To The US Government: STOP SPENDING!

Yes. Mr Obama is quite that ignorant. He will continue to spend this nation into unrepentant doom. Rick Santelli makes an obvious point that is clearly beyond most GOWPs -- Mr Obama and his entire cabinet and coterie included:



BZ

1. Your Right To Self-Defense; 2. Your Right To Freedom of Speech

1. Your Right To Self-Defense:

The Supreme Court of the United States recently (Monday, June 28) issued its opinion on gun control, in McDonald, et al, v City of Chicago, Illinois. See opinion here in PDF; note: 214 pages.

It is interesting to read that Politico.com portrays the opinion in this fashion:

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The court ruling — which one gun advocacy group compared to the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling — stemmed from cases challenging ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill., that effectively ban the possession of handguns.

The court split along its usual ideological lines: the court’s more conservative justices — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — voted to extend gun rights, while Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor voted to hold the line against such arguments.

“Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,” Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion. The right to bear arms, he wrote, applied to the states because of the 14th Amendment, adopted in part to ensure uniform national standards of justice after the Civil War.

“It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Alito wrote.

The court’s majority suggested the ruling is a logical extension of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2008 declaring that the right to bear arms is an individual one — and not one that simply acknowledges the existence of state militias. However, in the new ruling, the justices did not give precise guidance about how broadly the right to bear arms applies, and which particular kinds of regulations might be unconstitutional.

I find it interesting to note that recent opinions written in which a respect for tradition and law is exhibited are -- oddly enough -- crafted within the framework of the this country's founding document, the Constitution, with a respect for the Bill of Rights.

Leftists and those determined to break the back of a strong United States baldly state the ruling will lead to greater violence in poor and minority communities.

Further, please consider and ruminate over this pull-quote from the dissent:

In the main dissenting opinion, Breyer wrote that he found “nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.” Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined Breyer’s dissent.

Yes. You read it here first. Guilty Overeducated White People (GOWPs) are actually that stupid. And it shocks you that Sotomayor "joined Breyer's dissent"?

Yes. You read it here first. The Second Amendment is actually that confusing to them:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As if "gun control" has worked so wonderfully well in, say, New York, DC and Chicago? Might one deign to suspect: perhaps that's the reason why the case was brought and heard in the first place? Because even poor law-abiding blacks have a right to self-defense, though they may not belong to a gang nor possess a criminal record?

Because they just want something of a level playing field when they dare to step outside their bullet-pitted homes for work or the grocery store or in their cars or at a decimated park? With their kids? Or their grandparents? Or their friends? Or their co-workers?

This case, you realize, isn't about gun rights for wide-open "flyover states." It revolved around those persons locked, packed and crowded, like dazed and stupefied rats demanding their Gubmint Tit, into the precise same urban settings into which your Leftist federal government would like to lock YOU. No matter where you are.

This time, they were momentarily defeated. To a degree. But SCOTUS left many doors open. If Conservatives or adherents of the Constitution think they've won a pyrrhic victory, they would be quite wrong. SCOTUS Leftists want nothing more than an "outcome-based" approach.

Realize: the Second Amendment is by no means "finally" decided. Oh no. Not remotely.

2. Your Right To Freedom Of Speech:

From techworld.com:

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch."

Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

There were other continuing concerns:

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

In consideration:

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

I would posit this: if Mr Obama acquires the "lawful" authority to suspend the internet, then:

1. Why would he want to do this?

2. Would not that authority translate to any and every subsequent president, no matter their political bent?

Alex Jones actually makes an important point:

Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.

To me, it bottom-lines at this:

If government disagrees with the bulk of internet speech in the United States, it can SHUT IT DOWN for reasons of "security."

Ladies and gentlemen, how frightening is this?

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley are wagging their fingers at us, from their graves.

There WILL be a rising level of confrontation.

BZ

THIS JUST IN: SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment!

From The Washington Post:

Gun rights extended by Supreme Court

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Two very important points I should like to make upon first consideration:

1. This is a 5 - 4 decision. Mr Obama will stack the deck and your Constitutional / Bill of Rights freedoms will be ground away;

2. Isn't it sad that we were concerned about how SCOTUS would rule on such a basic freedom?

Next up to bat: your written and vocal freedoms are soon to be questioned.

Chalk this up as a "win."

For now.

BZ

The Bill Is Coming Due

And how are you prepared? Can you prepare?

Paul Krugman writes in the Sunday New York Times op-ed:

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.

Historically, what precedes a depression? Massive inflation. What instigates inflation? Printing money to cover massive debt. Again, from foreign (UK Telegraph) media:

Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), is advising clients to read the Bernanke text ("Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here") very closely because the Fed is soon going to have to the pull the lever on "monster" quantitative easing (QE)".

(Ben Bernanke said in that speech:) "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."

"We cannot stress enough how strongly we believe that a cliff-edge may be around the corner, for the global banking system (particularly in Europe) and for the global economy. Think the unthinkable," he said in a note to investors.

Mr Obama recently said -- on controlling the debt: "Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics. I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff. We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics." Video here from Real Clear Politics.

A Reuters article has written:

Amid the worst recession since the Great Depression, the U.S. budget deficit hit $1.4 trillion last year. It is projected to come in at about $1.6 trillion this year.

Obama has said the deficits are a legacy of the Bush administration, but Republicans have tried to cast Obama as a big spender and have attacked last year's $862 economic stimulus package.

Again, NPD from Mr Obama. Again, everyone is at fault but him. Does anyone here think Mr Obama has done nothing to geometrically multiply our debt -- and not quite even into half of his term?

For once, to have further pushed us down the road to a more rapid recovery, all Mr Obama would have to have done is, essentially, nothing. He should have kept America's billions in the treasury, allowed GM and Chrysler and AIG and others to simply fail. The bottom would have hit, the crunch would have hurt, and we'd be talking about pulling ourselves out of the hole.

As it is, Mr Obama literally spent, instead, trillions of dollars -- and our job losses, foreclosures, business shutterings and debt skyrocketed anyway.

Further: what "relief" have YOU received from Mr Obama's "stimulus"?

That's right: nothing.

Yet some forecast there is nought but an outright Depression ahead.

And how are you prepared? Can you prepare?

BZ

John McNaughton: One Nation Under God

The artist's website here. Go here to see the meanings in the painting.

The First Amendment promises, essentially, freedom of religion; not guaranteed freedom from religion.

BZ

[Click on photo to enlarge for detail.]

Is Dearborn, Michigan IN the United States of America?

Please watch the following video:



WND article covering this and other events from the "Arab Festival" here. And there is apparently a reason the city is termed "Dearbornistan."

Question:

Is Dearborn, Michigan actually within the confines of the United States of America?

Arab Detroit News celebrates the hiring of Dearborn Police Chief Robert Haddad here. Why might that be?

"Allah Akbar!" shouted two Muslims as the Christians were taken away in handcuffs, by police who also seized the Christians' video camera evidence and refused to return video footage of the arrests.

"The police are enforcing Sharia law in America," said one of the four arrested Christians, explaining that Muslim Sharia law is not just about putting Burkas on women, but also prohibits anyone from talking to Muslims about Jesus, and prevents listeners from escaping Islam by converting to any other religion.

If you wish to e-mail Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly about the matter, click here.

If you wish to consider signing a petition asking for the FBI to investigate police corruption in Dearborn, please click here.

This, you see, is happening under your very nose.

Have a nice weekend.

BZ

What They Really Mean

BZ

[Thanks, Steve.] P.S. Check this link as well.

Obama Unmasked, Part II: Drilling

Ken Salazar LIED and those lies were exposed with the newest ruling by a federal judge:

The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium,” Feldman said in his 22-page decision. “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

When Ken Salazar portrayed the situation as one way, drilling experts said the last thing one should do is close -- in terms of safety -- the affected 33 drilling rigs.

Ken Salazar bald-assed lied.

Realistically the closure would affect 7,000 people immediately and 30,000 jobs directly linked in the gulf region.

As in: those jobs would be gone.

What the Leftist media isn't revealing is this: gulf fishing doesn't provide any more. The bulk fishing industry is dead, killed by regulations. Shrimping is dead, fishing is dead -- and the only sector providing jobs in the gulf is -- wait for it -- wait for it -- petroleum.

Obama will appeal.

The decision should be known within the next two weeks.

However, if you're in the mood for some salacious and pernicious irony, then let it be known that, though US Enviros forced drilling into massive depths (a mile or more down), the danger of which resulted in the current gulf spill (because drilling in shallow waters isn't nearly as dangerous), this might ruffle your skirts:

Petrobras, Brazil's petroleum consortium, was very recently given $2 billion dollars by Mr Obama for them to invest in extremely deep oil drilling. He's not much interested in deep water drilling off US shores, as witness his 6-month moratorium, but he's more interested in Brazil's drilling as such.

Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you, perchance?

Absent this inconvenient factoid: CUI BONO?

It occurred "way back when."

This is a SET-UP. This is ILLEGAL. This is an ABORTION. This is WRONG. But, of course, because it occurs at the behest of a diluted genetic who claims black and embraces white when it saves him and embraces black when it saves him, he can do no wrong.








BZ

Gen Stanley McChrystal To Resign

Joe Klein, ahead of others, says he has information indicating General McChrystal has submitted papers of resignation following the publication of an article in Rolling Stone (article here):

[Updated at 6:04 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal has "offered to resign," according to a Twitter post from Time magazine's Joe Klein on Tuesday. Earlier, Klein, citing "a very reliable source," told CNN that McChrystal had already submitted his resignation.

Gen McChrystal made a very poor decision in terms of allowing anyone from Rolling Stone access to he and his staff, first and foremost.

In terms of ROEs, that is an issue that should have been screamed from the highest towers for some time.

I submit this: Gen McChrystal was wrong to engage the media, and was wrong to speak out of school. I believe Mr Obama will accept McChrystal's resignation and that, also, is wrong.

This is a situation that will result in more American deaths in Afghanistan particularly in light of the specified announcement of a withdrawal timetable.

Taking McChrystal off the military chart will indicate immaturity on Mr Obama's part, as well as his thin skin and his listening to advice from his hyper-political staff. Even U.S. Grant was retained. Even Patton was retained. Even MacArthur was retained for some time.

On the other hand, Mr Obama is no Lincoln, no FDR, no Truman. He makes Carter look cogent.

BZ

Obama Unmasked, Part I: Amnesty

There is almost too much news to comprehend.

- It is egregious
- It has to do with Obama
- It will impact your freedoms
- It will impact your taxes
- It will impact your children for generations
- It will impact our very Constitution

Where shall I begin?

How about the real reason for Obama's desperate search for amnesty for illegal invaders?

From the above video:

SEN. JON KYL: I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us. Here’s what the president said.

“The problem is,” he said, "If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

[gasps from the audience]

KYL: In other words they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.

I explained, “You and I have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has some potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive immigration to secure the border, but you have to have a secure border to get comprehensive immigration reform. You may be surprised, maybe you don’t think that there’d be any more incentive, but I’m not so sure that that’s true. In any event, it doesn’t matter we’re supposed to secure the border.”

That’s why this is being done. They want to get something in return for doing their duty. And that’s—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chicago politics.

KYL: Yeah.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's all done for votes. Period. In order to keep the Democrats in power forever. Period.

Mr Obama is "ruling by decree."

BZ

Your Federal Government: Cooperating To Its FULLEST In The Gulf

Government obstructionism? Red tape? Cross every "t" and dot every "i"? In a time of extreme peril? No one has the power to set anything aside?

Yes, that's your federal government at work.

From Reuters:

Bureaucracy frustrates U.S. Gulf oil spill efforts

19 Jun 2010 20:16:24 GMT

Source: Reuters

* Local officials frustrated by delays, red tape
* Barges halted for 24 hours for safety inspections
* Military-type chain of command urged
By Jeffrey Jones
GRAND ISLE, Louisiana, June 19 (Reuters) - Those on the front lines of the U.S. Gulf Coast oil spill say they are forced to fight two battles -- one against the crude washing into lush wetlands and another against needless bureaucracy.

Sixty-one days after the BP Plc well began spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, angry local officials blame dozens of federal agencies involved in approving response plans, a maze of regulations and poor coordination for their struggles beating back the slick.

"My experience has been frustration, too much red tape, no a sense of urgency. For the state and the coastal parishes that are directly affected to put forth a plan, you have to kick and scream every step of the way to get it approved," said John Young, council chairman for Jefferson Parish in Louisiana.

"The president said it's a war. I agree we're under siege, but if it was a war, we'd be occupied territory now."

". . . we'd be occupied territory by now."

There's no refuting BP's role in the initial catastrophe chain resulting in the spill. None whatsoever. There is no refuting the federal government's role insisting on BP and others drilling in waters over a mile deep because it was "bad" to drill either close to shore or our own sovereign soil. Resulting, of course, in these wells being geometrically-major problems at those depths.

Yes, there is no refuting the fact that the government has taken a laissez-faire attitude towards one of the greatest recent threats to our shores.

Anyone remember General Russel L. Honore and Katrina? "Stuck on stupid"? Where's the gulf's Gen Honore?

Just remember this, my dearest readers: if you are not affected now, what happens in the future when your area is struck with catastrophe? And what if politics or agendas are somehow involved? Do you think your area or your community is any more "special" than an entire series of coastal states as are currently affected in the gulf region?

Because, after all, one person really does have the power in this current administration to grab the bully pulpit and get things moving -- if they want to.

Do you think Mr Obama will gallantly stride his federal government into your area and cast aside red tape in consideration of your plight?

Do you?

BZ

Obama: Ceding the US to Mexico!

BZ

(h/t to Geez!)

Obama: Energy Prices Will "Necessarily Skyrocket" -- AFFIRMED

Ben Lieberman writes the Truth. Finally, someone in the written MSM "gets it."

From the New York Post:

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

But, as I keep hammering home, that is precisely the point of the current crisis and the point of Mr Obama's under-reaction. It's time to sacrifice our southern coasts on behalf of an agenda.

Continuing, from Mr Lieberman:

Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less.

The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.

Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.

Oil must be a major part of American energy. There is no viable alternative. There are smaller chunks of the plan but any one of those parts -- or even the conglomerate -- isn't remotely sufficient to step in as a fossil fuel replacement.

Sadly, the bulk of Americans and youth think of oil solely in association with cars and trucks on the freeway. They are told they "want" electric cars. We are not equipped to handle the demand of electric vehicles. You remember, don't you, when a barrel of oil peaked at $147 in July of 2008?

When was the last time we built a refinery? When was the last time we built an electrical generation station?

To the Obama Administration:

If you really want to bring America to a complete standstill, you just bring on the $7 a gallon gas.

I dare you.

BZ

The Federal Government: Working AGAINST States On The Spill

Can you believe this?

How difficult would it have been to round up thirty fire extinguishers, and some life vests and allow the barges to keep doing their jobs?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. See my prior post.

The purpose here is political.

The purpose is to bankrupt this country, change it markedly, oppress you, enslave the electorate and eliminate capitalism.

Make no mistake.

BZ

Obama: Spending $1.2 BILLION On Cycling & Walking Initiatives

Once again, the truth from non-American media (this time, the UK Telegraph):

Spending on biking and walking projects rose from less than $600 million (£407 million) in 2008, according to the Federal Highway Administraion. Twenty years ago, the federal government was spending only $6 million a year on such projects.

Just as, I suppose, California wants to ban aluminum baseball bats. San Francisco and California want to ban plastic bags. SF wants radiation alerts on cell phones.

Your thoughts?

BZ

Mr Obama's Gulf Coast "Reaction" -- The REAL Plan:

At the time of this writing, Mr Obama has not yet produced his Oval Office address -- scheduled at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific (my time). The speech is but a few minutes away for me.

Perhaps you were wondering why it is that Mr Obama hasn't jumped, federally, into the gulf oil spill problem with both feet, kicking aside red tape, rolling up his sleeves, offering every bit of assistance possible, not pointing fingers -- saying he'll do that later -- but, instead, taking the philosophy of the Japanese to heart: "fix the problem, not the blame."

Why?

Very easy: politics.

A wonderful, wonderful opportunity has fallen into the collective laps of Mr Obama, Rahm Emanual, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett, George Soros, Jim Messina, David Axelrod, et al.

Here is Mr Obama's Perfect Storm.

In which to ramrod through onerous versions of CapNTax.

As Mr Obama himself said, your energy costs will "necessarily skyrocket."

He doesn't care one whit about the gulf. He cares, instead, about enabling his agendas.

BOHICA, America. Just you wait for his speech.

BZ



UPDATE: On The 57th DAY:

In toto, how could we primarily object to his points? Mr Obama spoke in such sweeping generalizations as to make his pointed speech almost pointless, with logic demanding a seat at the "back of the bus."

Text of his address:

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.

On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims – and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.

As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That’s why the second thing we’re focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I’ve talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don’t know how they’re going to support their families this year. I’ve seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers – even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I’ve talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they’ve lost. It’s about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short-term, it’s also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That’s why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, a former governor of Mississippi, and a son of the Gulf, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

The third part of our response plan is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe – that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion – these families deserve to know why. And so I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place. Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue. And while I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially.

One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problems there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency – Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. His charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog – not its partner.

One of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs – but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation – workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny – our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there. We know we’ll get there.

It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region’s fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It’s called “The Blessing of the Fleet,” and today it’s a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea – some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago – at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, “The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always,” a blessing that’s granted “…even in the midst of the storm.”

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face.

This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through – what has always seen us through – is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day.

Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

The most important sentence of his speech?

"Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater."

Costs.

CapNTax, people.

And yet, was not BP one of the first members of the Cap-And-Trade lobby?

MSNBC critiques Mr Obama. Oh. My. God.

You heard and read it here first and foremost.

BZ

WANTED: Rep. Bob Etheridge, D - NC

The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department needs to immediately request a warrant of arrest for Democrat Representative Bob Etheridge of North Carolina's 2nd District -- on the charges of Assault, Battery and Robbery.

This is why, as I documented on Monday.

This is a top member of the House. He could easily have answered, truthfully:

- "No, I'm tired, just go away";

- "I have no comment for you";

- "Who are you?" -- and CONTINUED walking on;

- "I'm late for a meeting; contact my office."

OR:

- "Young man, I admire your enthusiasm. I'm late for a meeting. Let's talk about this later."

But no; he had to not only disagree with the perceived minimal message, but assault the messenger.

The Superior Court of DC handles matters of crime committed within the federal District of Columbia limits. Felonies and U.S. misdemeanors are referred to as U.S. matters.

State of Maryland "robbery" text:

ROBBERY
3-401. Definitions.(a) In general.- In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) Deprive.- "Deprive" means to withhold property of another:1. permanently;2. for a period that results in the appropriation of a part of the property's value;3. with the purpose to restore it only on payment of a reward or other compensation; or4. to dispose of the property or use or deal with the property in a manner that makes it unlikely that the owner will recover it.
(c) Obtain.- "Obtain" means:1. in relation to property, to bring about a transfer of interest in or possession of the property; and2. in relation to a service, to secure the performance of the service.
The only other changes are in style.(d) Property.(1) "Property" means anything of value.(2) "Property" includes:(i) real estate;(ii) money;(iii) a commercial instrument;(iv) an admission or transportation ticket;(v) a written instrument representing or embodying rights concerning anything of value, or services, or anything otherwise of value to the owner;(vi) a thing growing on, affixed to, or found on land, or that is part of or affixed to any building;(vii) electricity, gas, and water;(viii) a bird, animal, or fish that ordinarily is kept in a state of confinement;(ix) food or drink;(x) a sample, culture, microorganism, or specimen;(xi) a record, recording, document, blueprint, drawing, map, or a whole or partial copy, description, photograph, prototype, or model of any of them;(xii) an article, material, device, substance, or a whole or partial copy, description, photograph, prototype, or model of any of them that represents evidence of, reflects, or records a secret:1. scientific, technical, merchandising, production, or management information; or2. designed process, procedure, formula, invention, trade secret, or improvement;(xiii) a financial instrument; and(xiv) information, electronically produced data, and a computer software or program in a form readable by machine or individual.
(e) Robbery.- "Robbery" retains its judicially determined meaning except that:(1) robbery includes obtaining the service of another by force or threat of force; and(2) robbery requires proof of intent to withhold property of another:(i) permanently;(ii) for a period that results in the appropriation of a part of the property's value;(iii) with the purpose to restore it only on payment of a reward or other compensation; or(iv) to dispose of the property or use or deal with the property in a manner that makes it unlikely that the owner will recover it.
§ 3-402. Robbery.(a) Prohibited.- A person may not commit or attempt to commit robbery.(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.
§ 3-403. Robbery with dangerous weapon.(a) Prohibited.- A person may not commit or attempt to commit robbery under § 3-402 of this subtitle:(1) with a dangerous weapon; or(2) by displaying a written instrument claiming that the person has possession of a dangerous weapon.
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

If you examine the video in detail, you will see that not only is Representative Etheridge subject to assault and battery in the State of Maryland, but felony robbery as well.

Detailed stop-frame examination indicates that Etheridge physically takes the flip-phone from the student.

Was the flip-phone ever returned to the student? I do not know. The issue was never addressed.

In my state, Robbery (a felony) is defined generally as:

California Penal Code 211: Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

Create a complaint. Report the incident. Document via report. Submit for a warrant.

Trust me: in every other jurisdiction, in every other state venue -- you, me -- WE would be criminally held to answer for robbery in this instance; at the very least, assault and battery.

Arrest Etheridge under criminal statutes. Do it now.

Strip him of his position. Remove his pension.

Then go after him in civil courts. Ask for punitive damages.

BZ

Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge, N.C., At Work In DC:

Courtesty of Breitbart TV:



Repugnant. Absolutely repugnant. What right does this man have to push people and physically attack people who ask questions?

By the way, here's that same congressman telling young people, in 2007, that they should "get involved":



Isn't that what those young folks were trying to do?

Here's what really happened:

The Democrats are tired and they are upset. And moreover, they are angry. This anger boiled out onto this young person who attempted to ask a general question about Mr Obama.

The Democrats are tired of the pounding by the public. They are tired at being fired upon by their own Hard, Hard Left factions and, of course, by Conservatives. They are tired at having to take heat from friction created by Mr Obama. And ultimately, they are tired of not only being second-guessed at every step but questioned by folks who have the temerity to not be the so-called "Mainstream Media" because, as you know, predominantly the MSM is their friend.

Why does he ask "who are you" over and over? Because he knows this is not a MSM team; they are too young. Seeing that, he believes they are not immediately "in the tank" for Democrats in general. And: he is paranoid.

Again: repugnant. You sir, should not only be ashamed, you should have a warrant written and executed for your arrest.

BZ

The Raving Bullshit About Gaza:

Gaza:

Home to the ridiculously poor, the downtrodden, the place of bloated babies' bellies, the source of bombed-out baby milk factories at the behest of Commando Israelis, dying elderly, dying Palestinians, dying infants, dying blue collar workers, dying sifters through burning trash, abused and dying administrators, ignorant itinerants working for pennies per day. Themselves dying. Everyone, after all, if you scan the DEM/MSM, is dying in Gaza.

Or perhaps: not?

Where have I recently found the bulk of journalistic truths the past year? Why, that would not include American so-called "journalists."

I've found much of my revelatory information grounded in UK media or other "foreign" sources.

In that vein, I proffer this Canadian National Post article about the real state of Gaza:

Indeed the BBC and other prominent Western media regularly lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent “mass humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.

What they won’t tell you about are the fancy new restaurants and swimming pools of Gaza, or about the wind surfing competitions on Gaza beaches, or the Strip’s crowded shops and markets.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn’t fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write.

Here, courtesy of the Palestinian Ma’an news agency, is a report on Gaza’s new Olympic-sized swimming pool . (Most Israeli towns don’t have Olympic-size swimming pools. One wonders how an area that claims to be starved of water and building materials and depends on humanitarian aid builds an Olympic size swimming pool and creates a luxury lifestyle for some while others are forced to live in abject poverty as political pawn refugees?)

If you pop into the Roots Club in Gaza, according to the Lonely Planet guidebook, you can “dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu”.

The restaurant’s website in Arabic gives a window into middle class dining and the lifestyle of Hamas officials in Gaza. And here it is in English, for all the journalists, UN types and NGO staff who regularly frequent this and other nice Gaza restaurants (but don’t tell their readers about them).

And here is a promotional video of the club restaurant . In case anyone doubts the authenticity of this video, I just called the club in Gaza City and had a nice chat with the manager who proudly confirmed business is booming and many Palestinians and international guests are dining there.

In a piece for The Wall Street Journal last year, I documented the “after effects” of a previous “emergency Gaza boat flotilla,” when the arrivals were seen afterwards purchasing souvenirs in well-stocked shops. (You can also scroll down here for more pictures of Gaza’s “impoverished” shops.)

But the mainstream liberal international media won’t report on any of this. Playing the manipulative game of the BBC is easy: if we had their vast taxpayer funded resources, we too could produce reports about parts of London, Manchester and Glasgow and make it look as though there is a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the UK. We could produce the same effect by selectively filming seedy parts of Paris and Rome and New York and Los Angeles too.

Read more:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/fancy-restaurants-and-olympic-size-pools-what-the-media-won%E2%80%99t-report-about-gaza/#ixzz0qb0xnmFn

Tom Gross finally writes:

But the way that many prominent Western news media are deliberately misleading global audiences and systematically creating the false impression that people are somehow starving in Gaza, and that it is all Israel’s fault, can only serve to increase hatred for the Jewish state – which one suspects was the goal of many of the editors and reporters involved in the first place.

Of course, you won't read of any of this. Not with regards to Gaza. Not with regards to any "Palestinians." Not in American media.

Because that would, you see, conflict with the greater agenda embraced by the U.S. DEM (Defeatist Elitist Media): Western, minimal melanin, Jew = BAD.

Everyone else = GOOD.

Please watch this horribly depraved video -- if you have the intestinal fortitude:



People: I submit that you read Bloviating Zeppelin for a reason.

This is one of them.

BZ

ICE's John Morton: Your Taxpayer Dollars To Fund Bingo & Movie Nights For Illegals

Do you remember John Morton? From my May 24th post:

The assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, has said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities. Mr Morton, his Eminence, has regally declared that Arizona's law is "not good government."

Your memory being so refreshed, would it shock you to learn that your federal taxpayer dollars -- as advocated by Mr Morton -- are now to soon pay for art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends for illegal immigrants detained in ICE-contracted facilities?

But wait; it gets better. Additionally, there will be a "softening of the look of the facility” with hanging plants and fresh carrot sticks. ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.

More: there are, per the Houston Chronicle story, "plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches."

More: there will be movie nights, bingo, arts & crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, self-service beverage and fresh vegetable bars, four + hours of recreation to allow for "robust aerobic exercise."

More: eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low risk detainees; allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period; providing a unit manager so detainees have someone to report problems to other than a guard.

More: allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other "non-penal attire"; providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer: your hard-earned federal tax dollars at work.

BZ

Kagan & The Second Amendment

I'll admit up front: I am a former Rangemaster for my major law enforcement department (at one point, over 2,000 officers until budgetary layoffs this and last year) in California, seven years ago. I am not a huge "gun guy" per se -- it is not the end-all and be-all of my life -- but I am sufficiently knowledgeable and facile that a favored Captain specifically solicited me to take over the Rangemaster position in a particularly critical point in our training history. My job was to pointedly eliminate "difficult" personnel and streamline training. In other words, fire specific people and ensure we were up to POST training mandates. I therefore cleaned up our image, our history, our ammo bunker, destroyed illegal weapons, ensured we were compliant with all laws, and retained every "targeted" employee because, for me, they worked.

I changed procedures, locks, ordering and inventory regulations, and insisted that those deputies who couldn't shoot or perform on the range were referred back to personnel for addressing. During my tenure many recruits were let go due to lack of performance, including "protected classes" such as females and the melanin-enhanced. Moreover, if they couldn't perform, they couldn't perform. I insisted their observable results were documented and immured.

Worse yet, I not only turned down a Captain who wanted his chippie to pass the Academy in firearms -- despite the fact that she was a former secretary "under him" and horrible in her firearms score -- I also insisted there be accountability for handguns issued to former Executive Staff members and DSA members. Even more egregious, certain "golden" personnel had actually SOLD their county-issued weapons to third parties for PROFIT and NO ONE, except me, had the balls to point out the obvious. Finally, of course, nothing was done.

I was not destined, clearly, for easy promotion. I was a Sergeant then and I shall retire a Sergeant. I made my decisions and that was that. After 35 years I still sleep well at night with a few garish yellow hash marks on my sleeves. And no bars on my lapels.

As I used to say: I may have been issued kneepads, but I never used them.

And yet, in my career as a Supervisor, I found myself in charge, oddly enough, of the two most political supervisory appointments in the entire department: the Range and EVOC.

That written, in terms of my history, I should like to point out the newly-obvious:

From The Washington Times:

President Obama poses a real and present danger to the Second Amendment, and he's working to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will undermine Americans' gun rights.

Mr. Obama didn't fess up to this radical agenda when running for the highest office in the land. "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on," Mr. Obama told Fox News in June 2008. Despite the campaign rhetoric, Mr. Obama is appointing judges who strongly oppose that position. The most recent pick, Elena Kagan, ran much of President Clinton's war on guns from 1995 to 1999.

When Ms. Kagan served as Mr. Clinton's deputy domestic policy adviser, she was a feverish proponent of gun control. From gunlock mandates to gun-show regulations, she was instrumental in pushing anti-gun policies, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Every court nomination counts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court barely mustered a narrow 5-4 majority to strike down the extreme District of Columbia gun ban. Should Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the four more conservative justices retire or die while Mr. Obama is in office, the high court likely will undo such narrow victories for the Second Amendment.

While Ms. Kagan was nominated to replace the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, and thus won't swing the court in a new direction, her being there will necessitate that gun owners concentrate more than ever on fighting outright gun bans.

Ms. Kagan's defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions.

The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views. When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "

America: you'd best make your cartridge and defensive purchases now.

Whilst you can.

BZ

Tuesday, June 8th: Primary Reflections

So, what do you suppose was the message transmitted by voters on Tuesday this week?

Some in the DEM/MSM are saying Tuesday was about nothing more than money.

Others on the Conservative side are saying it's more about dissatisfaction and actual diversity of thought, instead of lockstep Leftist fast tricks and disinformatione.

It was, frankly, an election consisting greatly of Republican women.

In California where I live, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman will challenge the Great Leftist Giants in November: Fiorina vs Barbara Boxer for US Senate, and Whitman vs Jerry Brown for Governor.

Eric Hogue at KTKZ, 1380, in Sacramento has already called for a debate between Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer. If that occurs, you should/must listen! I'll announce this when and if it occurs.

An even more interesting combative exists in the state to the east of mine: Nevada. 60-year-old Sharron Angle had the temerity to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And won that privilege.

From AP News about Sharron Angle:

The former school teacher and legislator grabbed the nomination after a brutal primary in which her rivals depicted her as too extreme to appeal to independents who often cast the decisive votes in centrist Nevada. She benefited when one-time front-runner Sue Lowden was widely mocked for suggesting consumers use chickens to barter with doctors.

Unemployed freight worker Tina Immormino, 45, of Henderson, said she voted for Angle "because we definitely need change in government and Harry Reid has to go. Everyone in Washington has to go."

Reid emerges as the prohibitive front-runner.

Democrats are already depicting Angle as a loopy fringe figure, more caricature than politician. With plenty of money on hand and deep-pocketed allies, Reid and his supporters are expected to use TV ads to quickly define Angle in the populous Las Vegas region - home to about two of every three state voters - where she is not well known.

The Patriot Majority, funded in part by unions and run by Craig Varoga, a veteran Democratic operative who did a stint on Reid's staff years ago, launched a website ridiculing Angle and calling her positions "completely out of step." Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez said Angle "cares more about promoting a strict social doctrine than helping grow the state's economy."

Is this a foreshadowing of things to come?

A note: I was heartbroken to see the John Eastman AG loss in California. But I suspect it was simply because so few people knew him and his proclivities. I can only hope that he will buck up and return.

But moreover, even the Leftists are wondering what they've purchased. Dorothy Rabinowitz writes in the WSJ (in my opinion this must be reproduced in toto):

THE ALIEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE
the distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13. Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.

I don't think I could possibly have expressed this in as accurate a fashion as that of Ms Rabinowitz.

There is MUCH to be said and written about The Truth.

November, here we come.

BZ