Tea Party Prevented From Hurting Obama in Quincy, Mass.

A group of Tea Party members in Quincy, Mass., staged a peaceful demonstration during a visit by Obama who gave a speech in the Convention Center.  As you can see by this pictures, the members were preparing to "endanger" Quincy and the president.  Watch the video below the last picture.

Liberals fear Arizona and violations of civil rights.  Let's see how much of this event is reported.

Viva Arizona

Illegal aliens expressing their fear of American authorities

Disclaimer: I am an immigrant.

Being a native from Argentina makes me a Latino; whatever this means. After all, if your name is Rodriguez, and came from Spain, the former colonial power that subjugated and killed millions of Indians in north and South America, you qualify as a Latino, with all the perks it grants you.

And now to the purpose of this entry

I am thrilled by the new anti illegal aliens law in Arizona, and I hope that this motivates politicians all over the United States to start implementing similar laws. The outcry of the usual suspects is deafening. This alone should be enough to convince us that the law is terrific.

Rachel Maddow calls the law cruel. So does the majority of MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc. etc. which further reinforces my conviction.

Every pundit has become a constitutional scholar.

And now the civil right pimps have reemerged. Yep. The Arizona law must be great.

In the meantime, let us look at some headlines.

The AP reports that the kleptocracy ruling Mexico has acknowledged the report of Amnesty International, that their treatment of illegal aliens (in Mexico they are not referred as undocumented immigrants) is one of the worst human rights violations in the world. Among the accusations, Amnesty International accuses Mexico of the following:
--Kidnapping
--Rape
--Extortion
--Assassination
--Deportation for those who attempt to report the abuses

Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.

Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process.

One of the main issues, Amnesty says, is that migrants fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses.

At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues." 

And the president of Mexico continues to worry about the treatment of Mexicans by Arizona. Talk about chutzpa.

Click here to read the whole article

On the same subject, a Texas representative wants to introduce to Texas the same law as Arizona. Good for her.

 Read article

In Alabama a candidate for governor says that if elected he'll give the state driver's license exam only in English, as a cost-saving measure.

What, he wants immigrants to speak English? This is so anti-American. Next he’ll demand that they get an education and stop being busboys and dishwashers.

Read Article

Latinos Support Arizona's Law

Watching the news on mainstream media TV, one would have to believe that the legislation in Arizona that gives police, under very specific situations, the right to check for immigration status, represents the end of American democracy. I found it so hypocritical that politicians who have voted to add 6,000 agents to the IRS, or approved a most intrusive census questionnaire, and healthcare bill, have the chutzpah to talk about civil rights violations. Furthermore, reports of demonstrations kept showing the same few hundreds malcontents, with the typical clichés provided by America haters. Reporters kept talking about “immigrants” as if they are the victims of this legislation. Since when are people that violate the law coming into our country, immigrants? They are illegal. Meaning, people who broke the law.

And Mexico, with its restrictive immigration laws, corrupt police and thieving politicians, keeps lecturing us and warns their citizens not to come to vist Arizona.  Wow.  This is scary.  But I don't think Arizonans are too worried about thousands of Mexican "visitors" not jumping the fence.

Well, here is a memo to liberals: The majority of Arizonan support the Arizona legislation, do too. The "other' category which in Arizona is made up mostly of Latinos aproves by 53%. .  Blacks, who normally follow Obama like lemmings jumping off a cliff, approve by a margin of 50%.

Here is a new Rasmussen poll with the data:

Here is some more interesting data about Mexico and their immigration laws as reported by Michelle Malkin:

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

To read Mexican immigration laws click here:  Ley General de Poblacion.

Lousy joke. But is it anti-Semitic?

Did Obama's National Security Advisor James Jones, tell a bad joke or was he being anti-Semitic?

I always cringe when I hear politicians start a speech with a joke. The delivery usually stinks, and the outcome is always the opposite of what was intended. Having said this, and after watching the video of Jones, I believe that he intended to be funny, and was as funny as Kerry telling students to study hard or they will end up in Iraq, thus implying that soldiers are uneducated.

Suppose that Condoleezza Rice, or Brent Scowcroft, or Stephen Hadley had told Jones’s joke. Now let us ask the following: How long would have taken for the media and democratic leadership to demand his/her resignation? How long would have taken for Bill Clinton to remind us that words count?

How long would have taken for his/her resignation to be in the Oval Office?

Wake Up Call to Newspapers

Welcome to the BlogAge. No newspapers needed.

Last week I had to use the subway here in New York City for three consecutive days, and during rush hour. Much to my amazement, I saw very few people reading newspapers. What I did see were people glued to iPhones, Blackberries, and other electronic gadgets that allow reading news on the Internet. And the print media continues to fiddle while their industry is burning.

Of the twenty-five top daily newspapers in large metropolitan areas, only The Wall Street Journal posted a circulation gain of 0.5%, which is considered flat growth. The rest show an average decline of over 8%.

And while the industry is declining, newspapers continue to treat half the American population as persons with learning disabilities, who need to be taught how to think. Newspapers are editorializing more and more, and always with a left leaning. Well, millions of us are tired of having to pay to be lectured and told how dangerous we are, as in the case of my fellow Tea Party members. Furthermore, if newspapers are delivered electronically, don’t expect us to pay the same price we did when the delivery was by truck and need millions of tons of paper and ink.

I would subscribe to electronic New York Times for a fair price of let’s say…. No. No New York Times for me. Even for free.

1. The Wall Street Journal 2,092,523 +0.5%
2. USA Today 1,826,622 -13.58%
3. The New York Times 951,063 -8.47%
4. Los Angeles Times 616,606 -14.74%
5. Washington Post 578,482 -13.06%
6. Daily News (New York) 535,059 -11.25%
7. New York Post 525,004 -5.94%
8. San Jose Mercury News* 516,701 N/A
(1/1/10 To 3/31/2010)
9. Chicago Tribune 452,145 -9.79%
10. Houston Chronicle 366,578 -13.77%
11. The Philadelphia Inquirer** 356,189 N/A
12. The Arizona Republic 351,207 -9.88%
13. Newsday 334,809 -9.07%
14. The Denver Post*** 333,675 N/A
15. Star Tribune, Minneapolis 295,438 -7.71%
16. St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times 278,888 -1.49%
17. Chicago Sun-Times 268,803 -13.88%
18. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland 267,888 -8.14%
19. The Oregonian 263,600 -1.83%
20. The Seattle Times*** 263.468 N/A
21. The Dallas Morning News 260,659 -21.47%
22. Detroit Free Press 252,017 -13.31%
23. San Diego Union-Tribune 249,630 -4.45%
24. San Francisco Chronicle 241,330 -22.68%
25. The Star-Ledger, Newark, N.J. 236,017 -17.79%

Something to Read This Weekend

Professor Victor David Hanson on U.S.-Israel relations.  Is Obama enagering the Jewish State by pandering to the Muslim world?

Read Article

If you love baseball, or for that matter, any sport, and if your team is a consisten loser, reat this article by Dr. Charles Krauthammer. 

Read Article

Are you feeling guilty because you were opposed to the government bailout of GM, and now you you read that GM has repaid billions? Well, take it easy. You were right.

What you weren’t told was that GM was able to repay the money by drawing down on a line of credit that it had from TARP! In other words, GM took funds still available to it through TARP and used those funds to repay the loan it received from the government. Of course, it now owes $4.7 billion on its line of credit with TARP, but, that doesn’t make for good news, so it wasn’t reported.

**********

So what were the employees at the SEC doing while the economy imploded or exploded?  Well, surfing the Internet.  Read more about it.

Read Article about the SEC or perhaps the SEX

On the Economy

In discussions with liberals here in New York, whenever I mention Obama’s deficit and taxes, the standard retort is that Obama has lowered taxes, and that I probably paid $400 less than during President Bush’s administration. Obama actually wants me to thank him for this “reduction”.

Leaving aside the falsehood of this statement, I like to mention to my liberal friends that we have been hit by the most corrosive and regressive tax in existence since the invention of money: Inflation. This tax, and a tax it is, since it is the result of government policies and printing money, is a super whammy. First it affects low-income families more than rich ones, it is not tax deductible and it is self-perpetuating. Studies have demonstrated that when inflation reaches 10%, consumers tend to panic and spend their money before it depreciates further. This rush to spend by purchasing goods, leads to higher prices, which leads to inflation, which leads to people panicking, which leads to higher…

Historically, when my wife and I spent above $100, it would take us four trips from the car to the apartment carrying our bags. The last time I went shopping we spent $135 and it took us two trips to carry our bags upstairs; and the bags were not any larger. Soups were between 2 and 3 dollars a can. Oranges were on sale, 2 for a dollar, cans that used to be filled with a pound of merchandise, now had 11 oz., boxes 9 inches long contained tissues 8 inches long, my favorite rye bread was $3.39, but the texture was like angel cake, full of air.

Well, the suspicion that Obama's policies will bring inflation is well justified. Associated Press reports that “wholesale prices rose more than expected last month as food prices surged by the most in 26 years. But excluding food and energy, prices were nearly flat.”

Of course, AP couldn't resist spinning for Obama.  I love the last sentence in the above paragraph. Besides the patient’s cancer having metastasized to the lungs, liver and pancreas, the rest of his vital signs are okay.

Read the Associated Press report

**********

Las night I was watching a History Channel program on the technology of gambling and casinos. When the program ended I watched the news and a report on the finance reform bill promulgated by Obama and the democrats in conjunction with some republicans that know that you cannot go wrong when bashing banks and Wall Street. I was struck by the similarity between this bill and the problem that casinos have with cheaters. As casinos implement ways to prevent cheating, cheaters are busy designing new ways of cheating. Similarly, lawyers on Wall Street are already studying the loopholes that will allow banks and investment houses evade the regulations imposed by this bill.

By the way, if this bill is so terrific, why does it not apply to AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

You want to bring discipline to Wall Street? Let them fail.

Finally, when my mother didn’t let me play in the living room, I played in the bedroom. But play I did. Implement regulations that will hurt Wall Street, and in a few years we will buy derivatives and mortgage packages from financial centers in Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a hundred places around the world where the speculating will be much more risky than in Wall Street.

Speculation will go on, but Americans will be the losers..

Jury Duty

I have jury duty. I will return to blogging in a few days. Please stay tuned. In the meantime here is an interesting commentary on Hillary

Hillary Tries to Spin the Jews — Again
Jennifer Rubin

Hillary Clinton gave a speech last night at the Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Although at the time of this writing a full transcript was not available, it seems to be one part backpedal and one part recycled AIPAC talking points. As to the first, she insisted, “We know that we cannot force a solution. The parties themselves must resolve their differences.” This seemed to suggest that no “imposed” peace deal is in the offing — at least for now. But who knows with this crowd? Hillary Clinton’s definition of “forcing” a solution may be different from Bibi’s.

As to the second, she repeated the pablum first heard at AIPAC last month that the current situation is not sustainable. (”Israelis and Palestinians alike must confront the reality that the status quo has not produced long-term security or served their interests, and accept their share of responsibility for reaching a comprehensive peace that will benefit both sides.”) She says these things, I suppose, so we will conclude that the “only” sustainable option is a peace deal, and therefore a peace deal is the way to go. Yes, it does appear that simplistic. And, yes, it does seem to ignore the underlying reality: there is no peace deal in sight and there won’t be for quite a while. Although the status quo, with some significant improvements in the lives of West Bank inhabitants, is not ideal, it’s the only realistic option in the short term — and given the Palestinians’ predilection for victimology and rejectionism, which has been mightily encouraged by the Obami, it might be what we are going to see for a very long time.

Hillary Clinton at AIPAC last month was clearly in a defensive mode, trying to burnish her own credentials as a friend of Israel. At that time, the American Jewish community was nervous but persuadable. So she tried to assuage them with a jaw-droppingly disingenuous recitation of Obama policy and assurance that the relationship was “rock solid.” We are way beyond that now, and virtually none of the 7,000-plus people in that convention hall would today buy her spin. One wonders how she feels being the errand girl for a president who has thrown overboard the intimate U.S.-Israel relationship and seemingly done the impossible — rile up American Jewry against a liberal president. Does she worry her legacy will bear the scars of Obama’s Israel animus? Does she care? Or like Scarlett, she’ll worry about it another day? After all, the potential Obama legacy — a nuclear-armed Iran and serious damage to the U.S.-Israel relationship — will be hers as well.

Uncle Jay Explains: Insightful as Ever

Ben Steyn in 1976: Current as ever

Editor's note: Back in 1976, when Gerald Ford was President, Ben Stein, then a consultant on Washington and conservatism for the Normal Lear show All's Fair, sent this memorandum to its creators:

What I don't like is the way rich liberals, who have made their money through the operations of the capitalist system and who would be miserable bureaucratic cogs in a socialist system, are nevertheless socialists. I suspect that a large part of their motivation is a style of asceticism which has been fashionable among the rich since the time of the Pharisees. Another motivation for the rich liberals to dislike the capitalist system is that they have already gotten theirs and they don't want to be challenged by other people coming along and getting theirs.

I don't like the way liberals of any income group assume that they have a monopoly on morality and that the only conscionable position on issues is their position. A sanctimoniousness runs in the liberal mind which is a direct descendant of the Calvinist assuredness of moral superiority. Liberals assume that any challenge to their position comes from impure motives, often motivations having to do with "profit and loss" instead of the "human" factors that liberals allegedly consider. I resent the assumption of liberals that only they truly understand human needs and suffering.

I especially resent the claims of white liberals that they know best about how to solve the problems of the poor and the black. There is hardly any evidence that liberal programs to help the poor and the black have done much good. The ordinary operations of the capitalist system, however, have made enormous gains economically for the poor and the black. Liberals don't seem to understand that if they take a dollar from one person and give it to another, there is rarely any benefit. If the economic system produces new dollars for everyone, everyone benefits.

Liberals who send their children to private schools while advocating busing are particularly distasteful. The liberals who plead for integration of someone else's children are particularly blind to their hypocrisy.

I resent the notion that everything that corporations do is wrong and everything that "people" do is right. Liberals don't understand that corporations are people. They are the people who work for the corporation, buy its products, and own its stock. There is no mechanical person who is benefited if corporations make a good profit. Real people benefit, just as real people lose when corporations lose money.

I don't like it particularly when liberals say that more money for this or that project can come out of profits. Most people don't realize that profits are small parts of total earnings for most companies and that without the profits, people, even liberals, wouldn't invest their money. And there is nothing wrong with big profits. It's a sign of good management and creativity, which are rewarded in the artistic sphere as they should be in the management area. And the stockholders who get the dividends for those profits are often widows and orphans and most often of all, pension funds. The liberals' idea that profits all go into buying Balmain gowns is just dangerous nonsense.

I resent the influence that liberals have gotten over our educational system. Even in those schools which are other than jungles of fear, students don't learn anything. Liberal parents and teachers who have seized control of the schools teach "Sensitivity" and ''Interpersonal Relations" to children who barely know how to read and write because the basics have been so badly neglected. Students will have more in life if they know how to read and write than if they have had "peer group effectiveness" training. Children who are without financial resources are not being done any favors if they are not taught how to perform the basic skills with which to earn a living.

I resent the idea that labor unions are the workingman's best friend. Unions too often just represent the organized few and raise their wages so high that the unorganized many cannot find work. Unions are just monopolies by another name. They control the wages and place them at a level where employers can only hire a relative few. When the others who are unable to find work want a friend, they cannot even get into the union.

Similarly, I get mad especially about the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a device guaranteeing that those people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage will remain unemployed. It does not raise any one's real wage because if an employee were worth the minimum wage, he would have been paid it already. For example, every time the minimum wage is raised or its coverage broadened, the number of unemployed black teenagers rises dramatically. They are people who are largely unskilled and if they are to be hired at all it will have to be at low wages. But the minimum wage law does not allow employers to hire them at the wage they're worth, so they are not hired at all. Liberals should ask black people in the ghetto what they think of the minimum wage.

I am annoyed at the condescending way liberals look at religion and patriotism. Both of those are forces which make a people work and sacrifice for others and are genuine altruistic forces. Yet liberals scoff at them. Liberals should try to think whether this country could have been built without a sense of mission greater than the love of government money. In fact, liberals ought to think whether or not their own feelings do not constitute a religion of sorts before they make fun of others' religious practices. They might consider whether or not they have a double standard for people who think like they do as compared to people who have different thoughts. This problem of double standards runs through the liberal mind, in fact. The liberals think nothing of lavishing praise on China, which has put millions to death for political reasons and runs the tightest thought control in history. But they scream bloody murder if a government allied with us, with a thriving and open political system, closes a newspaper for a week. This double standard can also apply closer to home. There are too many liberals who care deeply and sincerely for the disadvantaged across the seas, while they cannot bring themselves to say a kind word to a secretary or to some unfortunate staff person who works under them.

Other examples of the liberals' double standard are their attitude towards criminals. Their hearts bleed without limit for the poor misguided youth who has just killed or raped or beaten a perfectly innocent person but they don't care a damn about the victims of the crime. If you look carefully at our cities today, the worst thing about them is that they have become unlivable because people are terrified of street crime. A major reason for that is that liberal attitudes towards punishing crime simply return criminals to the streets because of trifling technicalities or mischievous schemes that place the happiness of the prisoner above the safety of the public.

The liberal attitude about welfare is also worth getting furious about. They are tender and sympathetic towards the mother of ten illegitimate children who is being supported by the taxpayers through Aid to Families of Dependent Children. Who said that that woman should be allowed to make so many mistakes and then have the state make up her losses? The liberal doesn't care about the working poor who might want to have another child but don't because they can't pay for the child. But for the irresponsible people who live off welfare, there is endless sympathy.

That is yet another aspect of the double standard, and there are more. The liberal wants to make a state in which people who have worked hard and abided by the rules are taxed to death to pay for those who do not work at anything except reproducing themselves. The liberal wants a state in which the lower- and middle-middle classes bear the brunt of all social change, while the liberals sit back with their union pay, or university pay, or inherited pay, or money they have gotten from the system they hate, and watch the action.

Another instance of the liberals' lack of concern with real compassion is their attitude about environmental issues. No one doubts that there are important environmental problems. But there are also people whose jobs depend on taking a close look at environmental issues and not running off half-cocked whenever a cockroach is threatened. Trees may have rights, but they don't have as many rights as people.

I resent the liberals' looking the other way whenever there is a threat to decency or peace from the Communist nations and refusing to take seriously threats to our security from countries and movements which openly plan to destroy us. It is the most pious and dangerous nonsense to think that the Soviets are deterred from dominating the entire world by anything but force. Moral suasion has never accomplished a thing against the Communists, yet that is all liberals want us to have in our arsenal. They would have a disarmed and vulnerable America, trusting to the goodwill of people who have no goodwill.

Liberals, seemingly, will spend money on anything except what is absolutely essential for the entire system to continue -- a strong defense. Their blindness to that need is something I actually marvel at. There is seemingly no lesson which will teach liberals that a strong America is a free America except actual domination by the Soviets, and that may be happening.

In a similar vein, I resent the way liberals condescend to people in the military as mentally inferior warmongers and brutes. In fact, the military has plenty of decent, concerned people. They have to suffer the most if there is war, so they are most sober about the need to deter it.

I resent also a kind of cultural imperialism which dominates liberal thought. Liberals tend to put down any cultural force, such as television, which has not been anointed by some kind of special holy water which can only be conferred by the elites of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Manhattan. Rock is lowlife and fascistic, but tennis elbow from playing in a court that cost $40 an hour in Manhattan is deeply "in." Television is beneath discussing in serious terms according to your really important liberals, but ballet and the opera, which can only be seen by the rich few and which the great mass of people find boring, are immensely significant.

I resent the liberals' belief that all American greatness began with JFK and ended with him.

I resent the liberals' idea that the average American is a savage.

I resent the constant liberal putdown of what is American and praise of what is foreign.

I resent the liberals' idea that great ideas always come from the big cities and that small towns are only suitable for summer homes, that the countryside is peopled by dolts looking to shoot every person with long hair that they see.…

"Experts" say that Planet Earth will survive Eyjafjallajokull

This is fascinating. Reading in Slate about the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull, I came across the following paragraph:

How will the Icelandic eruption affect the climate?

Probably not significantly, but it's too early to say. The ash and sulfur dioxide ejected in a volcanic eruption can block the sun's rays from reaching the earth. The most important predictors of how much an eruption will impact the weather are ash volume, column height, and duration. These three factors help determine where an eruption falls on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, which runs from 0 ("non-explosive") to 8 ("mega-colossal"). We don't know how the Icelandic eruption will score, but volcanoes in the area rarely clear a 1 ("gentle").

Let us see. If I barbecue a hamburger in my backyard, use the air conditioner or drive a car I am contributing to global warming. Tons of sulfur dioxide and and ash will not. Got to love those leftist scientist with degrees in women studies and political science when they discuss climatology.

In the news...

Since the iPad is in the news, we have this video on the impact it has had on cats.

**********

The great Placido Domingo was diagnosed with cancer. This citizen of the world, who could have selected any place in the world for his surgery, chose the good ole’ USA. He was successfully operated in New York by greedy doctors, in a greedy hospital. The same type of surgery that saved Mr. Domingo’s life is performed in this hospital routinely on patients on Medicaid or Medicare.

************

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

                                                                               Larry Summers, advisor to Barak Obama

**********

Henry “KGB” Waxman, folded like a cheap camera and cancelled the hearings he had scheduled to crucify CEO’s of large corporations, who complying with the law announced how much Obamacare was going to cost them.

We all heard in the news when Waxman and Stupack stood up to the “greedy” corporations, but the mainstream media greeted the cancellation mostly with silence. They seemed reluctant to report that:

An April 14 memorandum from the Committee on Energy and Commerce Majority Staff informed the Democratic hounds that the "companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission in March and April." Indeed, after haggling about the overall impact of the health care mandate on firms' annual company cash flows, the staff memo acknowledged that notifying shareholders of these big one-time company write-downs was "required" by law.

Read Michelle Malkin’s article

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article concerning Obama’s posturing on nuclear issues. Obama’s last meeting with heads of states from forty-seven countries has saved us from ever being nuked by Canada, Mexico or the Ukraine. Iran and North Korea did not participate. They must be terrified of Obama. He might bloviate them to death.

Read Krauthammer’s article

No U.S. Flag in Haiti's American Compound

Cubans don't hesitate to fly the flag in Haiti

The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.
France’s tricolor, Britain’s Union Jack and even Croatia’s coat of arms flap in the breeze.

But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world’s — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.

The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.

The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.

“We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery,” the U.S. government’s Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

I don't know, but somehow I cannot help but feel that Haitians would be dancing in the streets if the Uited States occupied this cursed island.

Happy Tax Day!

Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Israel

A report in today’s New York Times explains the shift in policy towards Israel that the Obama administration is implementing. Reading this article is frightening, because we see Obama stating that the Arab-Israeli conflict is “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” This canard used by the anti-Israeli left is libelous and dangerous. What does Obama mean by costing American blood? When was the last time an American soldier died defending Israel? Or is Obama one of those who think that September 11 would not have occurred if the Palestinians had a state.

Does he think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought because of Israel? The Islamic Revolution in Iran, Saddam Hussein, Hezballah, the rise of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Yemen, OPEC, Sudan, Somalia, massacres in Indonesia, bombings in Bali, London, Madrid and Moscow, Islamic terrorism in the Philippines, are but some samples of terrorism and conflicts that have nothing to do with Israel.

Without a shift in policy or arm-twisting by the U.S., Israel was ready to give the Palestinians 97% of what they request. Ask former president Clinton what was Arafat’s response. Finally, Obama and his State Department should stop referring to construction in East Jerusalem as settlement building. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and not a piece of land up for negotiations.

Well, if American supporters of Israel get ulcers over the new policies of Obama towards Israel, at least they will have Obamacare.

Read Article in The New York Times

In the United Kingdom, regulators for the Advertising Standard Agency have prohibited the use pictures of the Wailing Wall in Israeli tourism ads because they are deemed as misleading and as giving the impression that the Wailing Wall is in Israel when it actually is in "occupied territory."

Read Article

Ronald Lauder and WJC Stand Up to Obama

15 April 2010

Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.” This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this: what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety. Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel? Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace. But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above. Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy. It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people. In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Yours sincerely,
Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

SEIU: A union of thugs.

SEIU thugs dirupt a meeting of healthcare workers at a cafeteria. This is the union that Obama is proud to be associated with and whose president is one of Obama's closest advisors.

April 15 is Around the Corner

John Stossel on the complexity of our tax code:

It's that joyous time of year: income tax time. So I spend time with my accountant. I don't want to see him, but I must. I could not do what he's doing. The tax code has grown so complex that today most Americans hire someone to do their taxes.

For the money I pay my accountant, I could get a hundred massages. I could buy a fancy motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship to Venice and back.

Better yet, I could do some good in the world. I could pay for two Habitat for Humanity homes or help three kids escape government schools by paying their tuition at a good Catholic school.

What a shame that I pay my accountant instead.

How'd we get to this point? U.S taxes were once simple! The government funded itself on tariffs and excise taxes. It didn't violate our privacy by asking us how much we made or how many dependents we have.

But in 1913, the politicians decided they needed an income tax.

At first, they took little money: just 1 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. Those were big incomes -- adjusted for inflation, $50,000 is $1.1 million today. The top bracket paid 6 percent, but that only applied to people who earned at least $11 million. Anyone who made less than $400,000 paid no income tax.

But leave the amounts aside. The increase in complexity is just as evil.

In 1913, the first tax form and instructions totaled four simple pages. Today's 1040, with instructions, totals 176 pages. How did this happen? Because politicians win votes by giving gifts to favored groups.

On my FBN show tomorrow, I'll show clips of the pandering legislators applauding themselves for offering tax credits to special interests. The favored groups cheer their tax breaks, but the result is that everyone else pays more, and everyone must spend more time deciphering the rules.

And with every credit, the tax code gets more complicated. The code is now 3,784,745 words long, not counting the 2009 and 2010 changes. It will get worse in the future.

Americans spend more than 7 billion hours trying to comply, according to a forthcoming study from the National Taxpayer Union (NTU) (www.ntu.org).

"That is the equivalent of 3.7 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round without any vacation. That's more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies," writes David Keating in the NTU study.

"Counting time and money for individual taxpayers, the compliance burden would total an incredible $103 billion for individual taxpayers alone."

That doesn't include the time spent doing state and local forms, or more important: the burden of "tax minimization strategies" on the economy.

And we haven't even mentioned the corporate income tax. But don't worry. The IRS stands ready to assist the bewildered. "If a taxpayer needs help beyond the basic form," Keating writes, "the IRS now lists 1,909 publications, forms, and instructions for download (some are duplicates in different languages) from its Web site -- up from the 1,770 NTU logged last year." Thanks a lot, IRS.

This is insane. How dare a government that supposedly serves the people impose on us this way? Politicians who pass these tax laws aren't our representatives. They're our rulers! They increase the tax burden and its complexity, and then demand we pay them homage to get exemptions for little pieces of our lives.

What are we to do? Some people say scrap the income tax for the Fair Tax, a national sales tax. Others want a flat income tax of, maybe, 17 percent. One form; no deductions.

There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax -- or worse, a value-added tax -- would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too.

Let's not take our eye off the ball: lower and much simpler taxes.

Anti-Israel Demonstations in France: Posted by Tom Gross

Prominent anti-Israel demonstrations are continuing on a regular basis in France. The one in the video below, from two weeks ago, is against the fashion chain H&M, because they opened stores last month in Tel Aviv’s Azrieli mall and in the Malcha mall in west Jerusalem. But the boycotters wrongly claim they have opened a store “in East Jerusalem on land stolen from the Palestinians.”

If you listen to the ugly chants, this is one of the more disturbing “boycott” videos I have posted over the years, and the lies contained in it amount to a virtual incitement on the streets of Paris to murder Israelis.

Shame, Shame on H&M ! from belkacem on Vimeo.

Homeland security?

This is a spoof on Homeland Security.  Probaly closer to the truth than we think.

Interesting that liberals are laughing and saying that this video shows how the security bureaucracy works.  Why do they think that the bureucracy in charge of healthcare will be better?

Ed Koch: Obama's Treatment of Israel is Shocking

President Obama's abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president's meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to."

I have not heard or read statements criticizing the president by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand or many other supporters of Israel for his blatantly hostile attitude toward Israel and his discourtesy displayed at the White House. President Obama orchestrated the hostile statements of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced by Biden in Israel and by Clinton in a 43-minute telephone call to Bibi Netanyahu, and then invited the latter to the White House to further berate him. He then left Prime Minister Netanyahu to have dinner at the White House with his family, conveying he would only be available to meet again if Netanyahu had further information - read concessions - to impart.

It is unimaginable that the President would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion. That there are policy differences between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government is no excuse. Allies often disagree, but remain respectful.

In portraying Israel as the cause of the lack of progress in the peace process, President Obama ignores the numerous offers and concessions that Israel has made over the years for the sake of peace, and the Palestinians' repeated rejections of those offers. Not only have Israel's peace proposals, which include ceding virtually the entire West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, been rejected, but each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity, and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu's agreement to suspend construction on the West Bank - a move heralded by Secretary of State Clinton as unprecedented by an Israeli government - has now led to a demand that Israel also halt all construction in East Jerusalem, which is part of Israel's capital. Meanwhile, Palestinians are upping the ante, with violent protests in Jerusalem and elsewhere. And the Obama administration's request that our Arab allies make some conciliatory gesture towards Israel has fallen on deaf ears.

Prior American presidents, beginning with Truman who recognized the State of Israel in 1948, have valued Israel as a close ally and have often come to its rescue. For example, it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

President George W. Bush made it a point of protecting Israel at the United Nations and the Security Council wielding the U.S. veto against the unfair actions and sanctions that Arab countries sought to impose to cripple and, if possible, destroy, the one Jewish nation in the world. Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did - protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

To its credit, Congress, according to the Daily News, has acted differently towards Prime Minister Netanyahu than President Obama. Reporter Richard Sisk wrote on March 24th, "Congress put on a rare show of bipartisanship for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday - a sharp contrast to his chilly reception at the White House. ‘We in Congress stand by Israel,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a beaming Netanyahu, who has refused to budge on White House and State Department demands to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank."

But Congress does not make foreign policy. It can prevent military arms from going to Israel, but cannot send them. Congress has no role in determining U.S. policy at the U.N. Security Council. The President of the United States determines our foreign policy - nearly unilaterally - under our Constitution. So those Congressional bipartisan wishes of support, while welcome, will not protect Israel in these areas, only the President can do that. Based on his actions to date, I have serious doubts.

In the 1930s, the Jewish community and its leadership, with few exceptions, were silent when their coreligionists were being attacked, hunted down, incarcerated and slaughtered. Ultimately 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The feeling in the U.S. apparently was that Jews who criticized our country's actions and inactions that endangered the lives of other Jews would be considered disloyal, unpatriotic and displaying dual loyalty, so many Jews stayed mute. Never again should we allow that to occur. We have every right to be concerned about the fate of the only Jewish nation in the world, which if it had existed during the 1930s and thereafter, would have given sanctuary to any Jew escaping the Nazi holocaust and taken whatever military action it could to save Jews not yet in the clutches of the Nazis. We who have learned the lessons of silence, Jews and Christians alike, must speak up now before it is too late.

So I ask again, where are our Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand? And, where are the voices, not only of the 31 members of the House and 14 Senators who are Jewish, but the Christian members of the House and Senate who support the State of Israel? Where are the peoples' voices? Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, so familiar that I will not recite them, except for the last line, "Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."

Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama - 78 percent of the Jewish community did - believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel's enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

Not Funny

The New Jersey teacher’s union has sent a memo to its members discussing the latest conflict between the union and Governor Christie. The memo concluded with the following quote:

"Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

For months now we have had reports and analysis concerning the hate spewed by the Tea Party. However, the Tea Party cannot hold a candle to the left when it comes to spewing hate. The mainstream media will chuckle and shrug its collective shoulders. Teachers only want a Republican governor dead. Doesn’t everyone?

By the way, the union didn’t even have the creative juices to come with something original. This stupid joke has been circulating on the net for months.

Clever April Fools Day Prank

Clever April Fools prank by a college professor.

The Road the Third Worldism

The road to Third Worldism under Obama is here.  Yesterday NASA announced that it had signed a contract with the Russian space agency to shuttle US astronauts to the orbiting International Space Station.  

So now, we in the United States depend on a cleptocracy run by the former KGB to place American astronauts in orbit.  Well, at least we still make American hamburgers at McDonalds and Burger King.  JFK and Ronald Reagan must be turning in their graves.

The radical lawyer William Kunstler used to say that he uses the system to destroy the system.  Obama is no different.

This is the correct answer...

Another person to give a correct answer was Obama's adviser Paul Volcker who stated yesterday that to fight the budget deficit the U.S. should consider a European style value added tax (VAT).

This is how you get "free" health care.

Read Reuters Report

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406

You Picked a Fine Time to Lead us, Barack by Jonathan McWhite

We must laugh every once in a while:

The Unintend Consequences of Socialized Medicine

So you think that requiring health insurance companies to accept costumers with preexisting conditions is fair and just? The Boston Globe reports on some unintended consequences:

Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.

In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe.

The typical monthly premium for these short-term members was $400, but their average claims exceeded $2,200 per month. The previous year, the company’s data show it had even more high-spending, short-term members. Over those two years, the figures suggest the price tag ran into the millions.

If Mitt Romney runs in 2012, he will have some explaining to do concerning the Massachusetts plan. 
Read Article in The Boston Globe

The Tea Party: An interesting perspective form James Taranto in Best of the Web

Strange New Respect
A drastic shift in the media stereotype of the tea-party movement.
By James Taranto

There was a time, oh, a week or two ago, when the mainstream media portrayed the tea-party movement as an assortment of crazed angry extremist redneck racist idiots. What changed?

The headline we've given this column is a phrase coined by the conservative writer Tom Bethell to refer to the media's attitude toward conservatives who veer leftward. What we're about to describe is a bit different: more an epiphany on the media's part than a change in the object of coverage. It seems unlikely that the tea-partiers have suddenly become mainstream.

Yet that's what you'd think from reading some of the recent coverage. The Christian Science Monitor, which a month ago baselessly labeled Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell a "right-wing extremist," begins a Saturday story by rehearsing the stereotypes but then cautions that "political experts say that many such criticisms are near-sighted, if not outright inappropriate--and ultimately may miss the point":

Indeed, polls suggest that tea party activists are not only more mainstream than many critics suggest, but that a majority of them are women (primarily mothers), not angry white men.

What's more, the release this week of the top three planks of the "crowd-sourced" Contract From America project, to some activists, shows a maturation from sign-wielding protesters to a political reform movement grounded in ideas.

The top three vote-getters among 360,000 respondents on the Contract From America website: Calling for an enumerated powers act to force lawmakers to check the constitionality [sic] of new laws; requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress for any tax hike; and a legislative backstop to prevent the EPA from "backdoor regulating."

CNN--which became notorious a year ago for its hostile coverage of the movement, including the use of antigay slurs--carries a report titled "Disgruntled Democrats Join the Tea Party":

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past -- some even voted for Democratic candidates--are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party--a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it's not formally aligned with the Republican Party.


To be sure, the number of Democrats in the Tea Party movement is small. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that while 96 percent of Tea Party activists identify themselves as either Republican or Independent, only 4 percent say they are Democrats.

Another poll, however, suggests this is less of a dog-bites-man story than CNN makes it out to be. "Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey," reports the Hill:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

What truly sets the Tea Party apart from even Republicans or conservatives broadly is its commitment to economic conservatism. Tea Party members, like voters overall, are very focused on the economy and jobs; some 36 percent say it is their top issue. Yet while only 6 percent of voters overall say that the national deficit and spending are their top issues, that number spikes to 21 percent among Tea Party members.

The Tea Party is a movement defined by its preference for fiscal restraint and low taxes. Presented with two competing proposals to create jobs, over four out of five Tea Party members say tax cuts for small business will create more jobs than increased government spending on infrastructure. When the options were expanded, tax cuts still were chosen as the top job creator, but are closely followed by "expanding development of all energy resources." Interestingly enough, the next runner up--"cracking down on illegal immigration"--was not more popular among Tea Party members (19 percent) than voters overall (16 percent).

When it comes down to it, the Tea Party does not appear to be focused on economic conservatism as an end in and of itself. When asked in the January survey if they favored "reducing unemployment to 5 percent" or balancing the budget, 63 percent chose reducing unemployment--a negligible difference from the 64% of voters overall who agree. Jobs are the goal--items like tax cuts and balanced budgets are a means to achieve that goal.

It all adds up to a remarkably broad-based and nonideological movement--one that has gained strength as the Democrats who currently run Washington have proved themselves to be narrow and ideological. Had President Obama governed from the center--above all, had he heeded public opinion and abandoned his grandiose plans to transform America, he might well have held the allegiance of many of the people who now sympathize with the tea party.

How is it that the media's approach has changed so dramatically in just the past couple of weeks? Perhaps the Democrats simply went too far when they claimed that tea-party protesters had shouted racial slurs at black congressmen during the ObamaCare weekend. The media, of course, repeated these claims, but no evidence has surfaced to corroborate them, and Andrew Breitbart makes a very good case for skepticism:

The proof that the N-word wasn't said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed, is that soon thereafter--even though the press dutifully reported it as truth--Nancy Pelosi followed the alleged hate fest, which allegedly included someone spitting, by walking through the crowd with a gavel in hand and a sh---eating grin on her face. Had the incidents reported by the Congressional Black Caucus actually occurred the Capitol Police would have been negligent to allow the least popular person to that crowd--the Speaker--to put herself in harm's way.

Reader Taylor Dinerman notes: "Part of the function of a political media operation is to make the other side despair, lose hope, feel bad, etc. It's one of the reasons I gave up reading the New York Times. In one of Isaac Asimov's Empire series, he describes a drug called 'desperance' whose function is to make whoever takes it despair and be ready to kill or commit suicide. The bad guys feed it to someone they intend to use to murder the galactic emperor."

Tales of tea-party racism could have been calculated to demoralize America's anti-ObamaCare majority by presenting them with an ugly choice: accept the fate the Democrats have imposed upon us, or side with (as the Christian Science Monitor puts it) "neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies." The strange new respect for the tea-party movement suggests that this approach is too invidiously partisan even for the mainstream media.

In the news...

The Washington Post reports that Obama concluded a questions-and-answers session with workers in North Carolina with a seventeen minutes response to a question about over-taxation.  This reminded me of my worst professors in college.  The less they new and the more wrong they were, the longer their answers.

Read Article

Since the beginning of the year, three mentally ill persons who worked for Euro Disney have committed suicide. Instead of blaming it on the mental state of the workers, the head of their union blamed it on working conditions at the resort. "It's all about profit, profit, profit" said Mr. Mboe, the union president. 

Hey genious, how do you thing that they can pay your members?

I guess a 50% raise in salary, and a 20 hours week could contribute to eliminating depression and suicidal tendencies.

Read Article

Chavez has asked Putin for nuclear and space technology. The petty dictator, who cannot deliver electricity to his people, wants to go Hi Tech.

But we shouldn’t worry about nuclear weapons. Obama will not allow nuclear proliferation in South America. If needed, he will do to Venezuela what he is doing to Iran.

Read Article

"The Island Will Tip Over..."

This is a video of Rep. Hank Johnson, Gergia Democrat.  To call him a moron would be an insult to morons who probably have higher IQs than he does.  Poor America!  To have such a person in the House of Representatives.