Wow.

I’d like to tell you about a Commonsense Conservative running for office in California this year. She grew up in a modest home with a school teacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread. Through a combination of hard work, perseverance, and common sense, she proved the naysayers wrong to reach the top of her field, where she led with distinction – facing hard truths, making tough decisions, and showing real leadership through a rocky transition period. Where others had failed, her company had weathered the storm and settled on a stronger new foundation.

Her name is Carly Fiorina, and IÂ’m proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.

Carly is the Commonsense Conservative that California needs and our country could sure use in these trying times. Most importantly, sheÂ’s running for the right reasons. She has an understanding that is sorely lacking in D.C. SheÂ’s not a career politician. SheÂ’s a businesswoman who has run a major corporation. She knows how to really incentivize job creation. Her fiscal conservatism is rooted in real life experience. She knows that when government grows, the private sector shrinks under the burden of debt and deficits. We can trust Carly to do the right thing for AmericaÂ’s economy and to make the principled decisions she has throughout her professional career.

You know who this helps? Not Chuck DeVore.

I have to say, I'm shocked.

First, I thought DeVore was the base favorite out there. Did I miss something?

Second, Palin seemed to be staying away from places where she could be, um, radioactive. I'm pretty sure California is as unfriendly an area for her as you are going to find. I'm guess Firoina figures she'll win the primary first and figure out how to work her link to Palin out with CA independents and persuadable Democrats later.

Via Tapper.

UPDATE: From the same Facebook entry.

IÂ’d like to add a few things about my Carly endorsement because some reaction right out of the chute calls for more information:

Carly has been endorsed by the National Right to Life, the California Pro-Life Council, and the Susan B. Anthony List. She is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-military, and pro-strict border security and against amnesty. She is against Obamacare and will vote to repeal it and prevent the government takeover of private companies and industries. Carly is also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Like me, she is a member of the NRA, has a 100% NRA rating, and she and her husband are gun owners. She is pro-energy development and believes as I do in an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. She is against cap and tax. And most importantly, Carly is the only conservative in the race who can beat Barbara Boxer. ThatÂ’s no RINO. ThatÂ’s a winner.

Obviously there was quite a bit of push back from Palin supporters.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:46 AM | Comments (141)
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

It was insensitive to Mexican-American students (though the part after the hyphen is questionable. Yeah, I just questioned their patriotism, to American at least).

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.

..."I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

We really need to change the terms of the immigration debate. It's not just about legal vs. illegal but assimilation. I think that's stronger ground anyway. Most people are ok with ethnic pride but not with this kind of American rejectionism.

Every open borders, pro-illegal immigration office holder should be forced to denounce this, make a wedge issue for them and then force them to face the fact this is the result of their 'mosaic' not 'melting pot' approach to immigration.
Yeah, culture wars suck. The right is also not very good at them and we lost it the first time around. If we can figure out how to communicate our stand for what they are, love of American values and not rejection of others, it just might be time for a rematch. We're going to be called 'racist' and 'xenophobes' anyway, might as well try to do some good while being attacked.

I think I saw this first from Slublog.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:43 AM | Comments (413)
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Wait, you can watch porn for free? On the internet? Why, I had no notion of such a thing. I'm sure you didn't either. At least during working hours.

It seems you can in fact watch porn on the internet (again, I'm shocked!) but if you watch it on some shady free site, you're taking food out of the mouths of the men and women, all upstanding citizens who work, um, hard, to bring you high quality, professional adult entertainment. Well, they aren't going to, um, lay down and take it anymore!

“When you illegally download any type of content, you make it harder for the artists and performers you enjoy to make a living,” says actress Sinnamon Love in the two-minute spot. According to industry figures, sales of adult DVDs are falling at twice the rate of Hollywood’s, due in large part to piracy on the Web.

Of particular concern to the industry are torrent sites and so-called “tube” sites, which mimic the functionality of YouTube, but with adult films, often stolen from other sites. “While the performers, artists, producers and retailers are losing money, the guys that run the illegal tube and torrent sites are making money,” Jeremy explains in the spot.

“We produced these PSAs hoping they will start a public dialogue on the ways illegal downloading and content theft have a tremendously negative impact on the adult industry,” said FSC membership director Joanne Cachapero, in a statement.

You freeloaders should be ashamed of yourselves!

Clearly these tough economic times, along with advancements in technology have created serious challenges for the once thriving adult video entertainment industry have taken a toll. And when I say 'technology' I mean HD. Seriously, guys a little more lighting might make some of that go away. Again, not that I know that's a problem, it's what I hear.

Clearly we need a federal bailout program! more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:31 AM | Comments (294)
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

Not the one about the birds and the bees but the one about where the relationship is going. Nobody wants to have that talk but earlier this week Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put the Navy on noticeÂ…things are going to change.

GatesÂ’ speech to the Navy League created quite a stir in the military blogosphere, especially the NavyÂ’s corner of it. Since IÂ’ve been complaining about how our national conversation about defense has been mostly devoted to DonÂ’t Ask, DonÂ’t Tell and social engineering the sub force, I figured this was a chance to change that a bit.

After running through the Navy/Marine Corps list of advantagesÂ…largest and most technologically advanced (by several orders of magnitude) carrier, large deck amphibs, surface and sub fleets along with the largest naval infantry service in the world, Gates more or less asks, when is enough enough or in fact too much?

Potential adversaries are well-aware of our overwhelming conventional advantage – which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the us to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought race before World War I.

Instead, potential adversaries are investing in weapons designed to neutralize U.S. advantages – to deny our military freedom of action while potentially threatening America’s primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.

We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet. At the low end, Hezbollah, a non-state actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region.

At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, the virtual monopoly the U.S. has enjoyed with precision guided weapons is eroding – especially with long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can potentially strike from over the horizon. This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 to $20 billion set of hardware at risk. The U.S. will also face increasingly sophisticated underwater combat systems – including numbers of stealthy subs – all of which could end the operational sanctuary our Navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades

ThereÂ’s certainly a case to be made for staying ahead of the curve against future threats but Gates seems to be discounting our current advantages compared to some unidentified potential threats (which he admits canÂ’t be predicted). He seems to be operating under the assumption that Somali pirates and Hezbollah are going to be major threats to the Navy in the future and not peer or near peer threats like, oh I donÂ’t know, China (a name not mentioned once in the speech but whose shadow certainly hung over it).

As Bryan McGrath argues at Information Dissemination, China isnÂ’t just trying to deny the US freedom of access but carve out their own space.

…Numbers count, and they are on a building blitz. Here’s a peek from Ron O’Rourke at what the Chinese are doing in building submarines: “Between 1995 and 2007, China placed into service a total of 38 submarines of all kinds, or an average of about 2.9 submarines per year. This average commissioning rate, if sustained indefinitely, would eventually result in a steady-state submarine force of 58 to 88 boats of all kinds, assuming an average submarine life of 20 to 30 years”. Just modernizing? Chinese surface shipbuilding programs are even more aggressive. Finally, given China’s growing and dynamic economy, it isn’t apparent that they WOULD bankrupt themselves in challenging us, at least as far as the terms of such a challenge are conducted today.

Yes, defending against a threat from China or another upstart power is expensive but itÂ’s a lot cheaper than actually fighting one you arenÂ’t prepared for or worse, one you let grow because they saw an opening. Granted none is on the horizon but these kinds of discussions involve looking out 20-30 years. All of you who predicted the US would spend 8+ years fighting wars/counterinsurgencies in two Asian countries back in 1985 raise your hands. Yeah, exactly. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:57 AM | Comments (258)
Post contains 1785 words, total size 12 kb.

Do I have a problem with this? I don't think I do.

The senator, who spoke first to Fox about this on Tuesday, referred to a 1940's era law that states that citizens fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the U.S. renounce their citizenship. "I think it's time to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore deprived of rights that come with that citizenship."

Lieberman, according to an aide, plans to amend that law to add those who are part of a terrorist organization. Currently, 8 USC 1481 reads, "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing" the following act, among others, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

I'm not familiar with the 1940s law, I assume it was put in place as a response to concerns about Japanese, German or Italian-Americans that actively aided our enemies during the war. The thing about this that I find intriguing is that Joe is underlining the concept of "terrorism and terrorist acts against US citizens is an 'act of war'". It also has to have some impact on the concept of trying terrorists in US courts, doesn't it? (at least I think that's the point, but discuss and put me some f'n knowledge).

Happy Thursday morons.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:23 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Wisdom from PowerLine's Paul Mirengoff in response to WaPo's Kathleen Parker:

Parker's answer is: "if good-faith conservative legislators such as Bennett fail to pass muster, who will be brave enough to legislate?" But legislation is not an end, it is a means to an end. For conservatives, the end is a society characterized by free markets, limited government, and individual liberty. Thus, conservatives quite rightly will tend to vote for those candidates who most consistently stand for these principles.

Parker is fretting because it's looking increasingly likely that three-term Utah Senator Robert Bennett is about to lose the Republican primary to outsider Mike Lee. A lot of that has to do with Bennett's vote for TARP. He also supported a healthcare reform proposal with an insurance mandate. Parker laments the loss of "good-faith conservative legislators" like Bennett.

But there is no get-out-of-the-primary card for "good-faith" politicians. He did some things that conservatives in Utah don't like and now he's getting the hook. Good for them. That's why Senators aren't elected for life terms.

Parker also re-writes the TARP debate, whining ""Would all those running against TARP now have voted against it had they been in Washington with the full weight of economic collapse on their shoulders?" All of them? No. (But I'd hope they'd learn from their mistake.) Some of them? You bet. Many people opposed the TARP, including me.

In the end, Bennett's high ACU score doesn't mean anything if his constituents want to put an even more consistently conservative senator in his seat. In red state Utah, they can do that. There's no Tea Party spoiling this race. That's got to be frustrating Parker without end.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:20 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:58 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

An idea simultaneously popped up on several Lefty blogs earlier today (which means it will probably be in the opinion pages of the Washington Post and the NY Times by the weekend). No links for idiots, but the short version is that some Lefties are upset that the legacy media is not giving enough attention to Aliou Niasse, the t-shirt vendor who first alerted the NYPD to the Times Square carbomb. They're particularly steamed that the media isn't trumpeting the man's religious background and national origin. It seems that Niasse is a Muslim immigrant from Senegal and these bloggers are taking the opportunity to pontificate on the overlooked "good samaritanism" of Muslims.

This stupid idea suffers from four fatal defects. First, Niasse has been recognized in every major newspaper in the country and on all the broadcast and cable news networks. So let's not pretend this is simply about giving credit to an Average Joe.

Second, the reason the Left is raising it is because Niasse is Muslim. If he were Catholic or Jewish or atheist his religion or lack thereof wouldn't matter, but the Left is very interested in seeing that it is made clear that a Muslim man helped stop Islamic terrorism.

Let me translate: the Left really want the legacy media to congratulate a member of the Muslim community because despite his faith he didn't simply stand around and let a carbomb kill people. Really, that's the story these Lefty bloggers are pushing. Otherwise there's no point in bringing up his religion. And they say that we're the ones with a repugnant view of Islam...

Third, this idea relies on the logical impossibility that Niasse knew he was helping stop Muslim terrorism. There's no way he could have known that. I suppose he could have assumed that a carbombing was likely to be perpetrated by Muslims, but I doubt very much the Lefty blogs will appreciate that line of reasoning.

Finally, you don't get bonus points for doing the right thing. Niasse was in danger himself. Of course, he went to the NYPD. He's a t-shirt vendor in Times Square and Times Square was under attack. The Left seems to believe that this fellow did something heroic, but in fact he simply noticed smoke coming from a running vehicle and flagged down a nearby police officer. I'm glad he did, but it was hardly out of the ordinary. I would expect the same from anyone, regardless of their race, religion, nationality, or political ideology. Indeed, that's one of the many reasons I am not a Leftist: my expectations don't change depending on the skin color, politics, or religion of whoever I'm talking about.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:58 PM | Comments (243)
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

The Mayor is an anti-gun nut from way back, so he's not going to let this opportunity go by without taking a swing.

Bloomberg said a bipartisan coalition of 500 mayors supports legislation that would allow the U.S. attorney general to bar such purchases. He said the group also wants Congress to close another loophole that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows with no background checks at all.

"It's just common sense to give the FBI authority to keep terror suspects from buying guns and explosives," he said.

"Convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill are forbidden from buying guns and explosives, but nothing in our laws keeps fanatics on the terror watch list from purchasing guns and explosives," Lautenberg said in his prepared testimony. "That is hard to believe -- yet, unfortunately, it is true."

Sounds sort of reasonable under you really think about it.

As of last year there were about one million names on the list. Nobody really knows why people are put on it and it's damn hard to get off it. There's also plenty of cases where the list is just wrong.

Seems Bloomberg (and Keith Olbermann, more about that in a moment) are on board with the idea the government should be able to take away people's rights simply by putting them on a list. I don't think they'd like that idea if say, George W. Bush were president and it was a right they liked. Hey maybe people on the list shouldn't be able to exercise their First Amendment rights and post to Youtube. Why no Youtube? It's a jihadi recruitment tool. Surely that's a danger too.

Now, I'm not a legal expert but I'm pretty sure the 14th Amendment mentions something about "due process" before taking away a person's rights. Again, not a legal expert but I'm thinking the mere act of the government putting your name on a list is not in fact "due process".

Notice that Bloomberg calls people on the list "suspects". Again, I wasn't aware that rights could be taken away from people simply because the government "suspects" you've done something wrong without any notice or opportunity for redress.

About Olbermann, he was on about this with Crazy Larry O'Donnell earlier saying it's unimaginable that someone could be opposed to this action. They played a soundbite from Lindsey Graham who has concerns similar to what I just laid out. Then the two of them proceeded to mock Graham for his opposition to the Bloomberg plan as well as his suggestion that terror suspects not be Marandized.

The left now stands for full rights for terror suspects, most of whom are not US citizens or on US soil and for the proposition that illegal aliens can't be required to produced documentation lest the chill of Nazism descend upon us.

They are however pretty excited about stripping Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights by administrative fiat.

As I said, the idea is sound in theory and I'd support it if applied to foreign nationals (can they even buy guns in this country? I honestly don't know). I do not however support some sort of Star Chamber system where bureaucrats can deprive people of their rights without any due process.

Liberals like to pretend a lot of things are in the Constitution that really aren't while they conveniently forget the 2nd Amendment actually is in the Constitution. Frustrating as it is for them, it's true, they can even Google it!

Just for fun some Republican should offer up a bill saying a woman on the terror watch list is prohibited from having an abortion and watch the left's reaction.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:50 PM | Comments (93)
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

Just for all you special moron types who actually bother to read the ONT items.

Remember: Do NOT talk about Secret ONT Club!

If this is your first time on a Secret ONT, you HAVE TO de-lurk.

And so I offer you some classic Shat: How Insensitive

And a V8 Supercar Exploding. Just cause I like explosions.

And a video I thought a little too insensitive for the ordinary ONT: "Wheelchair Rapist"
Contains Magical Negro. Key phrase: "If you can rape a midget, you can go anywhere."

Maybe more to come later on...

Plus here is the official Secret ONT Club cipher.

So relax, plot and connive, slander the other lesser morons, and revel in your specialness. And feel free to post your booby pics since you no longer held down by the regular hoi polloi who just can't handle this much ONT goodness.

You may now set your smugness to 11. And your pants level to 0.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:54 PM | Comments (342)
Post contains 168 words, total size 2 kb.