Friday, February 29, 2008

It Isn’t the Merit System That’s “Racist”

Renewed Attacks on the Civil Service Merit System

Without question, standardized tests DO indeed “discriminate,” at least in the truest, or strictest sense of that word. In fact, that’s what they’re designed to do – they “discriminate” against those who are less self-motivated, less prepared and less skilled.

The view that higher standards are arbitrarily better standards is rooted in the view that such standards tend to “weed out” LESSER QUALIFIED applicants, NOT merely UNQUALIFIED ones, and that seems so obvious, as to be self-evident.

It should stand to reason that any employer has a right to the best qualified workforce for its dollar, for that is delivering the consumer the best value for his/her dollar. The pernicious question that some have asked, in attempting to erode the efficacy of higher standards goes, “Is LESSER qualified the same thing as UNQUALIFIED?” That very question insinuates (correctly) that many people who COULD do various jobs are passed over, merely because some others do better on standardized exams that test a specific range of a given array of skills. The question further implies that standardized skills (reading comprehension, basic math, logic questions, special/layout memorizations, etc) do not necessarily prove one candidate “better qualified” than another, especially given that anyone could have a “bad day.” It also cynically implies that anyone who meets the minimum qualifications should be deemed “QUALIFIED” and considered without regard to any abilities beyond that minimum standard. It is this viewpoint that reduces that initial question to; “Why does one have to be THAT smart, THAT strong and THAT determined to do job A?”

And that really is, when you think about it, an invalid question, for the rightful counter question is, “Why doesn’t an employer have the right to hire the BEST qualified applicants and not merely a collection of MINIMALLY qualified ones, despite the fact that those MINIMALLY qualified applicants might also be able to do the job?”

Likewise, the opposition to higher standards, is not really rooted in opposition to the view that higher standards equals a higher quality workforce, BUT instead, that “There’s no proof that the higher quality workforces that such high standards bring about, have not been proven necessary to do the kinds of basic jobs that often “arbitrarily” require them.”

THAT is an absurd proposition, as it’s just as likely, just as valid that, by like token, a given organization has too few one-eyed, epileptics, or too few diabetics with IQs below 80, just as surely as it has too few black males, French females, or Danish midgets amongst its ranks. That kind of irrational proportionalism just doesn’t make any sense.

In fact, the ONLY group mentioned above that standardized tests actually deliberately discriminate against are those with IQs below 80. Sure, a skeptic might ask, “Don’t physical exams geared to people of average height and weight “discriminate against those midgets?”

Well, no, at least not deliberately and since widespread pre-test training is available to everyone, a candidate, who is also a midget, has the capability of preparing for and doing as well on those exams as anyone else.

There’s no question that standardized tests aren’t perfect, BUT, they’re the best we’ve got, in that they DO indeed measure one’s basic skill levels, and so long as the same standards are applied to all, they are in no way, ethnically discriminatory. Moreover, that system was put in place to rid government employment of a pernicious system of patronage, nepotism and cronyism that preceded it.

It’s the same with disproportionate passing rates for various ethnic groups. While there is, as we’d expect, disproportionate passing rates (disparate impact) among all the various ethnic groups, that is not, in and of itself, discriminatory, because it is not an intentional impact of that instrument. In fact, ethnicity and gender should remain NON-factors in such admissions standards.

A few weeks ago, Deputy Chief Paul Mannix wrote a letter to the Chief-Leader newspaper outlining some well-documented questions and concerns about the latest firefighter “written entrance exam,” which was so subjective, so rife with questions having multiple answers, that it amounted to little more than an opinion survey.

He was immediately branded a “racist” by the current President of the Vulcan Society (the black firefighter’s fraternity), firefighter John Coombs.

Ironically enough, according to Richard Steier, editor of the Chief, “The irony is that Firefighter Coombs has agreed with Mr. Mannix's contention that the most-recent Firefighter exam included far too many subjective questions to be a fair determinant of which candidates were best-equipped to be Firefighters. Noting that roughly 45 percent of the 195 questions on the exam had more than one correct answer, the Vulcan Society president said last April, "Answers should be 'a', 'b' or 'c,' not 'maybe.'” He called the test "poorly written" back then and said, "At the last minute things were added that candidates hadn't been told to study for."

Moreover, Chief Mannix seems to abide by one of America’s founding principles, “Equal opportunity (the right to compete under the SAME standards) for ALL, special privilege for NONE.”

Of course real bigots have taken to calling people who adhere to that view “racists,” as in their perversely, bigoted view, not supporting race/gender-preferences is “racist.”

Of course, the term “racism” implies a deliberate and overt racial bigotry and discrimination. Housing discrimination, where whites and blacks are deliberately and wantonly treated differently by realtors is an example of the overt racial bigotry or “racism.”

Disparate impact or disproportionate passing rates, drop-out rates, etc., are NOT examples of “racism.”

As Michael Selmi, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law said, “I think it is...clear that the disparate impact theory was based on two critical mistakes — that the theory would be easier to prove and that it was possible to redefine discrimination purely through legal doctrine. At bottom, that is what the theory sought to do — redefine our concept of discrimination to focus on unequal results."

Adding, “As we know from our lengthy battle over affirmative action, there is no widespread public support for defining equality or discrimination in terms of results or achievements.”

Moreover, the claim that standardized exams “discriminate” against any specific racial/ethnic group is tantamount to racial bigotry, as it implies that that group is unable to compete on an equal level with other groups! THAT view, in and of itself, is inherently bigoted!

Proportionalism (“the proportionate representation of each and every group in every field according to their exact numbers in society) is a ridiculous and impractical goal and arguing in favor of proportionalism to increase the numbers of any specific ethnic group amounts to nothing less than overt racial bigotry.

The facts are that neither rigorous standards nor traditional standardized exams discriminate against any specific ethnic group, or gender. Moreover, disparate impact does NOT prove either ethnic nor gender discrimination, neither overt nor de facto. Every standardized test results in “disparate impact” among virtually EVERY ethnic group – German-Americans differ in their passing rates from Irish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans from Italian-Americans, etc.. Disparate impact is the expected outcome of any standardized test.

To this day, no one has yet to prove that disparate impact is indicative of any verifiable racial/ethnic/gender discrimination. Without question, ALL tests are indeed designed to DISCRIMINATE. They “discriminate” against those who do not prepare as well, and those less able to process and matriculate information. Physical tests “discriminate” against those who either fail to prepare properly or lack certain specific physical attributes that exam is testing (ie. endurance, upper body strength, etc.) and those are very useful, even necessary purposes.

While Chief Coward chose, in an earlier response, to merely mock Chief Mannix, John Coombs upped the ante, in apparently calling for the city to somehow and for some unknown reason, sanction Chief Mannix for daring to oppose race/gender preferences and espouse that ALL applicants be subject to the same rigorous standards. What else could “If the elected officials continue to allow dangerous bigots to be the voice of any department, then those elected officials have failed us all,” be construed to mean?

Is that what firefighter Coombs is calling for, that the city and the FDNY should punish anyone who disagrees with the questionable views of the likes of John Coombs? John Coombs has upped the ante, in apparently calling for the city to somehow and for reasons, apparently known only to John Coombs, sanction Chief Mannix for daring to oppose race/gender preferences and espousing that ALL applicants be subject to the same rigorous standards. What else could “If the elected officials continue to allow dangerous bigots to be the voice of any department, then those elected officials have failed us all,” be construed to mean?

Is that what firefighter Coombs is calling for, that the city and the FDNY should punish anyone who disagrees with the questionable views of the likes of John Coombs? That certainly seems to be the implication of those remarks. So while firmly believing that the government should provide “affordable housing, health-care accessibility, employment...” (none of which are actually Constitutionally mandated, in any way), firefighter Coombs does not have nearly as much faith in say, the First Amendment.

At any rate, in neither case were Chief Mannix’s very real and legitimate concerns addressed and that is almost certainly because they CAN’T be, apparently, at least not by either Chief Coward, nor firefighter Coombs.

But if a past and the present Presidents of the Vulcan Society can’t make the case for lowered standards on a written exam, or how “standardized tests have traditionally discriminated against certain groups,” or that “race/gender preferences are a necessary tool in dealing with past injustices,” then who could be expected to do that?

In response to Chief Mannix merely pointing out a number of very well documented problems with the recent opinion survey/“firefighter entrance exam”, firefighter Coombs’ said, “Those who speak half-truths and lies only do it because they are afraid. They are afraid to openly compete. They are afraid that others will benefit from this career as they have, and mostly they are afraid that they will lose employment to the very people they so dislike.”

Well, first, John Coombs fails to show where ANY of Chief Mannix’s assertions were “lies” or “half truths,” and second, Chief Mannix, like Chief Delbert Coward, Chief Reggie Julius and Chief Augustus Beekman, all black men, passed four promotion exams, each generally requiring over 1,000 hours of study. Chief Mannix has already attained the highest Civil Service rank within the FDNY (Deputy Chief) and he’s done it, like Chief Beekman and Chief Coward did, on exams with extremely high standards. If high standards didn’t adversely impact the likes of Chief Coward, Chief Julius and Chief Beekman, then it would appear that high standards serve as no substantial barrier to black achievement in the FDNY.

Ironically enough, the Civil Service Merit System was put in place to thwart the overt “discrimination” of the rampant nepotism and cronyism of the Tammany Hall years.

Today that system is under attack by modern-day bigots, who are outraged that only certain city agencies “don’t look like the city.” The MTA, the USPS, and the Board of Education “don’t look like the city” either for any number of reasons – some being disproportionately female, some having Hispanics and Asians greatly UNDER-represented, and blacks over-represented.

The problem is NOT with high standards, it’s with people who oppose those standards because, at this moment in time, their own favored group is not performing as well on them as others. Arguing for proportionalism in order to increase the numbers of any specific group amounts to nothing less than overt and disgusting racial bigotry.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama “OPPOSES NAFTA” but "SUPPORTS Free Trade"!


While an Illinois State Senator, Barry Obama had perfected one of the most duplicitous voting patterns. On numerous controversial Bills, he’d vote one way and then, immediately after the vote was cast, object, claiming he mis-cast his vote due to the wording of the Bill. Those objections all became a part of the public record.

In that way, Obama was able to take both sides of a controversial issue.

Now he seems to be taking that same strategy to his Presidential campaign. After bashing NAFTA on the campaign trail, Barack Obama, on Sunday he assured U.S. trading partners that he did not oppose free trade despite making increasingly critical comments about multilateral deals such as NAFTA.

Does that mean that he opposes NAFAT even though he really supports it?

Man that’s a LOT better than John Kerry’s “voting for the Iraq war, before voting against it.”

R.I.P. Bill Buckley

William F. Buckley died Wednesday at the age of 82. His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook, in his Stamford Connecticut home. The cause of death wasn’t immediately known, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

The National Review could do little to prevent Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964, but as conservatives gained influence so did Buckley and his magazine. The long rise would culminate in 1980 when Buckley's good friend, Ronald Reagan, was elected president. The outsiders were now in, a development Buckley accepted with a touch of rue.

"It's true. I had much more fun criticizing than praising," he told The Washington Post in 1985. "I criticize Reagan from time to time, but it's nothing like Carter or Johnson."

Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run of guests ranging from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.

Although he boasted he would never debate a Communist "because there isn't much to say to someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese," Buckley got on well with political foes. Among his friends were such liberals as John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who claim to have despised Buckley's "wrathful conservatism, but came to admire him for his "wit, his passion for the harpsichord, his human decency, even for his compulsion to epater the liberals."

America owes a great debt to the great William F. Buckley.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

WoW! I Didn’t See THIS One Coming!

While many have been speculating about a possible Mike Bloomberg run for President, he is after all, an incredible egotist and a devoted, almost pie-eyed Liberal, no one’s really speculated on another Ralph Nader run, most likely because of the actual and logistical absurdity of such a run.

While Mike Bloomberg is at least a fresh face and more of a traditional (a/k/a fascistic) liberal leader (smoking bans, trans fats bans, etc), Ralph Nader is pretty much a “Been THERE, done THAT Birkenstock!”

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”

"In that context, I have decided to run for president,"
Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press," earlier this morning.

I mean it’s almost as if Ralph Nader’s Presidential obsession has moved into the realm of a full blown sexual addiction – the guy just can’t control his wonton desire to “F^%k over” the American people! And at 73 years of age, that’s some staying power. Viagra users, eat your hearts out.

But the interesting thing here is that while most sexual addictions take place behind closed doors and out of sight from the rest of us, this one is right out there in the open...on the biggest stage possible, making us all, in effect a voyeuristic part of Ralph Nader’s sick, perverted fantasy. Duck down America and try not to get any schmutz on you.

God, you just can’t help but wish a guy like that luck, can you?

Personally, I just can’t wait for his “I have a wet-dream” speech, which should be coming any pun intended.

Encore Ralph! Encore!!!

Friday, February 22, 2008

Could the McCain Smear Be the Last Gasp of the Sulzberger NY Times?

In the wake of the other day’s “anonymously sourced” (at the NY Times that has often been a euphemism for reportorial fantasies) Front Page story claiming that two anonymous sources thought it might have been possible that they “kinda, sorta” suspected that John McCain (then running in the GOP Primary for President) "may or may not have” had an affair with then 32 y/o Washington, D.C. lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

Yikes rumor is now “news”! The NY Times has finally sunk to “National Enquirer status.”

Worse still, the “investigators” for the story have found no occasions on which Senator John McCain voted favorably for the things Ms Iseman lobbied for.

Drats...and double drats!

Even worse yet, is that since 2006, New York Times Co.'s public shareholders have sent the company a signal that they want changes in its dual-class stock structure.

At a recent meeting, 42% of voting holders of Class A stock refused to vote for the New York Times Company.

The NY Times Company has come under fire by shareholders, including major stock owner, Morgan Stanley’s portfolio manager Hassan Elmasry, for its two-tiered share structure, which puts the majority of power in the hands of the holders of the Class B shares. Elmasry has long charged that the dual-class system strays from the best practices of corporate governance, and that it doesn't give public shareholders enough opportunity to demand drastic changes at a company whose stock price has been weak for a prolonged period.

Just last April, influential investment advisor firm Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) advised that NYT Company’s Class A shareholders to withhold votes for the four directors that are up for election later this month. The Class B shareholders—those are largely Sulzberger family members—control the votes for the remaining nine directors on the board. So by telling Class A shareholders to withhold their votes, ISS is, obviously, telling the non-family shareholders to tell the Times that they don't like the way the company is being run.

ISS is not happy with the makeup of the Times' board, nothing that Vice-Chairman Michael Golden (Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s cousin) "is among the most highly compensated executive officers of the company"; his sister, Lynn Dolnick, is also a director on the board.

ISS is also not thrilled by having Arthur Sulzberger Jr. in the dual roles of Chairman and Publisher, noting that it "further disenfranchises Class A shareholders by vesting the power of Chairman in an insider, Mr. Sulzberger... He is ultimately accountable to himself, both as Chairman and as a Class B shareholder. Neither he nor other members of the management team is accountable to the company's Class A shareowners in any meaningful way."

The Boardroom’s primary problem with the Sulzberger debacle has been flagging profitability. While the print media has been plagued by a mass-migration of readers from print to internet, BUT the N. Y. Times is on the internet, and it’s not that Leftists don’t do well on the internet, as some of the biggest daily blogs on the web are hard left.

And it’s not economic or demographic conditions either. US population is growing at a rate of almost 3 million per year and the economy has been expanding rapidly since 2003 (despite the Times predictions to the contrary). And it’s not local demographics, The New York Times, like the New York Post (which has seen its readership skyrocket over the same period) are both headquartered in New York City.

Many people, from pundits to investors have begun to consider that if the problem isn’t the global environment, the local environment, the labor environment, technology, the subscription model or regional conditions, perhaps it’s the newspaper.

Just ten days ago The New York Times Co. nominated two outside candidates to replace two directors after shareholders called for changes to the company's board and strategy.

Robert Denham, one of the nominees, is a partner in the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Dawn Lepore is the chief executive officer of Inc., an online provider of health and beauty products, New York Times said yesterday in a statement.

The two Hedge Funds that have been pushing the family-run NY Times for change, put out a statement that, according to Robert Willis (chief investment officer of Willis Investment Counsel in Gainesville, Georgia, which owns 500,000 New York Times shares), read in part, "These nominees yesterday offer a nice mixture but that doesn't satisfy the need to have directors that are more objective and perhaps not inclined to do everything from the family shareholders' perspective."

In the wake of the recent McCain smear, this could be a “do-or-die” move for either the NY Times or John McCain. IF the NY Times cannot significantly substantiate that embarrassingly “anonymously sourced” story, there may well be a corporate mutiny in the boardroom of the NY Times!

John Ridpath - On the Immorality of Socialism (Debate-1990)

If there were just more Libertarians like THIS! A passionate defense of Liberty (freedom), and of course, the foundation of Liberty – CAPITALISM and a clear attack on socialism, as the “anti-freedom” system.

“The moral society is not the society in which ALL behavior is moral. The moral society is the society that makes free choice possible.”

(John Ridpath)

“The only principled antidote to that (tyranny) is the establishment of a society based on the principle of individual rights. Capitalism is the ONLY alternative to these kinds of immoral social systems.”

(John Ridpath)

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

New York’s Department of Education Seeks to Desegregate by ENDING a Racial Quota!

I know, what’s this world coming to?

Aren’t racial quotas and overt racial discrimination the accepted ways to assure racial “diversity” and non-discrimination?

Now I’m really confused.

It seems that back in the 1970s (1974 to be exact), in a case called Hart vs. Community School Board, a judge ruled that a NYC public school board had deliberately zoned out white students from the Mark Twain Intermediate School on Coney Island, leaving the school almost entirely attended by minorities.

Well, times change and today the Mark Twain Academy is, according to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, “a racially mixed, highly-sought-after, excellent school.”

He's asking the courts to terminate the racial quota ordered in 1974, that mandates that 60% of the school’s seats must go to white students, for this school and others, in an attempt to make race a non-issue in admissions.

The story came to light because of a story last June about a young girl of Indian descent (Nikita Rau), denied admission to the Mark Twain Academy because of this quota. Her test scores were higher than the standard used to admit white students, but lower for that used to admit minorities (now, mostly Asian and East Indian students).

Wow! What a refreshing concept!

That RACE “should NOT be a NON-ISSUE in admissions.”

You’d think that would just be common sense, but I guess too many people still have a vested interest in perpetuating this racial spoils system.

Oh Kettle, the Pot is Calling!

I saw this one awhile back, but it’s still pretty funny.

Out on Long Island, a small newspaper editor named Rick Murphy (of the Independent Newspaper Group) penned an ill-advised piece parodying Hillary Clinton’s often contentious race with Barack Obama. It’s a piece that many have assailed as rife with both racial and sexist overtones.

It was not, to be kind, one of Rick Murphy’s “finer moments.”

But among those who’re calling for Rick Murphy’s firing is none other than ultra-Liberal Alec Baldwin!

Alec F*&king Balwin?!

Come on! Haven't we had enough of this with bigots like Al ("white interloper") Sharpton excoriating other racial bigots, for offenses he's long been guilty of, himself?

As far as Alec Baldwin goes, if mean-spiritedness and demeaningly sexist comments (“thoughtless little pig” to his 12 y/o daughter) were career-ending offenses, Alec would be living under a bridge about now.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I Agree With Cindy McCain

I’ve ALWAYS been proud of America...without question, the GREATEST nation on earth, primarily because of Capitalism (economic Liberty/freedom) and the political freedoms (freedom FROM government intervention) enshrined in our Constitution.

Apparently not so much for Michelle Obama, who yesterday said, "Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Why am I NOT surprised?

That statment is as vapid as claiming "We need new leadership for us to enter a new century," (Barack Obama, Houston, TX. 2/19/08) when we've ALREADY entered a new century with our "old leadership." Same with this vapid call for "change."

With some 84% of us polling that we are "satisfied with our own lives," where's the call for change coming from? More aptly, where is the will that would sustain such a desire for "change," among a populace that is overwhelmingly satisfied with their own lives?

The Supreme Court Gets NSA Wiretapping Right!


A full year 18 months after a Carter appointee in Detroit (Judge Anna Diggs Taylor) inanely sided with the ACLU’s baseless lawsuit against the NSA’s wiretapping terror suspects, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to the ACLU today, by giving the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program its seal of approval. It did so, by turning down, without comment, an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The action makes clear the difficulty of mounting a legitimate legal challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article (seditiously) revealed its existence.

THANK YOU U.S. Supreme Court for putting legitimate national security concerns over the dubious “rights” of terror supporters.

Is Joe Biden Barack Obama’s “Rosa Parks”?

It sure seems so, considering that when Senator Biden took liberties with a speech form Neil Kinnoch (the British Labor Party leader, who had no problems with Biden’s “borrowing some phrases”) he was promptly bounced for the 1992 Presidential race over charges of plagiarism. No matter that Mr. Kinnoch had no problems with Mr. Biden’s borrowing those thoughts, he was out of the race after violating a public trust.

The other day, in Wisconsin, Barack Obama lifted the exact speech given a couple years earlier by Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick and apparently (thanks to Joe Biden’s pioneering efforts) such plagiarism is no longer any big deal at all! In fact, partisan Obama supporters are now busily trying to redefine "plagiarism" as "taking words without permission," instead of the actual definition, "without the due acknowledgment."

WoW! We really have come a long way! Today, a middle aged white guy, like Joe Biden can be a civil rights pioneer for young black men like Barack Obama!

In a sense, Joe Biden is now the “Rosa Parks” of political plagiarists.

Monday, February 18, 2008

The ABA Lobbies to Undermine America’s National Security!

Earlier this week (Wednesday, February 13th) House Democrats decided not to bring the expiring FISA legislation to a floor vote, letting the nation’s FISA laws lapse.

The Senate had passed the Bill 68 – 29 with 19 Democrats voting in favor of the Bill, including newly elected “Blue Dogs” Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse and Claire McCaskill, which included retroactive immunity for Telecom Companies who are occasionally asked to eavesdrop by the government.

Pelosi feared that many House Democrats would vote to pass that Senate Bill, as well, thus they tabled the Bill and going on a 12 day recess.

Of the 29 Dems who voted to block the Senate Bill, 24 of them took money from trial lawyers (as did two absent ones – Hillary Clinton, D-NY and Barack Obama D-Il). Amanda Carpenter of has compiled a great amount of information that shows that more than 60 trial lawyers, representing plaintiffs in various Telecom suits have contributed over $1.5 MILLION to Democratic Senators and their interests,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash?page=full&comments=true

Twenty-one Conservative Democrats signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi urging passage of the Rockefeller Bill that would grant immunity.

Speaker Pelosi DID try and offer a 21 day FISA extension without immunity, but it was voted down, with many of the new “Blue Dog” Democrats voting against Pelosi’s 21 day extension despite Ms. Pelosi and the Party trying hard to secure their votes. Reports are that about a half dozen Blue Dogs voted against the extension (all of them had signed the letter urging passage of the Senate Bill) and about twenty-eight other “Kucinich Democrats” voted against it, as they consistently vote against every kind of anti-terror legislation.

So, it can be surmised that there actually less than thirty “ Democrats” in the House, the rest of those opposed, including Pelosi, the majority of the House Dems and Democratic Senators such as Reid, Clinton and Obama sold out their nation’s national security interests for cash from the trial lawyers hoping to make money from suing companies that assist the government’s domestic security measures.

A Little Reality Check for my Conservative Friends



McCain may be a disappointment to Conservatives, in fact, there’s no question about that, but he HAS been a consistent fiscal Conservative, there’s no question about THAT either.

For those who doubt that, go read Kevin Stach's piece in the WSJ;

If McCain has been poor on illegal immigration (and he has been), well, Huckabee and Giuliani and Romney and G W Bush have all been as bad, or, in some cases worse.

If he's been bad on spending (he has been), then so have all the others mentioned, as well.

The idea that "McCain's not a real Conservative," is best countered by the fact that "G W Bush ISN'T either!"We have a very important election coming up. Thompson didn't try hard enough, Huckabee tried too hard, Giuliani ran hard too late and Romney ran as someone he wasn't....they're all out and McCain's what's left.

Come January 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be over 70 years of age. If Conservatives sit home, saying that McCain's no better than Hillary or Obama, then we'll get Hillary &/or Obama....and by 2012 we won't recognize this country.

It will almost certainly be one we wouldn't recognize today, as a Dem President with a Dem Congress CAN and WILL make-over the landscape within 4 years....certainly enough so, as to make the election of another Conservative (in 2012 or beyond) a very real long shot.

McCain's far from perfect, but NONE of the Republicans running were perfect either! Get over it.

We are facing a momentous crisis with this election, and it can't be over-stated, how bad things can get if the Dems get to control all three branches of government.

With all three branches and the MSM, Conservatism could all but be criminalized. There is no question but that America will be a poorer, less free and far more dreary place under Liberal management.

Conservatives HAVE to wake up!We don't have the luxury of supporting "only true Conservatives," we've GOT to become totally head-over-heels psyched over voting the LESSER of TWO BAD CHOICES....the alternative is really THAT bad!

Friday, February 15, 2008

I Smell Earmarks and Bacon on Hillary’s Plate....But Mostly Earmarks



Those “Earmark hatin’ Dems” sure are almost, kinda clever, aren’t they?

I mean, judging from the current news cycle, you’d think the fact that Hillary Clinton currently leads ALL Presidential candidates in earmarks isn’t really news at all.

Well it IS!!! In fact it's BIG news!

Over the past year alone, she’s sponsored 66 earmarks totaling $150 million, while Barack Obama only sponsored six earmarks totaling $34 million, in 2007 (Gawd, Barack Obama really sucks at sucking up that government cash, doesn’t he?).

Oh yeah, and on a completely unrelated note, John McCain didn't ask for any earmarks at all this past year.

Anglican Leader Loves Him Some Sharia

Is Rowan Williams (a/k/a “The Archbishop of Canterbury”) the stupidest Brit on Earth?

OK, with the likes of Robert Fisk and George Galloway running around, that’s no easy question to answer, BUT Rowan Williams is surely in the running.

Recently Rowan...the Archbishop, came out and virtually endorsed a separate and distinct set of Muslim (Sharia) courts in England.

He’s since been “horrified” by the reaction of all those British folks who were themselves horrified by the Archbishop’s horrifying remarks!

Head of England’s Anglican Church Supports Sharia Courts

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is meeting with the Anglican Church’s general synod today, and is expected to face calls for him to quit over his sharia remarks.

“He’s said to be “horrified” by the reaction to his saying that perhaps it’s time to let sharia become a parallel legal system in Britain. He’s evidently more horrified for being criticized than he is at the prospect of sharia becoming one of the laws of his land.”

After earlier stating that the introduction of a separate Sharia court was “unavoidable" within England, on Monday (February 11th, 2008) he softened his stance a bit saying, Islamic law should apply in Britain “if - and please note that word - this were thought to be a useful direction in which to move".

He has not apologized for his remarks, insisting he was right, but he has apologized for being unclear in those remarks that caused such controversy.

On Monday, February 11th, he added, "We are not talking about parallel jurisdictions; and I tried to make clear that there could be no blank cheques in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women.

"The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity. So the question remains of whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for resolving disputes and regulating transactions."

So, why does any of that make the diplomatic and ultra-tolerant Rowan Williams one of the stupidest men in all of England?

Well, there’s THIS (From the UK Independent);

“A Question of Honour: Police say 17,000 Women are Victims Every Year.”

That’s correct, an estimated 17,000 women IN England are victims of various “Honor Crimes” each year!

You see the logic here?

So-called “radical Muslims,” those who practice strict Sharia-based Islam are completely intolerant of ALL others. Their views and value-system are entirely and in whole, incompatible with Western values, thus they tend to wreak havoc wherever they go, in the West, and yet, "Liberal" (is that a euphemism for stupid) Westerners think a welcoming smile is the answer. And why not? It's their answer to everything.

Intelligent Westerners acknowledge that reality and want the Muslims already there EXPELLED. Those who do not understand that basic reality (the “terminally stupid”) want to embrace and welcome the “radicals” and give them their own Sharia courts, airport footbaths, and things like that.

With the likes of Bob Fisk, Mike Moore, George Galloway, Sean Penn and Rowan Williams, it would seem that the West has nearly as many internal enemies as external!

I am about the luckiest guy in the world...

She’s not only my wife, she’s my best friend.

I Married late (47 y/o) and fortunately for me, I Married well. My wife is not only one of the greatest people I’ve been lucky to meet (and I’ve met many), she’s my best friend, soul-mate and perhaps the kindest, fairest individual I’ve ever known.

Four years into our Marriage, I transferred from one of the best and busiest firehouses in New York City (Engine-92 & Ladder-44) to Hazmat-1. That’s entailed a lot more outside work, appx. 500 hours in outside training, which has had me out of state for up to two weeks a few times a year over the past three years. On top of that, there have always been manpower issues in my new Unit, so I wound up working a LOT more than my wife had been accustomed to earlier on.

It presented us with many new challenges, we’ve had to meet in some creative ways. I do most of the cooking around the house and being gone so much has necessitated new ways of dealing with that.

My wife works long hours too. In her “busy seasons,” she often puts in over 70 hours Monday thru Friday and works Saturday and from her home office on part of Sundays as well.

To date, everything’s worked well for us and I couldn’t ask for a better partner to share my life with.

I think a big part of making any relationship work is not taking things for granted.

Perhaps because of our time shortage, we treasure the time we have together and neither of us takes what we’ve built together for granted.

I am about the luckiest guy in the world.

E-Verify Makes Border Enforcement Free and Easy!

A new tool in the war against ILLEGAL immigration may be turning the tide in this all important fight.

On Jan. 1, Arizona became the first state to require all employers to confirm each worker's legal status via the federal "E-Verify" system. It survived a federal court challenge last Thursday (February 7, 2008) and the new law now promises to transform the immigration crisis in America.

After just six weeks, Arizona's system is already working: Newspapers in the state report that illegals are self-deporting by the thousands. Apartment complexes in Phoenix and Tucson confirm that thousands of tenants have skipped town. Many are returning across the border to Mexico.

This Arizona success is proof that attrition through enforcement works and other states are taking notice.

E-Verify is a free program and it’s easy to use. The employer simply types in the employee's name, date of birth and Social Security number (or taxpayer ID number), of the prospective employee and gets an answer back from the government in seconds.

More than 20,000 businesses nationwide were using E-Verify voluntarily before Jan. 1. Now Arizona's 145,000 businesses are obliged to join their ranks.

According to Kris W. Kobach (Professor of Law at the University of Missouri), "All this debunks the common claim that America has only two choices - either round up all illegals and send them home; or unjustly grant amnesty to millions of lawbreakers (thereby virtually begging millions more to break the law in the future).

"In Arizona, illegals began exiting the state on Jan. 1 - even though no county attorney there is set to take any enforcement action until after March 1. No government official has yet done a thing, all it took was a credible threat of enforcement. "

As I’ve long advocated, “Go after the illicit employers, fine those who hire “undocumented workers,” and workers “off-the-books,” and force them to use tools like E-Verify and the illicit, magnet jobs will dry up...and once those illicit jobs dry up, the illegals will simply self-deport.”

Arizona seems to be proving that viewpoint out.

Super Bowl XLII as a 2008 Election Blueprint?

If you listen to the pundits, the Democrats, in 2008, sure look a lot like the New England Patriots did this year – an almost sure bet to go 19-0.

Likewise, the GOP looks a lot like the Giants, a team that has stumbled and bumbled their way into an apparent sacrificial match up.

But looks are often deceiving. They certainly were in Super Bowl XLII.

In fact, the Patriots did a lot more to appear almost “perfect” than the Democrats have. The current Reid-Pelosi Congress not only has lower approval ratings than the Frist-Delay Congress did, but even lower approval numbers than the Iraq-scarred, media-whipped G W Bush has now!

The Patriots rolled over their opponents in both the regular season and the playoffs with what appeared to be remarkable ease, while the Giants won a hard-scrabble wild-card seed, and without a hard-fought week 16 win in Buffalo, they stood a chance of not making the playoffs at all, and once they were in, each of their playoff wins were heart-stopping, upsets, of teams they were expected to lose to.

And it’s the same with the candidates. While Hillary and Barack both look sterling through the MSM’s filter, the GOP’s McCain looks, pretty much what he is (and what the Giants were) “the last man standing” on that side, in that Conference.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the Patriots were pretty much in the same position the Democrats are now. Nothing’s been expected of them, and they haven’t made any ponderous mistakes.

The bad thing, for both the Pats and Dems is that they both seem to have come to believe their hype. The Pats beat the Giants in the last game of the season (week 17/the 2006 Elections) but barely (38-35...and with most of their wins coming on the backs of Conservative Dems). Some astute football analysts had the Giants down as "the best match-up against the Patriots ("a team we know can give the Patriots a good game"), just as the current polls show McCain beating either Hillary or Obama head-to-head, but few picked the G-men to win. Moreover, the Democrats have not only had nothing expected of them, that’s exactly what they’ve delivered so far.

So the wiley politician, McCain, will take on either the first woman or the first bi-racial candidate in U.S. history. Hillary has huge negatives and will almost certainly have almost no shot at cracking the 50% barrier, almost assuring an extremely close election, while Obama, should he get the nod (and he SHOULD), will suddenly be scrutinized and his dreary “all is woe," message will begin to be viewed by an electorate, within a nation where a December Gallup poll showed that an astounding 84% of Americans report being satisfied with their lives.

Again, with McCain’s upbeat, Supply Side message, a showdown between a Liberal “gloom & doomer” will almost certainly be as tight as that contrast will be interesting.

In fact, McCain looks very much like the Giants, a team who couldn’t win at home and had to become “road warriors,” to reach the playoffs, and a candidate who couldn’t initially win with his own Party’s Conservative base, but had a talent for attracting Independents and Moderates (appx 30% of the electorate)...the similarities are striking.

With almost every election being decided by the 30% moderate middle, a group that overwhelmingly views McCain favorably, as well as one that is largely apolitical, it would not be at all surprising to see the election of 2008 mirror the Super Bowl of February 3rd, 2008 in that both seemed destined to be a lot closer than initial observers thought.

I bet that one right too.

Is an Amnesty Bill on the 2008 Docket?

Astoundingly enough, even as millions of Americans flooded Congress with calls and emails to stifle the recent McCain-Kennedy (“Shamnesty”) Bill, Liberal House Democrats are looking at an election year Amnesty Bill!

Crazy, or desperate?

Could this be designed to hurt McCain with Hispanics, now that he's honor bound to adhere to his recent enforcement first pledge?

Or is it rooted in a fear by Liberal Dems that local get-tough enforcement measures, in states like Oklahoma and Arizona, might already be having a surprising effect and encouraging other states to do the same?

The new E-Verify program, now being used in Arizona, make it possible for an employer to check a prospective employee’s social security number of taxpayer ID in seconds and for free!

Arizona and Oklahoma both require that now and illegal immigrants are fleeing both states in droves and self-deporting at record levels.

Or is it that even with our current meager enforcement measures, the growth rate of the U.S. Mexican-born population has dropped by nearly half to 4.2% in 2007 from about 8% in 2005 and 2006 and Democrats seeing a demographic they view (misakenly, or not) as favorable for them?

With over 75% of Americans polled, favoring a strict "Enforcement First" policy on illegal immigration, and with even a large majority of Hispanic-American citizens opposing illegal immigration, it is certainly politically risky proposition for Democrats. Moreover, the majority of Hispanic-American citizens tend to be MORE socially Conservative than native born American citizens, and that doesn't bode well for long-term Democratic designs on that demographic.

The good news is that Conservative Democrats have, so far, stymied the Amnesty Bill, in favor of an enforcement-first Bill penned by Heath Shuler.

Conservative Democrats and Democratic leaders are in a tough position. Besides NEEDING a Bill “they can run on,” Conservative Dems (the same group that is steadfastly supporting the Senate Bill on FISA) are in no position to support any kind of Amnesty Bill, while Democratic leaders have to fear that if the Liberals get their way, they may well hand back all those hard-won Mid-west and Southern 2006 seats to the GOP.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Am I Officially “Famous” Now?


Seems I missed this, but the folks at DiversityInc have track-backed to one of my articles about race/gender-preferences.


Does that make me “officially famous,” now?

I hope not, because I don’t feel famous. In fact, if this is how “famous” feels, I kinda feel ripped off.

Anyway, here’s the DiversityInc article by Jennifer Millman;

The Hot News About Affirmative Action

By Jennifer Millman

What's next for Michigan? Affirmative action—yes or no? Did Gerald Ford really support civil rights? This week's top affirmative-action news has bloggers asking these questions and more. What are they saying? Like most things, it depends on whom you ask.

What's Next for Michigan?

What happened? A federal court ordered Michigan universities to stop using affirmative action immediately, lifting a six-month injunction of the voter-approved ban imposed by a lower court. One pro-affirmative-action group says it will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but skeptics say their case won't hold ground.

What's in the blogs? Many bloggers support the federal court's decision, citing the 58 percent majority of Michigan voters (most of whom were white) who approved the affirmative-action ban. One blogger submits it would be hypocritical to allow the injunction, quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which another blogger claims is "the real hypocrisy."
Read more.

JMK, a self-professed "working-class conservative" and FDNY firefighter, mocks Michigan universities' efforts to delay the affirmative-action ban. He says the primary problem with affirmative action is it's rooted in "presumed incompetence," which he believes is racism in its purest form.
Read more.

Affirmative Action: Yes or No?

What happened? Long-time affirmative-action foe Ward Connerly recently was invited to speak before Wisconsin's special legislative committee on affirmative action, which has intensified national debate over its utility.

What's in the blogs? Inviting Ward Connerly to speak at an affirmative-action hearing is like asking a KKK Grand Wizard to speak before a committee on race relations, opines Joel McNally. He claims the United States was founded on affirmative action for whites, albeit not federalized, and cites President Bush as a beneficiary.
Read more.

Did anything positive come of Connerly's visit to Wisconsin? Not only does one blogger say yes, he calls Connerly's appearance a "stroke of good fortune." Why? In a sarcastic invective condemning a pro-affirmative-action Wisconsin representative, Dan Kenitz calls for an end to "racial preferences." Why? Because "separate means unequal."
Read more.

Another blogger denounces the anti-affirmative-action movement as a thinly veiled attempt to sustain white supremacy. While Connerly substantiates his efforts by espousing concern for "reverse discrimination," this blogger catches him on a vital point. There's no evidence, and Connerly knows it.
Read more.

As James Collier points out in his blog Acting White, affirmative-action programs are needed to remedy past discrimination, but the negative press surrounding the term sets its beneficiaries up to fail.
Read more.

Gerald Ford and Civil Rights

What happened? Everyone remembers Gerald Ford as the only president never elected, the man who helped the nation recover after Watergate and withdrew the last troops from Vietnam. Where did Ford stand on civil rights? He's an affirmative-action supporter who opposed busing to achieve school integration. (
See also: Affirmative-Action Supporter Gerald Ford Dies at 93)

What's in the blogs? Some bloggers are wondering how he aligned these contradictory viewpoints, while others argue they're not contradictory at all. Affirmative-action foes blame the "left wing" for attempting to frame Ford's legacy around civil rights—a subject they claim was a minimal priority on his presidential agenda.

One blogger writes, "The American dream was never intended for black people to enjoy, and Ford maintained the status quo by approving initiatives that benefited white people, and kept white privilege alive."
Read more.

Jeffrey Toobin, an Amherst Times writer, reminds the public that Ford was responsible for the amicus brief submitted by retired military officers in the 2003 University of Michigan cases—prose from which Sandra Day O'Connor adopted in her majority decision. This writer claims this brief, which Ford set in motion, may have been the most influential in the history of the Supreme Court.

Man, it pays to be don't pay much, but it pays!

Hey! Did you hear the one about the “second Nifong?”


Weird stuff!

Over the weekend, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood announced the arrest of 51-year-old Albert Johnson, for the brutal rape and murder of two three-year-old girls in the 1990s. Johnson was an early suspect in both cases, but despite the fact that the state had samples of his DNA on file for over a decade, it never bothered to test it against the DNA found in the little girls.


Well, largely because Mississippi District Attorney Forrest Allgood (like Mike Nifong, a Democrat) decided early on in both cases that he had his men, and he couldn’t be convinced otherwise. One of those men was Kennedy Brewer (pictured above), a mentally handicapped man who, thanks to Allgood, served more than a decade on Mississippi's Death Row, then served another five years even after DNA evidence had cleared him!

Allgood insisted on retrying Brewer anyway, arguing that bite marks on the little girl's body matched Brewer's teeth.

Stranger still, Allgood refused to test the DNA from the crime scene against that of a man (Albert Johnson) he’d earlier convicted of an eerily similar crime — another rape-murder of a young girl in the same area. It now seems clear why Allgood resisted the test. As it turns out, the man he'd convicted for that crime, Levon Brooks, is innocent, too. Brooks had been sentenced to life in prison.

Hood is expected to announce on Thursday that Brewer has been completely exonerated.

Had Allgood not fixated on Brooks after the first murder, he may have been able to prevent the second. Instead, we have two little girls dead, one man wrongly incarcerated for nearly two decades, and another who came perilously close to execution. And of course, there's also the matter of a two-time child rapist and murderer running free for 15 years.

OK, Forrest Allgood is even worse than Mike Nifong, same malfeasance, but an even more horrific result!

Hillary Leads ALL Presidential Candidates on Earmarks!!!

Everywhere and at all times, it seems, that Liberals are now-a-days decrying earmarks, along with the “excessive spending of the Bush administration.”

Well, they have certainly over-spent. There's absolutely no question about that.

But what’s the Democrat’s answer? Cutting federal programs, reducing the girth of the mammoth bureaucracy in D.C.?

Nope, they’ve decried the Bush budget over its CUTS! In short, Even though Bush has over-spent ($3.1 TRILLION this year!), we want to spend even MORE!”

And what about those dreaded earmarks? Well, it turns out that Hillary Clinton currently leads ALL Presidential candidates on that score, having sponsored 66 earmarks totaling $150 million, this year alone. Barack Obama sponsored six earmarks totaling $34 million, this year - all were for nonprofit organizations.

John McCain didn't ask for any earmarks this year.

Enough said.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

For About the ONE MILLIONTH Time, the NY Times Uses “Suspect journalists” to Violate the Truth


In yet another chapter of the continuing saga of the NY Times descent into biased, untrustworthy, advocacy “journalism,” the “Gray Lady” was forced (yet again) to apologize (is anyone keeping track of all the apologias?), this time for running a front page “news story” on Guantanamo Bay, by the noted, bitter anti-war activist Andy Worthington (author of The Guantanamo Files) has been a biased and outspoken critic of Camp X-Ray since its inception.

The NY Times editors acknowledged that they hadn’t vetted Worthington, nor looked up his easy-to-find website ( It also claimed he “was not involved in the entire article and should not have been named its co-author.

WoW! That’s an awful lot of miscues for a professional news organization.

In a related note, GE’s bastard scion NBC suspended David Schuster (a far-Left loon, pictured above) for claiming the Clintons were “pimping out (their daughter) Chelsea,” for endorsements and delegates.

I guess we should thank God for MSNBC and the NY Times, as they make FoxNews look like a paragon of virtue by comparison.

Score One for America’s Private Sector! Capitalists 1 - Socialists 0

Exxon Mobil Corp has won court orders freezing up to $12 billion in Venezuelan assets around the world in its fights for compensation over lost operations to President Hugo Chavez's nationalization drive.

The largest U.S. company sought the asset freeze to guarantee repayment should it win arbitration over the Cerro Negro heavy oil project.

As the Reuters reported, “The move is the boldest challenge yet by an international oil major against any of the governments around the world that have moved to increase their holds on natural resources as energy and commodity prices have soared.

On Thursday, February 7th, 2008 Exxon-Mobil received court orders in Britain, the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles each freezing up to $12 billion in total assets of Venezuela state oil firm PDVSA. Exxon also won a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December freezing more than $300 million belonging to PDVSA, pending the outcome of its arbitration.

It’s about time that global conglomerates took rogue tyrants like Hugo Chavez to court and “Hit’em where it hurts,” the wallet.

Boy, I sure hope the Leftists in America and Europe don’t come to use this as an excuse as to “Why socialism (ultimately) failed in Venezuela.”

The West is Best...and Worst

In a recent survey Colorado Springs (Home of the U.S. Air Force Academy) was named “The fittest city in America.”

Las Vegas, Nevada (pictured) took the distinction as “America’s fattest city,” probably due to all those 24 hour casinos, with their never-ending buffets, rivers of booze and all the fast food joints all over town.

But there’s hope for Las Vegas, in that they have more health food stores than the average American city and more sparkling new gymnasiums ready to be used.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Ward Connerly is an American Treasure

We take an almost perverse pride in taking our Liberties for granted in America. On the one hand, it’s good in that we are so inculcated in individual Liberty that we take it for granted, but it’s dangerous in that in taking that for granted, many Americans have lost sight of just WHAT individual Liberty really is.

First, it is NOT “doing whatever one wants, so long as you don’t harm anyone else.”

That is license and it is NOT a part of any legitimate American tradition.

Individual Liberty is, in essence, self ownership, the complete and full responsibility for ourselves. That requires an extremely limited government, almost completely restricted from the economic sphere and only less restricted when it comes to the criminal and civil justice systems.

In that regard, Ward Connerly is a man who stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Abraham Lincoln. A man motivated by an adherence to the strict principle of individual Liberty.

After his appointment to the University of California board of regents in 1993, Connerly began to discuss his views on affirmative action. In 1994, after listening to Jerry and Ellan Cook, whose son had been rejected at the University of California, San Francisco Medical School, Connerly became convinced that affirmative action, as practiced in the University of California, was tantamount to racial discrimination. Jerry Cook, a statistician, presented data showing that whites and especially Asians were being systematically denied admission despite having better grades and test scores than other students who were being admitted. This was never denied by the administrators of the UC system, and led Connerly to propose abolishing these controversial programs, though his proposal would still allow consideration of social or economic factors.

In 1995, he became the chairman of the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign and helped get the initiative on the California ballot as Proposition 209. The Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, the ACLU, and the California Teachers Association opposed the measure. It passed by a 54% majority. Connerly, in 1997, formed the American Civil Rights Institute. Connerly and the ACRI supported a similar ballot measure in Washington which would later pass by 58%.

Following the 2003 Supreme Court rulings in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, Connerly was invited to Michigan by Jennifer Gratz to support a measure similar to the 1996 California amendment. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative appeared on the November 2006 Michigan ballot and passed by better than 2 to 1 with 58% of the vote.

This year, Ward Connerly’s ACRI has targeted four states (Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma and Colorado) for ballot initiatives to end race/gender-based preferences.

As Missouri Civil Rights Initiative spokesman, Tim Asher said, "It would go back to obviously the idea of trying to ensure that people are judged based on their merit and things other than just the color of their skin."

While Bridget Williams, President of the AFLCIO called it, “unacceptable," while many local civic and clergy expressed similar outrage. "As Americans, we have not yet achieved the goal of complete equitable society and one of the most effective ways to achieve that goal is affirmative action," Williams said.

To date, three other states, California, Washington State and Michigan, have banned affirmative action’s racial and gender preferences.

“Equal opportunity” is just THAT, the ability to compete UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS as anyone else.

The Conservative Dilemma

Liberals who've reviled Anne Coulter are now in the midst of a veritable love fest over her inane threat to "vote for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee." I've heard others say that they'd rather see Hillary push through amnesty and tax hikes, because "At least then, the Republicans and Conservative Dems in Congress would fight to block those things."

It's idiocy.

Conservatives on both sides will always fight against those things.

On the larger issue (some have said that "the electorate is not as Conservative as Conservatives would hope"), in light of evidence such as "The number of Americans who believe that government should help the needy even if that means greater debt has risen from 41% in 1994 to 54% today," but I
still think Margaret Thatcher was right when she said something along the lines that "The facts of life are Conservative." That seems to be the case, as according to the facts from the last election (2006) where nearly EVERY Conservative Ballot initiative won the day, from Michigan voting to end race/gender-preferences by nearly 2 to 1, to Eminent Domain being struck down in 11 of 12 States, to Gay Marriage going down on 8 of 9 Ballot Referendums and Americans voting 66% to 33% AGAINST Gay Marriage.

I do believe that the vast majority of people (Americans and everyone else) are apolitical and hold to no fast internal ideological mandate.

Ironically enough, the prosperity that Conservative principles and market-based economic policies create, is often that ideology's own worst enemy.

When people are "fat, dumb and happy," they feel more secure, they desire more leisure time, rather than more productivity and they feel more charitable - both charitable to those who fail and more kind toward criminal screw-ups.

After the enormous post-WW II prosperity of the 1950s, America went through one of its worst fits of socialistic mischief. Violent crime was seen as "the natural reaction of the poor to deprivation," drug use was regaled not reviled and an expensive and doomed "war on poverty" was launched under the banner that "Everyone deserved a good life regardless of their ability to produce."

Those Keynesian policies imploded in STAGFLATION during the star-crossed Carter presidency and since then, we've had about a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity, thanks in large measure to Supply Side economic policies and Conservative principles on the domestic front.

The people have once again become too "fat, dumb and happy."

There are dolts on the Left who openly rail against the FISA laws that have allowed the government to listen in on calls between Americans both TO & FROM various "suspect foreign portals." Others have compared the militant Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq to our own "Minutemen."

And the idiotic idea of "giving people commodities" (like healthcare and housing) has become more popular than at any time over the last half century.

The thing is that Thatcher was fundamentally right. Idiotic economic policies inevitably lead to economic dislocation and a self-correction BACK to Conservative ideals and market-based economic policies.

Conservatism has yet to figure out how not to be it's own worst least in the eyes of the gullible....and those who become too "fat, dumb and happy."

The Bay State of Government-Managed Healthcare


OK, so by now most informed Americans are aware that “Hillary-care” and “Obama-care” are pretty much based on the same plan advanced as “Romney-care” in Massachusetts.

If you doubt that, don’t take my word for it, try MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, who advised Romney on his health care reform law and has also advised Clinton, the Massachusetts law has a lot in common with the Clinton plan. Both plans mandate universal health care coverage and subsidize health care for people on low incomes.

What those Americans may well be wondering is, “How well is “Romney-care faring?”

After all, if Romney, who made the Olympics work, resuscitated dozens of failing companies and even made Massachusetts work, couldn’t make government managed care work, it’s pretty safe to say that no one can.

Well, the good news is that Romney/Hillary/Obama-care DOES NOT provide free health care to the vast majority of Americans! Far from it. In fact, all it really does for the vast majority of Americans is MANDATE that they purchase health insurance, the way they are now mandated to buy car insurance in order to drive legally on public roads.

That is certainly very good news for Health insurers, like GHI, Aetna, etc.

Yes, Barack Obama would ONLY mandate insurance for those with children, noting correctly, that they primary reason that many people don’t buy health insurance now, is because it’s too expensive, NOT because they don’t want it. Hillary also correctly notes that the coverage can’t be universal without a mandate that forces people to purchase that insurance.

Hey! I wonder where are all the dolts who said stupid things like, “Healthcare is a RIGHT,” went?

I mean, IF “healthcare IS a RIGHT,” shouldn’t it be FREE and NOT merely a mandated purchase?

The Clinton plan offers a variety of options and a tax credit for the families forced to buy insurance. There is no need, under this plan, to give free health insurance to the poor, as they already have Medicaid.

Opponents of this plan, just as opponents of “Romney-care” claim that it mandates INSURANCE thereby partially subsidizing health insurers. They also claim that its costs are “out of control.”

In the Bay State, Romney’s initial budget called $725 Million to cover the costs of Romney-care, it’s come in, according to the Governor’s revised proposal at $869 Million – a TWENTY PERCENT EXPLOSION in costs over the first year alone!!!

And remember that was Romney, a real businessman, with a real history of making things work, doing THAT. Can we expect a group of hapless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to do as well?

Not at all likely!

Moreover, within weeks of the deadline for Romney-care’s mandates, some 400,000+ Bay Staters had yet to purchase the mandated health insurance.

None of that bodes well for either Romney-care, Hillary-care or Obama-care, but at least we’ve silenced those nitwits who used to prattle on about how “healthcare is a right, and should be free.”

The Global Cell Phone Majority

Mark this on your calendars.

The number of mobile-phone users will overtake the number of conventional phone users worldwide for the first time ever, THIS YEAR.

Ownership rates in developing countries are rising the fastest, with Brazil, China, India and Russia accounting for over ONE BILLION subscribers last year.

At the current rate of growth, there will be over 3.3 Billion mobile phones in the world by early 2008! Of course the UN study did not take into account multiple accounts and the possibility that some providers may inflate their subscriber numbers.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Did Liberal Policies Create the Current Mortgage Crisis? It Appears So!

Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin recently wrote a great article entitled “The REAL Scandal,” in which he outlined how Liberal “anti-discrimination policies,” designed to sombat “redlining” caused the current mortgage mess.

“PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults,” writes professor Liebowitz. But WHY has this NOT become a major story, YET?!

We hear every day about “poor, gullible loan consumers, tricked into taking out loans they couldn’t afford,” and how “short-sale predators are now whisking away homes right under the defaulting people’s noses,” but that’s all nonsense.

People who take out loans they CANNOT afford are just DUMB.

If you don’t know what you can afford to borrow, it’s up to YOU to find out and if someone is willing to lend you more than you’re credit says you can safely borrow, YOU’RE the idiot for signing that loan document!

As professor Liebowitz notes, “At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.”

Instead we hear dimwits in the mainstream media saying idiotic things like, “ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) are the cause of this mortgage meltdown.”

That is utter nonsense.

In truth, ARMs are sound financial vehicles. You just have to understand what an ARM is and when it’s advisable to use one.

When mortgage rates are high, ARMs are a good tool, as they lock in short term lower rates and rise, according to the prime rate, at a capped amount each period (6 months or a year, depending on the loan contract). When mortgage rates are high, it’s a sound strategy to take out an ARM and then seek to re-finance to a 30 year fixed rate vehicle when rates come down.

But DUMB people (loan consumers) is ONLY part of the current problem, the other part is even DUMBER banks!

“In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress (Read DEMOCRATS) got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.”

That Bill was based on flawed studies and even more flawed (altered?) data!

According to Professor Liebowitz, “A landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

“That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.

“Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.

“No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."

“Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.

“Sound crazy? You bet. Those "outdated" standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

“Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

“Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards.”

And who stepped into this breach?

Yes, as you might guess it was Countrywide Mortgage. “...An enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

“Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.”

It’s vital that Conservatives be prepared to place the blame for such misguided fiascos where they belong. Otherwise Liberal nimrods will go on deluding themselves into thinking that “mean, greedy bankers,” and “evil corporations” are behind what’s wrong in our economy, rather than bone-headed Liberal policies!

American Ideas Click Here!