.

No one would ever advocate the position that allowing 2,500 guns to illegally flow into Mexico wouldn’t cause an escalatation in violence among the drug cartels.

Apparently though, that’s what this administration was exactly trying to prove.

Furthermore, emails have been released that show the DOJ was trying to use this operation (surprise surprise) as a backhanded way to create enough chaos on the border to justify enacting further gun control in America.

Despite the fact that any rational person would know from the outset that forcing American gun dealers to sell weapons to straw purchasers would be a terrible idea (the US gun dealer who participated had his concerns ignored),this somehow never occurred to our administration.

Not only that, evidence suggests the Justice Department officials were trying to cover up the operation after they realized what a disaster it had become.

Forget the fact that multiple laws were knowingly broken in an attempt to “prove” we need more gun control (circular logic at its finest), it also shows that if the laws already in place were followed, none of this would have happened. This bears repeating. The government had to break current laws on gun control in order to justify creating new laws on gun control. 

So what’s the government’s response to one of its most ill-conceived operations ever?

Well, more gun control of course.

In short, tax payer money was wasted, a US agent along with who knows how many innocent Mexican civilians are dead, and you, the American citizen, get punished.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Why Do American (Woman) Love British Royalty?

Ms. Ann Coultor has caused some waves with this latest statement:

Ann Coulter explains why she’s not a fan of the late Princess Di: “I find it a little baffling when Americans get so gaga-eyed over a princess. In particular Lady Di, who was just this anorexic, bulimic narcissist.”

First, it's let's not pull the woman's eating disorders into this discussion. Eating disorders are extremely sad and dangerous and using them as a weapon to tear someone down is just not right.

Second, why do American women love the British Royalty, especially the newly minted Kate?

I love it, and I think it has something to do with the whole fairy-tale romance idea. Almost every girl dreams of being a princess, and to actually get to see it play out in real life, to such an adorable couple none the less, is something you want to route for. Maybe it's also the idea that after living in such a broken and messed up world, the idea that a fairy tale can come true is an inspiring thing and something to be celebrated.

On a second note, I one time asked my British friend about what the general consensus among the British was about supporting the Royals through taxes. Her response was that it doesn't bother them, that instead it's something they celebrate. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that a lot of what the Royal family does isn't policy based. Additionally, their presence has acts as a draw for tourists. How many millions of people a year go to England to see the Royal residences and relics??

I think this is actually sounding pretty good. Essentially what they have is symbolic governmental heads who don't actually mess anything up, they just go around to charity events and make appearances, and bring in billions of dollars of business to the country.

If only our President was more like this...

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Protests of Georgia Immigration Law

Let's be clear on what this bill does: It forbids illegal immigrants from attending college in Georgia.

Illegal being the key word. 

None the less, several thousand protesters turned up in Atlanta to protest the bill's passage. 

This bill is not about taking away rights of legal US citizens and immigrants. It's about keeping illegal immigrants, who are illegally living in the US, from using resources paid for and meant for residents who are legally here. 

Of course, it wouldn't be a progressive protest if the race card wasn't used. 

Several different groups stood with the largely Latino crowd, including representatives from the civil rights movement. The Rev. Timothy McDonald, an activist who has been supportive of immigration protesters, was among the speakers showing his solidarity.
“You are my brothers and my sisters,” McDonald told the crowd. “Some years ago, they told people like me we couldn’t vote. We did what you are doing today. We are going to send a message to the powers that be … that when the people get united, there is no government that can stop them. Don’t let them turn you around.”
Yes Reverend, and some years ago they also told people like me (a woman) we couldn't vote. But I fail to see what that has to do with the government potentially subsidizing education for illegal immigrants. 

On Monday, a judge temporarily blocked key parts of the law until a legal challenge is resolved. One provision that was blocked authorizes police to check the immigration status of suspects without proper identification. It also authorizes them to detain illegal immigrants. Another penalizes people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.
Parts of similar measures in Arizona, Utah and Indiana also have been blocked by the courts.
Provisions that took effect Friday include one that makes it a felony to use false information or documentation when applying for a job. Another provision creates an immigration review board to investigate complaints about government officials not complying with state laws related to illegal immigration.

Courts blocking measures that would enable law enforcement to, you know, enforce the law. Imagine that...

Full article here

Friday, July 1, 2011

Obama’s Class Warfare and the Tax Code

Written about here, Obama is playing his hand at class warfare to garner support for tax increases by eliminating tax write-offs for corporate jets and the like.

The whole idea is that the rich need to pay “their fair share”.

But what is their fair share?

10%? 35%? 75%?

Let’s say we do set their tax rate at 75%. Extremely wealthy corporations and individuals are able to afford an army of accountants who are smart enough to find loopholes and tax breaks no matter what the IRS throws at them.

What this results in is the little guy (you and me, unless Bill Gates is reading this, Hi Bill!) getting screwed because we don’t the skills or can’t afford people to do this for us.

 The only solution at this point is to greatly simplify the tax code, possibly via a lower flat tax rate across the board. You could even spice it up a bit to please Progressives by taxing different income levels at different flat tax rates. Anything that would help get this country out of the bureaucratic tax nightmare our federal government has thrust upon us.

Howard Dean is High on Koch

Anyone who follows the news is aware of the left’s weird obsession with the Koch brother’s.

The saga continues with Howard Dean spouting off to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow (who eats it right up) a series of false (and unfortunately for NBC, easily demonstratably false) accusations about the Koch brother’s.

As a result, Melissa Cohlmia, a representative of the Koch brother’s, wrote this reply:

Ms. Marian Porges
Senior Producer
News Standards and Practices
NBC News

June 30, 2011

Dear Ms. Porges,

In your most recent correspondence, you invited me to contact you with any further concerns about MSNBC’s coverage of Koch Industries. I appreciate that offer and to that end I bring to your attention an intellectually dishonest appearance by Howard Dean on the Rachel Maddow Show on June 28.

Within a span of 10 seconds, Governor Dean implied FreedomWorks is affiliated with Koch (it is not); that Charles and David Koch “don’t believe in democracy” (that is not accurate); implied another affiliation with “the New Hampshire speaker” (there is none); said that we attack unions (we do not; in fact, many of our employees are unionized, and their leadership has praised us); and that a get-out-the-vote effort that we are not involved in will somehow suppress voters. Governor Dean went on in this tone and tenor for the balance of his appearance saying, “…the Koch Brothers are a danger to America,” and made an appalling and fictitious claim that we oppose desegregation.

Governor Dean is infamous for making impulsive, disparaging, and sometimes self-destructive remarks, and I understand that such imprudence makes for entertaining television in some circles. But is there no responsibility to challenge or even, after the fact, attempt to verify such outlandish, partisan disparagements when they occur? A little hyperbole may be one thing, but are guests permitted to make any outrageous and baseless accusation, no matter how defaming or unhinged from easily verifiable facts?

If what Mark Halperin said about the President on Morning Joe today is “completely inappropriate and unacceptable,” then what standard is MSNBC applying to false and derogatory remarks about individual citizens and private companies such as Charles and David Koch and Koch Industries?
I would be grateful if you could review the segment and provide me some guidance on how the standards at NBC News apply here and, especially, how they might be applied more diligently when Koch is discussed on-air in the future.


Melissa Cohlmia
Director, Corporate Communication
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC
 If you’d like to follow more debunking of lies against Koch brother’s, check out

"Unexpectedly" Health Premiums Drop for Kaukauna School District

From the comments at Ann Althouse from Byron York:
In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says [Kaukauna school board President Todd] Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money.

Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes -- from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students.