Friday, August 23, 2013

Chris Christie: Friend or Foe?

American Spectator ^ | September 2013 issue | Wlady Pleszczynski & Matt Purple

A savior or a sell-out? A compromise or compromised?

“HE DOESN’T GIVE a s—- what people think,” a Republican “close” to Chris Christie told Politico after the governor denounced the Republican House and Speaker Boehner (yes, by name) for voting down a pork-laden aid bill in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. We pretty much knew Christie felt that way, though it was good to see it confirmed in writing. The bigger question, one that should concern Christie, is what people think about him.
We know he’s home safe in New Jersey, cruising toward re-election this November as he enjoys high approval numbers, a whittled Democratic opposition he himself helped weaken, and growing celebrity among those who care about such things. The problem for him is that almost nothing he’s done to win New Jersey can translate into a winning national Republican candidacy, let alone one that conservatives could in any way trust.
For one thing, there is glaring fact of his New Jerseyness. Big, fat, coarse, he’s forever pushing his weight around, playing the wise guy or the charmer, always insisting on being the center of attention (unless Barack Obama comes calling), the big shot in a small place, the son of a “Sicilian” (not Italian) mother, as he said at the Tampa convention. He may not know better. He’s never really lived and worked anywhere else. How someone this provincial can be said to have national ambitions is a mystery.
Whatever his political future, it’s hard to imagine we’ll ever see him again stuffing donuts into his mouth on the David Letterman show.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Notre Dame to begin accepting illegal immigrants!

The Washington Times ^ | 8/23/2013 | Stephen Dinan

Notre Dame University announced Thursday it will begin admitting illegal immigrants to the school and will provide them with financial aid, saying the move will "strengthen" the student body.
The university had never had an official ban on illegal immigrants but Inside Higher Ed reported the school treated them as international students and required them to have student visas — which effectively served as a bar.
"We will strengthen our incoming class and give deserving young people the chance for a Notre Dame education," Don Bishop, associate vice president for undergraduate enrollment, said in a statement announcing the policy.
The university also said it "is committed to meeting the full demonstrated financial need for all admitted students." Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal student aid, but the university's announcement signals that Notre Dame would make up the difference between the cost and what the student and his or her family can afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Reserving the right to refuse service!


In yet another topic sure to enrage, Sterling Beard – writing at The Corner – catches up with the latest news on a strange case coming to us from New Mexico. It’s now gone all the way to the state Supreme Court, and the story may be at an end. In case you hadn’t heard, wedding photographers can’t refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding or they have violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.
Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”
AP covered this story when it hit the last level in the courts, but it’s one of those areas of the law that always leave me scratching my head. When you’re talking about services provided by the government, there’s no question in cases like this. The government can’t refuse to grant a drivers license or a fishing license or what have you to somebody just because they are Jewish or black or gay or female, etc. Everyone pays for the government and everyone is entitled to equal treatment and availability of services offered. Simple enough. But what of the private sector?
When you raise the specter of “reserving the right to refuse service” in private enterprise, one of the first images evoked is the famous Whites Only Lunch Counter. Now, if you are one of the hardest of the hard core, Big L Libertarians, you’ll claim that this is still too great of an intrusion of government control on private enterprise. The argument goes that the owner will prosper or suffer as a result of the policy as the market dictates. Black diners clearly need to eat, so other competition will rise to fill that vacuum. And in the extreme case, enough people will be angered by the policy that the restricted lunch counter will be driven out of business. It’s the Invisible Hand in action.. it either high fives your or smacks you down.
But still, that image makes many, many people feel extremely uncomfortable. Maybe the government has to step in. But if they do, the policy seems to be rather selectively enforced, doesn’t it? How about when Hooters refuses to serve anyone who is a Mayor who is a serial sexually inappropriate actor? How do eateries refuse service to people with no shirt or no shoes if it’s not illegal to go barefoot or without a top? (For men, at least.) For a less silly example, how about when many cemeteries refused to bury the body of the Boston Marathon bomber? Funeral homes tend to frequently be smaller, family run operations just like photography studios, often run out of people’s homes. Could they be sued for refusing service? If so, I never heard of anyone suggesting it. But in this case, because the photographer turned down the job for a gay wedding, they have now lost in court at every level and will pay for it in cash.

There is no GOP “War on Women” but there is a war on unions and we’re winning!

Coach is Right ^ | 8/23/13 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

An honest person (which of course excludes most Democrats), understands that any “War on Women” in this country it is most certainly being conducted by Democrats at all levels of government. “A Republican War on Women” is a Freudian use of words, invented by a lapdog media to deflect the truth. Despite the fact that we hear the phrase over and over again from a Democrat controlled media there is no such thing as a Republican War on Women.

Nevertheless, there is an actual war that is unquestionably being waged by the Republican Party against its union enemies. There is little fanfare to this war; it is quietly being conducted in some formerly very strong union states like Michigan. In spite of a general media blackout on the subject...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Eating too much red meat could increase the risk of Alzheimer’s…

Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 11:56 EST, 22 August 2013 | Emma Robertson

Eating too much red meat could trigger Alzheimer’s, suggests new research.
Scientists found that a buildup of iron—abundant in red meat—could cause oxidant damage, to which the brain is particularly vulnerable. Researchers say this could in turn increase the risk of Alzheimer’s.
Professor George Bartzokis, of UCLA in the United States, said that more studies have suggested the disease is caused by one of two proteins, one called tau, the other beta-amyloid. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We'll save you!


Pulling Strings!

The Lines

What difference?

Review Board!

Whistle blowing

Show restraint!


Still being targeted!

The Dark Side!


I say it's a LION!

Hope and Change?


Sorry, just a movie!

The fastest way...

a few glitches




...and then we told America...

It doesn't matter

Going to the dogs!

Lame Ducks


My Three Sons

The End of Global Sea Level Rise

Space and Science Research Corporation ^ | Thursday, August 22, 2013

In a news conference held near Miami, Florida last night, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announced that the global threat of sea level rise caused by decades of global warming is ending. Speaking to cheering supporters from several groups from the general Miami area, SSRC President Mr. John Casey issued a formal declaration of the end of global sea level rise during a presentation in which he discussed the vital role the Sun plays in climate change and how the past growth in sea levels was caused by the Sun and not mankind. The event was sponsored by the American Citizens League. The declaration read:
“As a result of the Sun entering a ‘hibernation’ phase, the Space and Science Research Corporation hereby declares that the past two hundred years of global sea level rise is expected to end no earlier than mid-2014 and no later than 2020. After that time, global sea levels are expected to begin a long term period of decline, lasting at least through the decade of the 2030’s. The estimated global sea level decline during that period will range from 20 to 25 cm from current levels.”
Casey elaborated with, “The many climate models that have taken two decades and billions of dollars to fabricate have been utter scientific failures. Once you take the greenhouse gas theory out of the laboratory and try in in the real world it just does not stand up. Not only has there been no effective growth in the planet’s temperature for sixteen years, but current temperature trends show the Earth’s oceans have been cooling for ten years and the atmosphere for seven years! These real world indicators of the true status of the Earth’s climate are of course, an impossibility if the greenhouse gas theory really worked and mankind’s CO2 emissions had the effect as has been alleged. On the other hand, using solar variations for climate prediction, we see global warming ended and the next climate began right on schedule.”