A couple of Nazareth tunes tonight...

Don't think obama is a radical, listen to his own words...

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd

kagan is dangerous to our Country. She is every bit as radical as obama, which is why she was chosen. She has no business being on the supreme court, but she will be confirmed. The republicans will ask a lot of questions, puff out their chests and put on a good show, but in the end they will cave.

By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY - Investors.com

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern."

During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments." Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."

Extreme Feminism

Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.

Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law."

Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems."

Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong."

That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, proving what an extremist she is.

Kagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama's corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan's appointment means "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to seize the courts .

The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution."

A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?

National debt soars to highest level since WWII

62% of the economy? And there is no end in sight. Do you people know what is right around the corner for us? HUGE tax increases, that's what. And probably a vat tax thrown in for good measure.

There is no way obama and his gang of thugs are going to stop spending, and there is no way we can afford to keep spending. If you thought the little recession we just went through/ are still in the middle of was bad, just wait. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.

obama can continue to blow smoke up our ass and tell us how we have turned the corner, but it's all lies. Just like every word that comes out of his mouth, lies. Putting thousands of people on the government payroll and spending trillions of dollars on entitlements will never solve the financial issues we face, never...

From USAToday

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire."

At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO.

The report comes as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today.

The CBO report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake."

Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons

I'm thinking I believe what Adams is saying. obama has already proven he is a racist, which is kind of funny since he is half white.

You would think the video of the black panther guys at the door of the polling station, holding a billy club, would be evidence enough. But when the president and the attorney general are anti-white, a beaten and bloodied white guy probably wouldn't even work.

In my mind, I classify the kkk and the black panthers in the same category, racist organizations trying to use fear and intimidation to influence others. Same tactics, just different colored actors. But you can bet your ass that if these guys had been kkk members intimidating voters, they would be locked up, no bullshit injunctions or dropped charges. Same activity with very different results.

Voter intimidation should be taken very seriously, no matter what color the voter or the thug.

From FoxNews

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."

"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."

Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, "that' not going to de done out of the civil rights division."

Adams also accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.

The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.

"There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases," Adams told Fox News' Megyn Kelly.

Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration's reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.

"In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there's no doubt about it," he said.

In an opinion article published in the Washington Times last week, Adams said the dismissal "raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler dismissed Adams' accusations as a "good faith disagreement" with ulterior motives.

"It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda," she said in a written statement.

In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers -- Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson -- were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station -- with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.

The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully.

The department "is committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of federal law that prohibit voter intimidation. We continue to work with voters, communities, and local law enforcement to ensure that every American can vote free from intimidation, coercion or threats," Schmaler said Wednesday.

But the Justice Department's explanation has failed to appease the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is probing the department's decision, or Republican lawmakers who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.

The commission held a hearing in April in which Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who has led the charge for answers from the Justice Department, was among those testifying. The Justice Department did not provide witnesses at that hearing. Instead, Perez testified before the commission in May.

"At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged 'approval' or 'endorsement' of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed," he told the commission.

The commission has repeatedly sought information from the Justice Department, going as far as filing subpoenas. Schmaler said the department has provided 2,000 pages of information in response.

But Adams said in the Times article that the department ordered the attorneys "to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptably legal limbo."

Adams also says that after the dismissal, Justice Department attorneys were instructed not to bring any more cases against racial minorities under the Voting Section.

Adams told Fox News that the New Black Panther case was the "easiest I ever had at the Justice Department.

"It doesn't get any easier than this," he said. "If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."

The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence

Take a minute and read some words of wisdom from Newt Gingrich. As we near July 4th, we should all take a little time to put things in perspective. Our current government has completely abandoned everything this Country stands for. Our Founding Fathers laid out a path for us, a nice, wide, paved path. Somewhere along the way we have veered off onto this rutted dirt road that leads to european socialism. We need to find our way back to the path our Country was intended to travel...

By Newt Gingrich

This Sunday, July 4th, we will once again celebrate our nation's founding, marking the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence was intended to be an official statement explaining why the 13 American colonies had declared their independence from Great Britain. In the years following its passage, however, this statement of principles about the rights of man grew to mean much more.

America became the only country in history founded, as Leo Strauss explained, "in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles," by which he meant crass, power politics. Instead, America was founded on a set of clearly expressed "self-evident" truths. Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration was "intended to be an expression of the American mind," and indeed, no document since has so succinctly and so eloquently spelled out the spirit of America.

Our country has evolved out of the timeless truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence to develop a distinct character and set of values that distinguishes us from even other Western democracies.

This holiday, it is worth taking a look at how several key phrases from the Declaration of Independence have served as definitional statements about the aspirations of America, and how those words of our Founding Fathers' have affected America in the 234 years since they were written.

"...all men are created equal"

The Founding Fathers who authored the Declaration were the first people in the history of the world ever to express our natural equality as a principle of government in such an unqualified way. Though neither the Constitution that followed nor the Founders personally quite fulfilled the promise of those words, it has since been the project of our country to accomplish them.

America came to recognize that though we are not all literally equal -- we are born with different capabilities and attributes, and to different stations in life -- the words of the founders capture the truth that we must treat each other as equals. We are "created equal" in the sense that all men (and, we now recognize, all women) have the same natural rights, granted to them by God. We are all the same under the law.

This powerful statement of universal rights was used by abolitionists as a moral cudgel to rid the United States of slavery, an institution explicitly at odds with the truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln consistently evoked the phrase in his famous Peoria speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. As President, Lincoln again included the phrase in the Gettysburg Address as the moral underpinning by which the union should be rededicated. Later, during the women's suffrage movement and civil rights struggles of the 1960s, leaders such as Martin Luther King used the powerful phrase as a reminder to America that separate (treating people differently under the law based on their race) was not equal.

Leaders such as Lincoln and King believed that as America's founding political document, the Declaration of Independence is our moral guide with which to interpret the Constitution. They saw that we cannot divorce the law from the moral underpinnings that legitimize it.

But by what authority does that moral underpinning exist?

"...endowed by their Creator"

The core contention of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of natural rights upon which America was founded is that there is a higher moral order upon which the laws of man must be based. The Declaration asserts the existence of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," which had a clear meaning in 18th Century England and America. It referred to the will of God as displayed by the natural order of the world.

John Locke, who was widely read by the leaders of colonial America, wrote in his Second Treatise on Government: "Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must...be conformable to the law of nature, i.e., to the will of God."

William Blackstone, who was arguably the single greatest influence on the creation of the American legal system, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England, "As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should at all points conform to his maker's will."

America's founding was heavily influenced by the English and Scottish enlightenment, which specifically included a space for God and religion in its conceptions of rights, freedom and human reason. This gave the American Revolution a distinctly different character than the French Revolution, which in its most radical phase sought freedom by casting off all authority and remnants of the existing order -- especially God.

In the American formulation as declared by our founders, man's rights come from God, not from man's ability to "reason" them into existence. Man does not depend on government to grant him rights through a bureaucratic process, but instead to secure those rights that have been granted to him by God.

In other words, power comes from God, to you, which is then loaned to government. Thus, the Declaration states, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The English and Scottish enlightenment's conscious inclusion of a space for God and religion had another key influence on the American system of government. Whereas the French Revolution believed it could create a "new man" through government education and indoctrination, the American Founding Fathers had a profound sense of the fallen nature of man. Thus, they created a system of checks and balances that would serve as a restraint on those in power.

(If you want to learn more, Callista and I have developed a series of books and DVDs to explain the deep faith of the Founding Fathers called Rediscovering God in America.)

"...the pursuit of happiness"

Here again we see the influence of the English and Scottish enlightenment on the Founding Fathers. For writers such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson, the term "happiness" meant something close to "wisdom and virtue." It did not mean hedonism or other shallow pleasures as the term is too often confused to mean today.

It is also essential to note that the Declaration does not say that we have a right to have happiness provided to us. It says we have the right to pursue happiness - an active verb. As I point out in jest to audiences in my speeches, the Declaration says nothing about a right to redistribution of happiness. It says nothing about happiness stamps. It does not say some people can be too happy and that government should make them less happy out of a sense of fairness.

The Founding Fathers understood that government could not give people happiness, that it was instead up to government to create an environment where the people could best work to achieve their dreams. As AEI's Arthur Brooks has pointed out, polls of wealthy and successful people show that the harder one works for that success, the greater happiness one derives from it.

America is a land where through hard work, determination, and entrepreneurialism, people can achieve their big dreams. The right of "the pursuit of happiness" spelled out in the Declaration is a definitional statement about the nature of America that has attracted people from all over the world to come here to pursue those dreams.

Who We Are This July 4th

A bedrock belief of American conservatism is a respect for the established traditions and values of American culture. Conservatives believe from the time the first colonists landed in Jamestown, America took on a unique culture and set of values that have set us apart from our European cousins: a belief in natural rights, strong religious faith and values, the importance of the work ethic, and a spirit of community that manifests itself in a belief in limited government and strong civic participation. It is this set of beliefs -- truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence -- that have made America so successful, and they deserve to be protected.

The modern Left -- what I describe in my book To Save America as a "secular-socialist machine" -- is using every lever of power at its disposal to dismantle our unique American civilization and replace it with a secular, bureaucratic culture in which government is big, citizens are small, and our rights are defined by the state rather than endowed by our Creator. Equality under the law is being discarded in favor of equality of results; consent of the governed is being subverted by an increasingly overbearing federal bureaucracy and imperial judiciary; and the pursuit of happiness is being undermined by a redistributive welfare state that kills the can-do, entrepreneurial spirit of America.

This July 4th, I hope you will take time to read the Declaration of Independence and consider the truths about our rights and freedoms contained within. I hope you will take time to appreciate the sacrifices made by the founding generation and generations since to secure our liberty.

But most of all, I hope you will take time to appreciate the greatness of America and how hard we must be willing to work to preserve that which makes it so special.

Happy Independence Day.

Your friend,

Newt

One more tune tonight, Point Blank - Mean to your Queenie...

A couple of Fabulous Thunderbirds tunes this evening...

Angela Taylor is smoking hot!

Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

pete stark is a senile old fool, and an asshole to boot. This guy should be ejected from congress for his treatment of constituents.

Any elected representative that would dare treat people in this manner is unworthy of his position. He has no respect...

The good people of California's 13th congressional district need to send this old asshole into retirement, soon.

From FoxNews

A California congressman known for edgy sarcasm mocked an opponent of illegal immigration during a town hall meeting last week, asking, "Who are you going to kill today?" before the constituent, a self-identified Minuteman, posed his question.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government's lack of activity on border security.

"We can't get enough Minutemen armed. We'd like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here," Stark said.

Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

"If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that's not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you," Stark said, drawing jeers.

Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

"I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass," the Minuteman said.

"How high and long would it be?" Stark asked.

"As high and as long as it takes," the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn't shoot the people coming over.

"But I've got to know how high the wall is and I'll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come," Stark said.

"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.

"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.

Stark made the comment last week at a town hall audience that included Steve Kemp, a member of the Golden State Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigrants. Kemp recorded the confrontation.

The clash came as the national spotlight focuses on Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants and the protests it is drawing across the country, including a legal challenge from the federal government.

Immigration is shaping up to be among the critical election-year issues as Republicans try to regain control of both chambers in Congress riding a wave of anti-Washington sentiment.

Stark, a liberal Democrat, is expected to easily win re-election against a lightly regarded opponent, political newcomer Justin Jelincic, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat.

Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama's health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.

"Mr. Congressman, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining," the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president's plan.

"I wouldn't dignify you be peeing on your leg," Stark fired back. "It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."

In March, Stark seized control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for one day after Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., stepped aside due to an ethics probe. But Stark was quickly pushed aside in favor of Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., after many Democrats privately complained that Stark was too volatile to lead such an important committee.

Stark is known for making inflammatory comments.

In 2007, Stark accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He also once called former Colorado Republican Rep. Scott McInnis a "fruitcake."

Brewer Slams Administration Over Smuggler Warning Signs in Arizona Desert

Instead of actually doing anything to protect our border from illegal thugs and criminals, the obama administration restricts travel of US Citizens to parts of the United States? WTF? What's next? Will obama suggest we abandon all the border States to the smugglers and drug lords?

It's easy to give up. It's hard to do the right thing. obama has proven he is not willing to do what is hard. Just like obamacare, it's easier to bribe, blackmail and arm twist than to actually do the right thing.

Secure the border, no matter what the cost, monetary or political. In the end the monetary costs will swing farther the other way in the savings our Country will gain by not supporting illegal immigrants. And the political costs will even out too, the majority of people in this Country will reward those who are willing to do what it takes to make us more safe.

From FoxNews




Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is slamming the Obama administration over government signs posted in the Arizona desert warning visitors to beware of illegal smugglers, saying the signs are hardly the kind of border security plan her state needs.

"This is an outrage," Brewer said in a new reelection campaign ad.

The ad shows the governor standing next to one of the warning signs in the middle of the Arizona desert, 80 miles from the border and, according to the ad, 30 miles from Phoenix. The signs have in recent weeks drawn attention from border-state lawmakers who say they demonstrate how unsafe the region has become. In the ad, Brewer noted that she recently met with President Obama, who "promised that we would get word" on the administration's border security plan.

"Well, we finally got the message -- these signs. These signs, calling our desert an active drug and human smuggling area. These signs warning people of danger and telling them to stay away," Brewer said in the ad. "Washington says our border is as safe as it has ever been. Does this look safe to you?"

The ad ended with a confrontational message: "Washington is broken, Mr. President. Do your job. Secure our borders. Arizona and the nation are waiting."

One of the signs warns visitors that "smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area." Another says "travel not recommended" due to "active drug and human smuggling" routes.

Though warning signs have been placed in certain areas of Arizona, broad swaths of federal land are considered dangerous because of the smuggling routes.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., brought up the signs on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Calling for stepped-up border security, he said "the rise of violence and the influence of the drug cartels and the human smugglers" compelled the government to put up the signs.

After the Obama administration met with border-state governors Monday to detail plans to deploy 1,200 National Guard to the region, Brewer told reporters that the influx of more than 500 National Guard troops to her state would not be enough.

Brewer has said she wants 3,000 National Guard troops sent to her state and 6,000 total sent to the border. The Obama administration has also faced criticism for planning to assign the National Guard to surveillance and support positions, as opposed to in-the-field work.

Obama has asked Congress, however, to approve $600 million in new spending for more Border Patrol, immigration officers and drones.

More of the drop dead gorgeous Louise Glover...

Got the new (to me) car!

I told you a couple of weeks ago that I was shopping for a new(er) car. Well, got it. I decided on a 2006 Monte Carlo LT.

I know, I said I was going to get the SS.

I guess you could say it was love at first sight with this one, even though it isn't an SS. It is red, my first red car by the way. Sunroof, 6 cd changer, aux port in the dash for the ipod, low miles, new tires, runs like a champ and I got a hell of a good deal on it.

I'm looking forward to getting back up to the 30-31 mpg range. The old Monte Carlo used to get 31 on the highway when it was newer.It's funny, you go buy one of those fancy little, expensive economy cars and they don't really get that much better mileage than my 1996, full sized, Monte Carlo.

Anyway, I'm damn proud to have the new one and look forward to many, many good miles with it.

I'll post some pics when I get a chance to give it a wash.

Some Sammy Hagar tunes this evening...

Biden Calls Custard Shop Manager a 'Smartass' After Taxes Comment

obama should send biden down for a drug test. He is either stoned or has to be about the dumbest vice president ever, wait, right after Dan Quayle. It's bad enough that he calls the poor guy a smartass, but can he really not know that a camera is recording everything he does and says?

You have got to bet that feingold is regretting the whole biden invite about now.

I heard the Kopp's Froxen Custard manager on the radio today, he seemed to have a good attitude about the whole situation, but damn. biden has absolutely no class, but he is entertaining to watch...

From FoxNews

Vice President Biden called the manager of a custard shop outside of Milwaukee, Wis., a "smartass" after the man asked him to lower taxes.

Biden made the comment Friday after the Kopp’s Frozen Custard shop manager told him that his dessert would be on the house if he lowered taxes.

"What do we owe you?" Biden is heard saying in footage captured by WISN-TV.

"Don’t worry, it’s on us," the manager replied. "Lower our taxes and we’ll call it [the custard] even."

"Why don’t you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?" Biden said a few minutes later.

Biden had walked in to Kopp’s mistakenly asking for ice cream instead of custard.

The manager said later in an interview with WISN that he thought Biden didn’t seem happy initially about the taxes comment, but that the vice president later whispered that he was just kidding.

Biden was in Wisconsin to hit the campaign trail with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold. Just days earlier, the vice president told a crowd of Feingold’s supporters gathered at a fund-raising event that "there’s no possibility to restore the 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

He then added that he and the current administration "inherited a god-awful mess."

After he wraps up his time with Feingold, Biden will visit the Gulf Coast on Tuesday to survey the damage caused by the BP oil spill.

Robert Byrd, Longest-Serving U.S. Senator, Dies at 92

I try to never speak ill of the newly deceased, so I will wait a while to post any thoughts on the late senator.

RIP sen. byrd...

From FoxNews

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the longest-serving senator in American history, died Monday at the age of 92, a spokesman for the family said.

Byrd, a Democrat who served in the U.S. Senate since 1959, had been plagued by health problems in recent years and was confined to a wheelchair. He had skipped several votes in Congress in the past months.

Jesse Jacobs, a family spokesman, said Byrd died peacefully at about 3 a.m. at Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Va.

He was the oldest member of the 111th Congress.

The passing of Sen. Byrd will not affect the balance of power in the Senate. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, a Democrat, will appoint a replacement senator to serve out the remainder of Byrd's term, which ends in 2012.

Statements from his longtime colleagues poured out Monday morning, as fellow senators remembered Byrd as a steadfast presence in the chamber and a veritable tome of knowledge on how the Senate works.

"The people of West Virginia have lost a dedicated public servant, and America has lost a great defender of its most precious traditions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a written statement. "He was the foremost guardian of the Senate's complex rules, procedures and customs, and as leader of both the majority and the minority caucuses in the Senate he knew better than most that legislation is the art of compromise. By virtue of his endurance, Robert Byrd knew and worked with many of the greats of the United States Senate."

President Obama said in a statement that the country has "lost a voice of principle and reason" with Byrd's death.

"He had the courage to stand firm in his principles, but also the courage to change over time," Obama said, in a veiled reference to his controversial past.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former senator, called Byrd the "heart and soul" of the chamber.

"It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd," she said.

A traditional black drape has been placed over Byrd's desk, a sign of respect for the deceased in Congress.

The veteran senator held a number of leadership roles during his tenure in the Senate, including conference secretary, majority whip and majority leader -- twice.

Prior to his death, Byrd worked as the president pro tempore -- the second highest ranking official in the Senate and the highest ranking senator in the majority party, putting Byrd third in line to the presidency.

He also served as the senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Other committees on which Byrd served were the Senate Budget, Armed Services and Rules and Administration Committees.

Byrd, who never lost an election, cast more than 18,540 roll call votes -- more than any other senator in U.S. history. He had a 98 percent attendance record in his more than five decades of service in the Senate, according to his Web site.

Byrd was born Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr. in North Wilkesboro, N.C., in 1917. When his mother died in the 1918 flu pandemic, he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle, who renamed him Robert Carlyle Byrd and raised him in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia.

He received his law degree from American University in 1963, and his undergraduate degree from Marshall University in 1994 -- at age 76.

Byrd was widely regarded as a pre-eminent expert on constitutional law and legislative procedures. Because of his intimate knowledge of Senate rules, he was both feared and respected by his political opponents.

He helped win ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty and was well known for steering federal dollars to his home state. He was also a strong opponent to the Iraq war and vehemently defended minority party rights in the Senate.

He was elected to Congress in 1952, representing West Virginia's 6th Congressional District. Six years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Byrd threw his support behind Barack Obama a week after the then-senator lost the West Virginia Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential campaign -- an endorsement that symbolized the shift in his views on race.

Once a member of the Klu Klux Klan, it was the defining moment in his lifelong effort to convince the American public of his changed views on race.

"I have done my best to do the right thing," Byrd said during a March 2005 interview with Fox News, during which he was questioned about his KKK membership in the early 1940s.

"The people of West Virginia know that. They know the history. And they put it aside. They continue to return me. I was wrong, as many young men are wrong today, even when they join groups. That's all in the past," Byrd said.

Byrd characterized himself as a "born-again" Christian whose views on race were changed by "time, reflection and the teachings of the Bible."

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

For as promising as this is, it still disturbs the hell out of me that 4 of 9 justices don't feel that we have the right to protect ourselves from thugs and criminals. How is it possible that four supreme court justices have such disregard for the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is a matter for discussion. It is written in black and white. There are no areas that require interpretation. The Constitution guarantees us this right.

There is so much focus on how many deaths are related to gun violence, but if you actually break the numbers down, most shooting related deaths come from people who are illegally in possession of a weapon. Either they are not allowed to own a gun or they are in possession of a gun they do not legally own.

As of June 17th, 2010, the Kansas City, Missouri murder rate stood at 48. I'm willing to bet a paycheck that way more than half of those were committed with an illegal weapon.

Any accidental shooting is bad, but the numbers are relatively low. If more people got training on guns and instructed their children on the proper use of firearms, those numbers would drop to almost nothing.

I am constantly instructing my children on firearms safety. We visit the shooting range as often as we can. With the exception of my shotguns, they have fired every weapon I own. As soon as they are able, they will also shoot the shotguns. I don't want them to have a curiosity about the weapons in my home. They know exactly where I keep my guns, how to load them, how to shoot them and what to expect when you pull the trigger. Proper training prevents accidents. Anyone who owns a gun but doesn't train anyone who has access to the guns in irresponsible.

Enough preaching for one day, sorry, it's a touchy subject with me...

By Lee Ross - FoxNews

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

A couple of Jeff Healey tunes this evening

More of the Smoking Hot Kayleigh Pearson...

Labor Dept. Offers Assistance to Illegal Immigrants Facing Wage Disparities

Every day with obama in the whitehouse gets more and more weird. This has to be some sort of sick, twisted late April Fools joke...

With all of the illegal immigration debate going on, and with Americans supporting the Arizona law by a huge majority, how can the labor department take this on? Do they really think we, tax paying Americans, want our tax dollars spent in this manner? They should be more interested in tracking down those who are working here illegally and making those jobs available to people who are legally able to work here.

Is anyone in washington actually in charge? Most of the time it seems as if they are in need of some serious adult supervision.

Can anyone tell me where, exactly, we draw the line? When do we put an end to this madness?

From FoxNews

Republican lawmakers are expressing shock over a Labor Department ad campaign that offers government assistance to illegal immigrants who think they're getting shortchanged for their work -- and at least one of them is planning to write to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis for an explanation.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he wants to know why taxpayers are being asked to spend money to ensure that illegals get assistance for fair wages while millions of unemployed Americans struggle to find jobs.

"That's insane," Chaffetz told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. "That's just unbelievable."

But the Labor Department stood by the campaign, saying in a written statement to FoxNews.com that "through Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Labor has consistently held that the country's minimum wage and overtime law protects workers regardless of their immigration status."

In a public service announcement posted on the department's website, Solis says workers -- legal or not -- have the right to fair wages.

"You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly," she says. "And it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn. Remember, every worker in America has the right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So call us."

The ad then offers a toll-free number -- in English and Spanish -- to call for assistance in recovering additional income.

The announcement is part of a bilingual national awareness campaign called "We Can Help," launched in April to reach out to the nation's "low-wage and vulnerable workers." Actor Jimmy Smits and other activist celebrities are featured in the spots.

It is not clear how much the campaign costs.

In a press release issued at the launch of the campaign, the Labor Department said it seeks to help workers learn how to file a complaint with the department's wage and hour division to recover owed wages. Solis said in the press release that she has added more than 250 new field investigators nationwide to participate in the campaign.

"I'm here to tell you that your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay -- especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours," Solis said. "We can help and we will help. If you work in this country, you are protected by our laws. And you can count on the U.S. Department of Labor to see to it that those protections work for you."

The initiative appears to contradict labor law -- cited on the Labor Department's own website -- which states that employers may hire only people who work legally in the United States. The Obama administration has vowed to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, employers that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has called "evildoers."

But the Labor Department says protecting undocumented workers from exploitation benefits all U.S. workers by ensuring there's a level playing field when they seek employment.

"Consider the lost advantage to U.S. workers when unscrupulous employers purposely pass them over to hire workers who are afraid to file a complaint about not being paid the minimum wage or often not being paid at all," the department said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

"Second, no employer should gain an economic edge by hiring undocumented individuals who feel that they must accept working conditions below those required by law," the statement read. "Good employers that abide by the law should not suffer the consequences of those businesses engaged in a race to the bottom."

But Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, the ranking member on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, called the announcement "an explicit invitation for illegal immigrants to bring the resources and power of the Department of Labor to bear against American employers."

"It is shameful that Secretary Solis has to be reminded that her primary duty is owed to the American people, and not to those who have illegally entered our country," King said in a written statement. "The Obama administration needs to realize that the American people have a right to have their immigration laws enforced."

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called it "astounding" that in an era of double-digit unemployment, the Department of Labor would spend time and "our taxpayer money worrying about fair wages for individuals who are in our country illegally."

"Maybe they should focus their attention on protecting American jobs and enforcing our labor laws," he said in a written statement to FoxNews.com. "After all, it is illegal to hire workers that are in our country illegally."

The unemployment rate is officially 9.7 percent, though many states report unemployment at higher than 10 percent. Including underemployed workers and people who have given up looking for work, the rate moves closer to 17 percent.

I still think she could be the finest woman on the planet... Kate Beckinsale!

How about a couple Rossington-Collins Band tunes?

Obama: No Decision on McChrystal's Job Until Face-to-Face Meeting

I will be completely surprised if McChrystal still has a job on Wednesday afternoon. obama is an arrogant ten year old with all the power in the world and hates to be critisized.

It doesn't matter that McChrystal is 100% correct, as well as members of his staff, he will still pay a steep price. It's a shame that a man with as impressive of a career as the General is reduced to being called on the carpet by an imposter who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as him.

From FoxNews

President Obama said Tuesday he wants to speak directly to Gen. Stanley McChrystal before deciding whether to fire the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for mocking and disparaging the president and his national security team in a Rolling Stone interview.

Obama will meet with McChrystal on Wednesday at the White House.

"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor -- showed poor judgment," the president said in his first comments on the matter, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

As the media were being ushered out quickly by press aides, Obama stopped them to make more comments and try to put the focus on the troops.

"I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is -- and that is success in making sure that Al Qaeda and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies," Obama said.

McChrystal's Rolling Stone Interview Draws Fire on Capitol Hill"And we've got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices," he said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that "all options are on the table" for Obama as he decides how to punish McChrystal, including firing him.

At a White House daily briefing, Gibbs repeatedly declined to say McChrystal's job was safe.

"The magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound," he said.

In the article in this week's issue of Rolling Stone, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.

McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.

McChrystal's comments are reverberating through Washington and the Pentagon after the magazine depicted him as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration.

It characterized him as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation's longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn't know about his commendable military record.

In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

McChrystal has been called to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday to explain his comments to the magazine directly to the president, a senior administration official told Fox News. Normally, he would appear on a conference call for a regular strategy session.

The general was making a flurry of calls and decisions in the wake of the article's publication. Fox News has learned that he fired the press aide, Duncan Boothby, who booked the interview. McChrystal also called Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen late Monday to apologize. Mullen told the general he was deeply disappointed, according to a senior military official at the Pentagon.

He has since spoken with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both of whom were described as attention-seekers by an aide in the article. Kerry said afterward that he has "enormous respect" for the general, while a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said Karzai "strongly supports" McChrystal and his strategy.

McChrystal is expected to reach Washington early Wednesday.

The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting with Obama as a "10-minute photo-op."

"Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed," the adviser told the magazine.

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

McChrystal said Tuesday, "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

The profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don't.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by Biden last fall – fewer troops, more drone attacks – McChrystal and his aides reportedly attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal reportedly joked. "Who's that?"

Biden initially opposed McChrystal's proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

"Biden?" one aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?"

Another aide reportedly called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four-star general, a "clown" who was "stuck in 1985."

Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," one of the general's aides was quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

If Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.

McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so."'

There was no immediate response from Eikenberry. The Associated Press requested comment through an aide after business hours Monday in Kabul.

Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display.

McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers' platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.