Sunday Morning Non-Book Open Thread
— andy

Posted by: andy at 04:34 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread-Another Caturday Edition
— CDR M

Yeah, yeah. It's time for the ONT. You guys better get the comments to 666 or the Ewok God of War just might have to show up.

I used to love going to movies a lot as a teenager and in my 20's but since I have become more politically aware, not so much any more. This article captured some of what I had been thinking about in this regard. Democrats vs. Republicans: Stars They Won't Pay To See. I admit it. I won't pay to go see Sean Penn, Micheal Moore, Tim Robbins, or any other raging, foaming out the mouth stupid ass libtard that is highly active in the political sphere. I remember before I started getting like this that my father-in-law was the same way and I remember thinking but he's missing some good movies. Now I understand.

In fact, overall, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Tea Partiers consider a celebrity's political position before paying to see their films, compared with 20 percent of Democrats.

You have to admit, that it is pretty stupid to piss off this large of a percentage of your potential audience. Most good companies that are successful are careful not to show party preference. I suppose the fact that these actors/musicians get paid up front regardless of ticket sales gives them some leeway to be more vocal politically and not fear the loss of ticket sales. I was surprised to find out that Sean Penn has NEVER had a movie gross more than $100 Million.
So are there conservative actors? Here's a list that I found that was published last year. In The Reagan Mold: 10 Conservative Men In Hollywood. I do believe the actor listed at #6 needs to be dropped big time.
more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:55 PM | Comments (726)
Post contains 646 words, total size 7 kb.

Tom McClintock on California as a harbinger of Obama's Second Term: "FLY, YOU FOOLS!" [Moe Lane]
— Guest Blogger

For some reason, my mental picture of this speech by Rep Tom McClintock to the Council for National Policy...

I want to welcome this groundbreaking scientific expedition to the savage lands of the Left Coast. You are here in California to answer an important theoretical question and now you have your answer.

Yes, this is what Barack ObamaÂ’s second term would look like.

Study it. Fear it. And then go home and make sure that it never happens to the rest of the country.

more...

Posted by: Guest Blogger at 04:00 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Subtext Of A Lawsuit:
— LauraW

"I Am Incompetent And You Must Take Decisions Away From Me"

College chick goes to a fraternity party. College chick gets trashed and falls out of a window.

An Idaho college student and her parents are suing a University of Idaho fraternity, her sorority, university officials, and others for failing to prevent her from drinking too much alcohol...

At some point between her lifting a bottle and bringing it to her lips, one or all of these people or institutions were apparently supposed to jump out like a jack-in-the-box and swat it out of her hand.

Even though, as a college student, presumably she has attained the age of majority. The article mentions 'underage drinking,' but I think most of us associate that term with high school kids. Between years 18-21, you are not experiencing 'the tragedy of underage drinking.' You are 'breaking the law.'

And why expect others to stop you from drinking too much? Why not expect them to simply prevent you from ever being near windows? And keep you from going to parties, too.

Though I don't think this particular young lady is going to have any problem avoiding parties in the future.

Thanks to Ben Domenech.

Posted by: LauraW at 03:40 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Charlie "Oops My Taxes" Rangel Stirs Up The Draft Again
— Dave in Texas

Why does Charlie do this? (warning Huffpo link)

Because he loves the Democrat dependency on class.

That's it.

In 2002, over a year into the Afghanistan War, a National Geographic-Roper study showed that 83% of young adults could not find Afghanistan on a map. It is not a stretch to say 83% might be capable of this were there a real and imminent possibility of them being sent there. How can we entrust ourselves with making the tough decisions of sending soldiers into harm's way if we do not even know the most basic facts of the conflict? How might Congress change their decisions concerning war if it were their sons and daughters being sent? In this day and age, there is a vacuum in the immediate and personal need for people to be concerned about these issues because they have nothing to lose -- no stake in the game.

In 1942, a far greater number of American men who volunteered to fight as a Marine or a Soldier, or a Sailor, had no idea where Guadalcanal was. Most had never heard of Midway, or Guam, and Hawaii was some pearl in the ocean on a postcard.

They signed up anyway. To defend America. They had no idea where they would go. They did have a distinct purpose. The nation called, and they answered the call.

As do our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen do today.

It's not about where on the globe, you simpering tax cheat. It's about us, and them. They give of themselves to honor the nation.

Charlie Rangel was a soldier and served in Korea. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. To his eternal shame, he discards that valuable and honorable service to tear down the nation that he once carried a rifle to defend.

Shameful. But that's Charlie.

via WilliamA

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:38 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Under The Radar [John E.]
— Guest Blogger

A lot of people are having a hard time embracing the theory that Operation Fast & Furious was nothing more than a backdoor attack on the second amendment. I understand why. It seems like too large a conspiracy to be believable and it's hard to wrap your head around that level of corruption and evil.

Then you read a story like this one.

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” 

I suppose Obama could have just been lying to Brady. He, um, sort of has that tendency. He could also have meant something else by "under the radar". But, shouldn't a reporter be asking what else he might have meant? That would require an honest press, of course.

We're being told we have to choose between two competing theories: "criminal incompetence" and "unthinkable corruption". I have a serious question - Why can't it be both?

Unthinkable corruption executed with criminal incompetence. Doesn't that pretty much sum up this Administration?

Posted by: Guest Blogger at 12:31 PM | Comments (252)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

A Fast & Furious Flashback [John E.]
— Guest Blogger

Back on July 8th of this year, Kirsten Powers appeared on Special Report with Bret Baier and blindly defended the Administration's position on Fast & Furious. The interview struck me because I was surprised how cavalierly Powers admitted she was simply parroting what the Administration told her and she didn't seem to have any interest in learning anything beyond that. I made a mental note to revisit it when Fast & Furious gained a little more media attention.

First, some background. On June 21st, the Washington Post ran this story (I'll explain why the link sends you to HuffPo shortly).

At the briefing last year, bureau officials laid out for Issa and other members of Congress from both parties details of several ATF investigations, including Fast and Furious, the sources said. For that program, the briefing covered how many guns had been bought by “straw purchasers,’’ the types of guns and how much money had been spent, said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the briefing was not public. “All of the things [Issa] has been screaming about, he was briefed on,’’ said one source familiar with the session.

On June 23rd, Issa's office responded by denying that F&F ever came up at a briefing, criticizing the use of anonymous sources in the WaPo story and revealing that the Department of Justice had been pushing the story to multiple media outlets. The Washington Post was the only news organization at that point to publish the story and they ultimately were forced to issue a correction (which is why I linked to HuffPo).

A Wednesday Washington Post story used anonymous Justice Department sources to bash IssaÂ’s investigation into Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious.

The anonymous sources claimed that Issa attended a classified April 2010 briefing for members of Congress and their staffers about the programs that have allowed American guns into Mexican drug cartelsÂ’ hands.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill told The Daily Caller the Post is the first newspaper to run these DOJ claims, but not the first one the Justice Department went to with them.

“We have had people who have contacted us before the Washington Post,” Hill said. “They told us people in the Justice Department were trying to push this story and I think a number of publications didn’t think it was credible or, for whatever reason, decided not to run it.”

Hill said there was a briefing that Issa attended back in April 2010 on a similar subject. “There were questions at the time about the number of U.S. weapons that were ending up at Mexican crime scenes,” he said. “Basically, [it was about] the efforts of the ATF to stop cartels from doing this.”

Did gun walking or Operation Fast and Furious come up at that briefing at all? Hill says “they certainly did not.”

Now, fast forward to July 8th and watch how painfully uninformed Kirsten Powers is, how easily she pushes the (already discredited and corrected) DoJ/Administration position published in the Washington Post attacking Darrell Issa and how readily she admits that she's just repeating what the White House told her. She begins at 1:48, and it's not pretty. Video below the fold.
more...

Posted by: Guest Blogger at 08:28 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 634 words, total size 5 kb.

College Football Post
— Dave in Texas

It's on.

Other top 20 matchups early this season are Florida (17) at LSU (the current 1) at 3:30pm EDT and Auburn (15) vs. Arkansas (10) at 7pm EDT, which is weird because none of those teams are in the eastern time zone.

Go figure.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:00 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Old and Busted: Olive Drab
The New Hotness: Green
— andy

You had to know this would happen eventually. First, taxpayers' money is being shoveled at "green" projects left and right. Second, the DoD has a metric shitload of said taxpayers' money. So what's a good leftist SCOAMF commander-in-chief to do but go green on the DoD's dime?

The Army is embarking on an ambitious mission to house billions of dollars worth of renewable energy projects on bases across the country -- in exchange for a share of that energy sometime in the future.

"Sometime in the future", eh? Hasn't the pipe dream of clean, renewable energy always been just over the horizon?

So here's the plan:

Under the plan, the Army hopes to attract more than $7 billion in private investment over 10 years. Those companies would be allowed to use the Army's abundant real estate to build up alternative-energy operations ranging from solar to wind to geothermal. In exchange, the Army would be looking for some kind of "in-kind" payment down the road. That means the companies would be expected to give the Army their energy for free or at a reduced price once the operations are up and running.

How does this work exactly? Most of the cost of these operations is in the equipment - wind turbines, solar panels, electrical transmission infrastructure and the like. The ground rent is usually pretty negligible.

So why would a private developer build the thing just to give the energy to the Army? If this is really what they're hell bent on doing, wouldn't they be better off to just contract with a developer and build a wind farm or whatever that DoD just owns? (bear with me - I'm not saying this is a good idea at all, but it's being made even worse in the execution)

And rather than pissing away boatloads of taxpayer dollars by going all-in on this, can we maybe set one up as a pilot somewhere first? Nah ... that's crazy talk. We'll just assume everything's going to work out just fine and commit billions (see, e.g., Solyndra).

And then there's this:

The project is part of a broader Army goal to use 25 percent renewable energy by 2025. By trading real estate for energy, Hammack said the project will also contribute to the military's energy security -- by ensuring military bases have their own supply of renewable energy no matter what's going on outside the fences. (emphasis added)

ORLY? No matter what's going on outside the fences, if nighttime or still air is going on inside of them ... which tends to happen a lot ... , how does that "energy security" work again?

Shouldn't the new slogan really be: Intermittent Army by 2025 - we'll kick your ass when the wind is blowing!

These. People. Are. Delusional. more...

Posted by: andy at 07:45 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

Occupy Wall Street Protester Dumps on the NYPD [JWF]
— Guest Blogger

Funny, but I don't ever see 99% of the population doing something so disgusting.

This are the shocking scenes that have led some people to accuse the Occupy Wall Street protesters living rough in New York's financial district of creating unsanitary and filthy conditions.

Exclusive pictures obtained by Mail Online show one demonstrator relieving himself on a police car.

Elsewhere we found piles of stinking refuse clogging Zucotti Park, despite the best efforts of many of the protestors to keep the area clean.

The shocking images demonstrate the extent to which conditions have deteriorated as demonstrations in downtown Manhattan enter their fourth week.

According to eye witnesses, when people ran to tell nearby police about the man defecating on the squad car they were ignored.

Standing downwind of the piles of rubbish, bankers walking past the man did a double take before hurrying away.

Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, the site of the New York demonstration, have already railed against protesters, who they claim are creating sanitation problems.

'Sanitation is a growing concern,' Brookfield said in a statement.

more...

Posted by: Guest Blogger at 06:55 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.