Muslim extremists hang 7 year old boy for spying. Anyone still think they are "just like us"?

Taliban militants have executed a 7 year old boy in the the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, after accusing the boy of spying for the Afghan government.

After all of the documented atrocities committed by Muslim extremists over the decades, how anyone could still believe these barbarians are simply "patriots" or "freedom fighters", who are merely reacting to so-called "U.S. Imperialism", is beyond me.  As if the killing of thousands of innocent people around the world wasn't enough, many in the United States still ignore the simple fact that Muslim extremism is a true "culture of death", which threatens the very survival of the free world.  In short, these people want to either convert you to Islam, or kill you.  And they will not allow anyone to get in their way, and that includes their own children.

From terrorist acts against innocents, to the flogging and honor killings of women and girls who do not submit to Islam's Sharia law, to the stringing up of old people and kids, radical Islam has a message for us:  Submit or die.

Taliban executes 7 year old for "spying".

Democrats, be careful what you wish for: Angle opens general campaign with 11 point lead over Reid

Less than a month ago, if appeared to most Democrat pundits that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's political survival depended upon if TEA Party candidate Sharron Angle won the Republican nomination.  And the mainstream media pushed the idea that an Angle win would likely mean a Reid win in November.

Today, it would appear that both Democrats and the media have underestimated the power of the TEA Party movement.  I have long contended the TEA Party movement is actually larger than it appears, due to a concerted media effort to under-report TEA party activism.

Rasmussen polling data from June 9 shows Sharron Angle with an 11 point lead over Harry Reid, just one day after Angle handily won the Nevada Republican primary.

Angle had been considered by the Reid campaign to be the weakest candidate to oppose him in November's election, and sources quietly hoped for an Angle win to bolster long-term politician Reid's chances of keeping his Senate seat.

It would appear that the Reid campaign has sorely underestimated the recent increase in public disdain for the Nevada politician, who has been involved in Nevada politics since being elected Nevada's Lieutenant Governor in 1970.

Sharron Angle opens with 11 point lead over Harry Reid.

Whitman, Fiorina, Angle and Martinez: The rise of conservative women

As if to say "We REALLY want Hope and Change this time!" voters have launched the candidacies of an amazing group of conservative women over the last couple of months.  All across the nation, historic battles are shaping up, which promise to make for quite an interesting November, politically speaking.

In New Mexico, Republican Susana Martinez has become the first Hispanic woman to be nominated by a major political party to run for the governorship of any state.  If that weren't enough, New Mexican Diane Denish ran unopposed on the Democrat ticket, guaranteeing that New Mexico will elect their first female governor this year.

In California, Republican Meg Whitman handily won the nomination of her party to run for Governor of California, and will run against, of all people, Democrat Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, a longtime politician who has held many offices in California, including being Governor himself from 1975 to 1983.  Carly Fiorina beat all challengers by a mile to win the nomination of the Republican party to run for Senator against long time Democrat politician Barbera Boxer, who likely will face the first tough challenge of her political career.

And in somewhat of a surprise, TEA Party candidate Sharron Angle has become the conservative choice to fight Harry Reid's uphill battle to retain his Senate seat in Nevada, a state that has been severely damaged by the economic meltdown, and is seeing little, if any, relief from the failed policies of Democrats in Washington, D.C.  In fact, it was probably failed economic policies, more than anything, that drove Angle to victory.

It is also interesting to note that both Martinez and Fiorina were endorsed by former Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  It would appear that despite mainstream media bias, and the left's general derogatory attitude towards Palin, her appeal to actual American voters remains undiminished.

It's been a while since states like California, Nevada, and New Mexico, not to mention states all across American, have had such a clear single issue driving their politics:  Jobs.

At this moment in history, there is no greater indication of the failed policies of  the past than the current high unemployment rate.  Decades of fiscal mismanagement, confiscatory taxation, over-regulation, and an an attitude of political entitlement have led to our current crisis, and it's a crisis that just doesn't seem to be going away, as long as unemployment remains at today's high levels.

The people of the United States are ready for a massive shift in political ideology, and apparently for a massive shift away from the "old boy network" which has run policy for as long as anyone can remember.  If modern politics matters, and some would debate that issue, then there are no more clearer choices than what are being presented in California, Nevada, and New Mexico today.

California was once the "land of opportunity" for millions who traveled there during the dust bowl era.  It seemed at one time the state had limitless potential.  Agriculture, mining, petroleum, technology, and to lesser extents timber and manufacturing, all seemed to hold the promise of economic bounty for generations to come.  California's politicians, however, seemed to have other ideas, and they have turned a once thriving state into a mass of job killing regulations and incentive killing social programs that fundamentally transformed the state form one of the richest in the nation, to one that is the most threatened by massive debt.  Perhaps the people of California have finally figured out that driving jobs away, putting more people on welfare, and taxing the hell out of those left who still have a little money, is not the way to greatness.  Meg Whitman, as former CEO of Ebay, and Carly Fiorina, who once ran Hewlett-Packard, are both real-wold job creators, exactly the opposite of their opponents, who have made their living as politicians for as far back as almost anyone can remember.  There can be no clearer choice between real "new thinking", and the failed policies of the past.

Nevada, which for much of the 1980's and 1990's supported massive growth, with cities such as Las Vegas and Henderson sporting the distinction of being the fastest growing in the nation, has utterly collapsed.  It would seem Nevada is a victim of it's own success, as droves of Californians fleeing increased taxation, joblessness, and inflated property values, moved to Nevada, and then brought their ideologies with them.  Is it any wonder, then, that after a couple of decades of transplanted California voters instilling California's failing policies onto once libertarian Nevada, that Nevada would then suffer similar economic issues?  With unemployment higher than the national average, a state government that has grown entirely out of proportion to the mostly rural state (there are almost three times as many people in the Las Vegas Metro area than in the entire rest of the state, combined) and an inflated housing market that more and more mimicked California's as more Californians moved in, Nevada has some big problems.  Couple that with an industry, gambling, that relies almost entirely upon discretionary income, which has been in short supply lately, and Nevada has problems.  There is nothing like financial crisis to bring people home again..and it would seem with Sharron Angle being chosen to potentially upset long time politico Harry Reid's apple cart, there could actually be "change" in the desert wind.

New Mexico, with it's joblessness and nearly billion-dollar state budget shortfall, is still not in nearly the same dire straits as either Nevada or California, however, there is obvious signals that the state could be teetering on the brink if the direction of state is not changed towards a more fiscally balanced program.  Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat who is "term limited out" and cannot run again, is hoping to hand the reins of state to Diane Denish, who has been Richardson's lieutenant governor for nearly 8 years, has a tough legacy to live down.  Richardson, after all, inherited a state budget surplus, and promptly went to work figuring out how to spend it.  Along came projects like a state-funded train that only travels between Santa Fe (the seat of New Mexico government, imagine that!) and Albuquerque, the largest city in the state, which set the state back a cool billion dollars (and at last report was losing an additional $16,000 a day), and a "SpacePort" that "promised" to launch New Mexico into the forefront of high tech space travel, but which in reality is mostly known for being at the end of a dirt road, and for launching the ashes of Star Trek's "Scotty", James Doohan, towards space, only to have them crash back to earth, where they were lost for some time in the New Mexico desert.  Add to that Bill Richardson's at least 40 percent growth in state government, his support of the Hollywood movie industry with taxpayer dollars, and his "Pit Rule", an unnecessarily strict, not to mention expensive, environmental restriction and fee program which succeeded in driving away the one industry that most benefited New Mexico's economy, natural gas, at the very same time the economy worldwide was imploding.  So much so, that New Mexico was the only natural gas producing state in the nation that did not see an increase in production in 2009..

It's no wonder Bill Richardson is spending so much time out of state, on "business travel".  He's trying to stay out of Diane Denish's way so she can attempt to distance herself from Richardson's irresponsible and failed policies, trying to pretend she was nowhere in sight when Richardson was squandering the state's money for the last eight years, but that somehow, all of a sudden, she's the political "outsider" who can step in and fix Richardson's bungling of his responsibility.  Sure she is.

Susana Martinez, on the other hand, is a newcomer to the stage of state politics, and appears to have the conservative ideas that can change New Mexico's direction for the better, if she is able to follow through on them, by reducing job-killers like over-regulation and high taxation on industry, and at the same time halt the wild spending spree instigated by Bill Richardson and his willing cohorts in the New Mexico legislature.

Perhaps not only are the people of the United States tired of politics as usual, perhaps they are getting tired of the same old MEN politicians.  I for one am "all for" allowing the other gender a chance to make the changes that this nation needs to make.  Perhaps women, for a change, will not be swayed by the culture of government, which seems lately to turn a lot of men into self-serving shadows of the creatures who we saw during their campaigns, and whom seem to leave their promises in the dust when they hit their respective state capitals, or the city limits of Washington, D.C.

We need action, not excuses, in the Gulf of Mexico

 

I've walked the beaches of Grand Isle, Louisiana.  I've swam with dolphins there.  I've walked the beaches of Mississippi, and nearly stepped on a stingray there.  It floated up out of the sand and glided off from where I was about to place my foot.  I've also swam in the waters off of Pensacola Beach, and have never seen clearer water or whiter sand, though I've been told there is such a thing somewhere.

Now the gulf oil spill threatens all of that.  It threatens the fisheries, the beaches, the tourism industry.  Just a few years after Hurricane Katrina did billions in damage from the coast inland, the oil spill is threatening to do billions more in damage along the coast and off the shores of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.  Some say the oil could drift around Florida itself and start heading up the Eastern Seaboard.

There is no doubt that British Petroleum and it's contractors who were involved the errors which caused the Deep Water Horizon disaster should take responsibility for the situation.  If they do not, then they should be forced to take responsibility...to a point.  Here's where I will come into direct conflict with the rabid band of finger-pointers who wish to effectively burn BP at the stake:

BP, and it's contractors, can only take responsibility for the situation as long as they remain financially capable of doing so.  I listened to a press conference this morning with Admiral Thad Allen and Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and a question was posed to them as the whether BP should forfeit the oil from the relief will being drilled as a method of stemming the flow of oil into the gulf.  As if the oil should be taken away from BP in some form of punitive punishment for causing the spill in the first place.  Well, the fact is, and Robert Gibbs correctly pointed out, that the costs to BP for the remediation of the gulf oil spill are going to be far greater than the profits from the sale of any oil collected during the remediation process.  As long as that well keeps gushing oil into the gulf, the "meter is running", and costs are going to continue to skyrocket.  BP is going to NEED that oil to help pay for their share of the cleanup.  It will do absolutely no good if BP, or it's contractors, are forced into bankruptcy.  Unlike the U.S. Government, BP cannot print it's own money.  It cannot sell bonds to China.  It cannot simply tax it customers for any budget shortfall it incurs due to this disaster.  If they run out of money, the game is over for them.  Who is left holding the bag then?

Which brings us around the Federal Government's responsibility for this mess.  For all of BP's direct fault for the oil spill that continues in the gulf to this day, the U.S. Government DID sell the leases involved.  The U.S. government DID approve the drilling.  And the U.S. Government DOES get a good portion of the proceeds through such oil production in the form of taxes and fees on that oil at every level of production, from the exploration, to the extraction, to the refining, and to the final sale of the finished product.  Uncle Sam has his hand in the till all along the way, and grabs cash to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from the oil biz.

Thus, to what extent is the United States government culpable in this?  It pretty convenient for politicians to start pointing their fingers at everyone but themselves when disaster hits, after those same politicians have been lining up with their hands out to oil companies for decades, demanding a portion of the proceeds.

Given that such a large amount of money is involved in the production of oil in the United States, and given that the United States government receives such a huge portion of that money, why is it unrealistic to think that the U.S. government should appropriately share in the burden of clean up when something goes wrong?

Rather than pointing fingers at British Petroleum and it's contractors for the gulf oil spill mess, the Federal government should be placing every resource into position to assist in the cleanup efforts.  The U.S. Military should be on hand for logistics, equipment, and manpower, as they have the expertise in that area.  The U.S. government should be getting itself out of the way of the states in order for the National Guard to be called in, as they have the expertise in logistics and have needed manpower and equipment as well.  After all, this oil spill IS a national security issue, to the extent that the damage caused has the potential to harm and already weak economy, and will certainly harm the economies of several important states.  It also has the potential to alter domestic energy policy in a way that will further increase or dependence upon foreign oil.  At the same time, the people of the effected areas want to be involved as well.  It's their beach.  It's their economy that will suffer.  Government should be helping, not hindering, the volunteer effort that is "champing at the bit" to help.

President Barack Obama, rather than looking to place blame, would do well to merely take responsibility for the situation, and offer the full co-operation and assistance of the U.S. Government in this matter, as a partner, and a leader, rather than as a standoffish politician looking to score points .  We should not be seeing scattered work crews wandering around here and there on gulf coast beaches, with no central co-ordination, spending more time under the shelter of portable cabanas than out sifting the sand.  If for safety reasons, only 20 minutes of each hour can be spent doing actual cleanup, then there should be three times as many workers on that beach, so there are people involved in cleanup every minute of every daylight hour.  Simple things like that will go a long way towards actual, physical cleanup, which is likely to go on for month, if not years, and simple things like that will go a long way towards increasing public faith in both the Federal government, and BP, in their efforts to save the gulf coast from further harm.

Rather than attempting to vilify and demonize BP in feeble attempts to make government look good by comparison, there should be an all out effort on government's part to step up the responsibilities government takes on when they allow oil exploration and production to proceed, and get paid handsomely to do so.

Rather than continuous defensive press conferences, the people of the United States need to see, above all, action.  Where one level of the clean up effort is lacking, another should step up and help where needed.  And President Obama should be there through it all, giving direction through his top leadership people.  Rather than Interior Secretary Salazar announcing that he will keep the his "boot" on BP's neck, he should be announcing that our government will offer every assistance in this remediation and clean up effort.

The gulf oil spill is a disaster that should transcend politics.  It should not be treated as mere political theater.

Perhaps Rush and Elton share the same taste in neckties?

Sputter...cough...gasp...now I have to clean up the coffee I just sprayed all over the laptop....after reading that Elton John performed at Rush Limbaugh's wedding ceremony on Saturday, June 5th.

 Elton John Performs for Rush Limbaugh Wedding | Snark Food

Ohhhhhhhh my!!!!!!

Hope, Change & Sleaze

I'm certainly not the only one critical of the Obama Administration's lack of adherence to their stated campaign principles of "Hope & Change".

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, cuts through the mainstream media haze surrounding the Obama Administration's "Chicago Style" jobs-for-political-favors scandal, and brings a "transparency" to the story not available from the Obama White House itself:

Hope, Change & Sleaze

Government by Crisis: Using the BP oil spill as a political tool

President Obama's campaign pledge to not raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000 per year seems like a long distant memory.  One of his first acts as President was signing a tax increase on tobacco that isn't in the least bit dependent upon anyone's income, and which affects lower income Americans for more than those with higher disposable income.

When challenged on the issue, President Obama's response had more to do with run-of-the-mill political word games, than it did with "Change".

Then along came health care "reform", which by necessity has the hidden consequences of higher costs for a vast majority of Americans, including those making far less than $250,000.  Obama and his political apologists simply explained this away by calling increased taxation something other than a "tax", and then ignoring further criticism until the mainstream media lost interest and turned their attention elsewhere.

Now Obama and his cohorts in Washington, rather than focusing upon the actual disaster of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, are using the issue as a tool in which to campaign for higher energy taxes, which will necessarily increase taxes on everyone who uses energy, regardless of income level.

When the nation needs a leader, right now, today, to head the government's effort to help with what may eventually become the worst oil spill in world history, predictably, President Obama goes into campaign mode to rally support for future economic "Change". Can someone please tell Barack Obama that he won the Presidency, and now it's time for the partisan political "stump speeches" to end?

If calling for tax increases is at the very core of President Obama's long term plan, fine, we can debate that issue later, when the dire situation in the gulf is under control.  Right now, politicizing a worldwide catastrophe is simply not good for the nation.

We desperately need to see Presidential leadership on the issue. Rather than name-calling, finger-pointing, and the shifting of blame to everyone from contractors, to past Presidents, to Republicans in general. We need swift action, and a President who at least appears to care about the issue at hand.  We need Obama to stand up and be Presidential, and that means calling the nation together, and inviting both sides of the aisle to work together to solve the current problem, not merely lay out his plan, and then invite the "other side of the aisle" to either love it or leave it.

What we are currently getting from President Obama is the usual political opportunism, and Obama's penchant for using the day's events to descend into the usual partisan bickering, which is the furthest thing from Obama's promise of "Hope and Change".  What does he "Hope" to accomplish by bashing Republicans over an issue that neither party could foresee, other than to promote the very gridlock he promised to end during his campaign?  It would almost seen that Obama's goal is to continue the very "politics as usual" he rallied against in order to garner votes during the campaign.

Sounds pretty shallow to me.  I suppose that's to be expected from a President who was elected on the basis of prepared speeches he read off of teleprompters, rather than on the basis of any widely known core beliefs.

Obama's prepared Pittsburgh speech:





Excerpt:  Obama strikes hyper-partisan tone:

Breaking: At least 40 flotilla "peace activists" were Al Qaeda

It is being reported that Israel has now confirmed links between Al Qaeda and the "peace activists" on the Gaza bound "humanitarian" flotilla boarded by the Israeli military on May 31st.

It would appear that while world leaders continue to condemn Israel's actions in defending itself from terrorism, the Obama Administration continues to dither in it's support of one of our strongest allies in the middle east.

The United States, having experienced terrorism first hand, should stand in support of any nation which takes action against the worldwide spread of terrorist elements.  The "humanitarian organizations", which were likely fully aware they placed civilian activists in harm's way by allowing Al Qaeda elements on board their ships, should be the one's being condemned.

Whether Israel could have handled the situation better is not the question.  What's done is done.  The question is, does Israel deserve the harsh criticism being leveled against them, for likely acting in the name of their own security, while giving the flotilla every opportunity to turn back, or be peacefully boarded and searched?

Israel confims link to Al Qaeda