Click Button in Toolbar to Toggle Playlist.

How To Secede From a State Without Really Trying!

Secession fever is spreading. In red and blue pockets of America, disgruntled residents are organizing efforts to split up with their home states, from liberals in southern Arizona to conservatives in rural Colorado and Western Maryland.

The biggest obstacle for these movements would seem to be the Constitution, which requires secessionists to get the blessing of their state Legislature and then Congress.

There might be an easier way, says Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University, in a provocative post at Volokh Conspiracy. Rather than forming a new “51st” state, how about seceding to join an existing state?

“The Constitution’s requirement of home-state and congressional consent only clearly applies to the creation of a ‘new state,’ ” Mr. Kontorovich writes.

Read More…

The GOP is Winning (In Spite of Themselves)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 10, 2013

The Republicans are winning the fight over the government shut down. This, at any rate, is the conclusion that must be drawn from both the latest Associated Press poll as well as the terms in which it is described.

The headline of the AP article is: “Poll: GOP gets the blame in shutdown.”Yet in the very first paragraph, the very first line, it is said that while Republicans are being held as “primarily responsible” for the (partial) shutdown, “public esteem” has soured on every player in this “struggle with no heroes.”

In the following paragraph, we are told that, just as in 1996, Republicans “may end up taking the biggest hit” from this standoff.Immediately afterwards, however, the piece states that nine days into the shutdown matters are “fluid,” with “plenty of disdain to go around.”

One would think that if the GOP was really faring all that badly, then the AP shouldn’t have had any problem mustering up quotations from any number of people who would’ve been eager to have spoken to that effect. Yet the only two people that it quotes are Martha Blair, an “independent,” and Barbara Olpinski, a self-identified Republican. Both explicitly blame Democrats as well as Republicans for the current situation.

“Asked if she blamed Obama, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, or the tea party for the shut down,” the article reads, “Blair…said yes, you bet. All of them.”Olpinski is quoted as saying: “People don’t know how they are going to pay for things, and what will be covered.” She adds: “Everybody is kind of like holding their wallets.”

Read More…

Cruz and Lee Have Already Succeeded

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 10, 2013

RUSH: So there’s Jay Carney out there saying that Obama’s happy that Boehner has offered a short-term extension of the debt limit.  And then he said that shut down over Obamacare is a fool’s errand.  Yeah, well, maybe from Obama’s standpoint, but if it hadn’t been for the effort to do this, we wouldn’t even be here now, and we wouldn’t have had a chance to expose Obama and the Democrats for who and what they really are, which is what this is really all about to me.

By the way, welcome back, folks.  El Rushbo here.  800-282-2882 the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Let me see if I can explain something else that’s been happening here in the past few weeks.  We have talked frequently here about the internecine battle among conservatives, Republicans and conservatives.  And even if you subdivide it further, Tea Party conservatives versus the people that think they are mainstream Kirkian, as in Russell Kirk or Burkean as in Edmund Burke, conservatives.  And as such that manifested itself in the Obamacare fight with two groups.  You had the Cruz and Mike Lee group, which was the defund. And then you had other groups that thought that was a mistake, and they wanted to delay. In the process of delay, if you could, for example, delay the individual mandate, you take the guts out of the whole law.

The delay group thought the defund group was a bit disingenuous because they didn’t think the defund group ever had a prayer of winning ’cause there was never gonna be the votes to override an Obama veto on it.  I didn’t get caught up in all that because the competitive nature of this and who is a real conservative is not of interest to me.  It isn’t.  But it is to other people.  A prominent media analyst, a conservative, sent me a note and he was livid.  He was fit to be tied.  He thinks Cruz and Lee are fruitcake nuts, and when he says so he gets vicious, mean e-mail from conservatives insulting him and calling him names and so forth.

And I said, “Gee whiz, is that the first time?”  I mean, the thin-skin nature or tendency of some people I guess surprises me, but I try to understand it all nevertheless because it all matters at the end of the day.  Now, I happened to glom onto the Cruz-Lee defund effort, and whether it had a chance of succeeding or not ultimately was not a reason to avoid it, to me.  I’m equally supportive of the defunders.  It’s not either/or, and the other side, the ors are my enemy.  I just don’t look at it that way.  Either one would have been perfect.  Anybody who is opposed to Obama is fine and dandy, anybody opposed to Obamacare, fine and dandy, whatever their reason.

Now, I understand that the delay conservatives didn’t like the defund conservatives ’cause they thought the defund conservatives knew that they didn’t have a prayer and that they were just using people to fund-raise. The delay people said that those people would insult them if they wouldn’t agree with Cruz, and then there would be threats to primary people out of the party if they didn’t express law — I don’t get caught up in all that.  That is too infantile to me and it’s a distraction to what really is important.  And maybe I’m the one all wet here; maybe I’m the one with the impossible task; maybe I’m the guy that’s got the impossible dream.

But for 25 years the purpose of this program has been to create as large an informed, participating, voting group of conservative Americans as possible, without any regard to how much money I make in the process from politics.  I don’t fund-raise, I don’t help people fund-raise.  That’s of no interest to me.  It’s all ideas to me.  It’s pure ideas.  I think ideas triumph, ideas trump, and if properly explained and properly persuasive, that’s ultimately where victory is.

I’m not a professional politician.  I don’t want to be.  I’m not intimately or intricately involved in the minutia of that.  I understand it.  I understand the people who are.  I respect it.  It’s their business.  But I don’t take a position here based on is it gonna help somebody fund-raise or is it gonna help somebody get primaried out or any of that.

Read More…

Obama’s 37% Approval Means Something!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 10, 2013

RUSH: So last night I’m watching Fox and the subject of Obama’s approval rating came up, the fact that it had plunged to 37%.  I said, “Okay, I’m gonna listen to this,” ’cause I had made mention of it yesterday.  It’s not being mentioned anywhere and it means something!  He’s at 37%!  It means something.  There’s a reason for it. And it’s an AP poll.  The same poll that Wolf Blitzer couldn’t get enough of when Bush was at 36% in 2006.

So I’m watching them discuss it.  Not gonna mention any names.  It’s not the point.  Not picking fights with anybody.  I’m just telling you.  So whoever was talking about this, the guest, member of the commentariat, “Well, it’s probably not that low, really. It’s probably an outlier poll, but it is low.  I mean, it is down a little.”  But then, this person said, “But this is not to say that the Republicans are not botching what they’re doing.”  I sat up and I said, “What?”  Kathryn was sitting next to me.  I actually shouted the F-word at the TV.  I said, “Shut… up.”  And I don’t do that anymore, folks.  I did that 25 years ago.

I said, “You’re doing a story or you’re doing a mention on Obama’s approval plunging to 37.”  “Well, it’s probably not that low, it’s a little bit,” and then you gotta rip the Republicans, you gotta rip Cruz, you gotta rip Lee. You gotta throw in, “It’s not that the Republicans are doing anything right here.”  You just had to get the establishment version of the Tea Party is dangerously off the rails here.  I don’t know.  It just made me mad.  I don’t know what else I’m trying to say.  In simple terms, it just made me mad.  They don’t understand.  Even the people inside the Beltway, ostensibly on our side, don’t understand what’s going on in the country.

There are clear majorities of people that don’t want anything to do with Obamacare.  They don’t like what’s happening at HealthCare.gov. They don’t like what they’re learning. They don’t like what they’re seeing about it. They don’t like the experience.  It doesn’t work.  It’s an invasion of privacy.  Hardly anybody in great numbers are signing up for it.  It’s an absolute debacle and the people in the country are hungering for somebody to represent them and do something about it, rather than say, “Well, it’s the law of the land.”  This is real life that we’re talking about here with real hard results on people.  If this thing gets fully implemented out there and people then start to be destroyed by this, they’re not going to just blame Obama.

At some point all of Washington is going to be lumped into the people responsible for this, because it has been obvious for the last month that there is a clear effort being undertaken to do something about this, and it’s also obvious that there is not a whole lot of help coming for the people who are trying to do something about this.  And yet massive majorities of people want something done about Obamacare.  It’s going to destroy things.  It’s gonna destroy people’s futures.  Not everybody, of course, nothing ever destroys everybody.  There will be people who benefit from it, and that’s gonna make people dissatisfied as well.

Lonegan to GOP: Wait Seven Days. When I Win, Obama Will Fold On Gov’t Shutdown

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 10, 2013

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Lonegan today urged House Republicans “not to capitulate to the president’s unreasonable demands. When I win, Obama will fold.”

Lonegan says his internal polling shows a neck-and-neck race in the U.S. Senate contest and that all the momentum is in his favor. “My victory in this election on Wednesday will send a message to Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that the American people want an end to Obamacare and the rest of the President’s radical agenda.”

The former three-term Bogota mayor called on Republicans to stop listening to the same consultants and pollsters who blew the 2012 election and who are telling the GOP to fold and instead stand firm for seven more days

“Republicans need to hold firm because seven days from today when Bob Menendez escorts me down the Senate aisle for my swearing in, the message about what our party should do will be clear for all,” Lonegan maintained.

“I have come as far as I have in this campaign by ignoring the advice from all the pollsters and consultants who have told me to change what I think and change who I am,” Lonegan added. “New Jerseyans are looking for a leader who fights for working taxpayers, not a Hollywood wannabe like Cory Booker who will rubber stamp the President’s far-left wing agenda.”

Peer Review Non-Existant in Modern Scientific “Study” Community (Fall of Real Science)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 9, 2013

A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.

On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.

In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientific journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees rather than traditional subscriptions. Most of the players are murky. The identity and location of the journals’ editors, as well as the financial workings of their publishers, are often purposefully obscured. But Science‘s investigation casts a powerful light. Internet Protocol (IP) address traces within the raw headers of e-mails sent by journal editors betray their locations. Invoices for publication fees reveal a network of bank accounts based mostly in the developing world. And the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise.

One might have expected credible peer review at the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. It describes itself as “a peer reviewed journal aiming to communicate high quality research articles, short communications, and reviews in the field of natural products with desired pharmacological activities.” The editors and advisory board members are pharmaceutical science professors at universities around the world.

The journal is one of more than 270 owned by Medknow, a company based in Mumbai, India, and one of the largest open-access publishers. According to Medknow’s website, more than 2 million of its articles are downloaded by researchers every month. Medknow was bought for an undisclosed sum in 2011 by Wolters Kluwer, a multinational firm headquartered in the Netherlands and one of the world’s leading purveyors of medical information with annual revenues of nearly $5 billion.

But the editorial team of the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, headed by Editor-in-Chief Ilkay Orhan, a professor of pharmacy at Eastern Mediterranean University in Gazimagosa, Cyprus, asked the fictional Cobange for only superficial changes to the paper—different reference formats and a longer abstract—before accepting it 51 days later. The paper’s scientific content was never mentioned. In an e-mail to Science, managing editor Mueen Ahmed, a professor of pharmacy at King Faisal University in Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia, states that he will permanently shut down the journal by the end of the year. “I am really sorry for this,” he says. Orhan says that for the past 2 years, he had left the journal’s operation entirely to staff led by Ahmed. (Ahmed confirms this.) “I should’ve been more careful,” Orhan says.

Acceptance was the norm, not the exception. The paper was accepted by journals hosted by industry titans Sage and Elsevier. The paper was accepted by journals published by prestigious academic institutions such as Kobe University in Japan. It was accepted by scholarly society journals. It was even accepted by journals for which the paper’s topic was utterly inappropriate, such as the Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction.

The rejections tell a story of their own. Some open-access journals that have been criticized for poor quality control provided the most rigorous peer review of all. For example, the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science, PLOS ONE, was the only journal that called attention to the paper’s potential ethical problems, such as its lack of documentation about the treatment of animals used to generate cells for the experiment. The journal meticulously checked with the fictional authors that this and other prerequisites of a proper scientific study were met before sending it out for review. PLOS ONE rejected the paper 2 weeks later on the basis of its scientific quality.

Read More…

Ted Cruz poll shows GOP gained in fight over Obamacare despite shutdown

Sen. Ted Cruz during a closed-door lunch on Wednesday argued to his Republican colleagues that the campaign he led to defund Obamacare has bolstered the GOP's political position in dealing with the government shutdown. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Sen. Ted Cruz during a closed-door lunch on Wednesday argued to his Republican colleagues that the campaign he led to defund Obamacare has bolstered the GOP’s political position in dealing with the government shutdown.

Republicans who attended the weekly lunch hosted by Senate conservatives confirmed that Cruz presented a poll that the Texan paid for. Cruz’ pollster, Chris Perkins, was there for a portion of the discussion to help walk members through the poll and discuss the party’s messaging strategy. Perkins is a partner with Wilson Perkins Allen, a GOP polling firm with dozens of Republican clients.

The survey’s findings mirrored other national polls: More voters blame the Republicans for the government shutdown than blame President Obama or the Democrats. But Cruz argued, based on the poll, that Republicans are in a much better position than they were during the 1995 shutdown because this impasse is defined by a disagreement over funding for the Affordable Care Act as opposed to a general disagreement over government spending.

That is notable because, during last week’s conservative luncheon, Cruz was harshly criticized for pushing Republicans into a politically risky government shutdown without a strategy to win the standoff, particularly because polls have consistently shown that voters oppose the defund-or-shut down strategy favored by the senator, despite the fact that they disapprove of Obamacare.

Read More…

thumbSHOCK VIDEO: College students blame Obama and Democrats for shutdown

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 9, 2013

Polls Show Obama, Dems Losing Public Opinion Battle over Shutdown, Obamacare

Much has been made over the past week and a half or so over the partial government shutdown, who is winning the battle, and what policies will result from it.

Establishment Republicans continue taking sideswipes at grassroots-oriented conservatives, especially Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Some in the establishment of the GOP have even stooped to calling Cruz and Lee, and their grassroots supporters, “traitors.”

Meanwhile, across the aisle, Democrats like President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accuse the Tea Party movement of being vitriolic, hateful, and nefariously motivated. The establishment’s friends in the mainstream media echo those smears and hold off-the-record meetings at the White House with the president.

Despite the establishment’s hue and cry about grassroots conservatives, Cruz, Lee, and their conservative counterparts in the House and the movement’s leaders outside the halls of Congress are winning the debate. President Obama’s approval rating has plummeted to 37 percent, and his disapproval rating has skyrocketed to 53 percent.

More polling data shows that compared to the 1995 shutdown, Americans are much more split on who to blame this time around. In 1995, a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll found that 49 percent blamed congressional Republicans for the shutdown, 26 percent blamed then-President Bill Clinton, and 19 percent blamed both.

This time around, Americans are more evenly split. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Oct. 7 found that 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Republicans, 61 percent disapprove of congressional Democrats, and 51 percent disapprove of President Obama. A Pew Research survey released the same day found that while 38 percent blamed Republicans for the shutdown, 30 percent blamed President Obama. Another 19 percent blamed both Republicans and Democrats, while 13 percent were unsure who to blame.

Read More…

Rejoice: the Yellen Fed will print money forever to create jobs!

We now know where we stand. Janet Yellen is to take over the US Federal Reserve, the world’s monetary hegemon, the master of all our lives.

The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.

No Fed chief in history has been better qualified. She is a glaring contrast to Alan Greenspan, a political speech writer for Richard Nixon, who never earned a real PhD (it was honorary) or penned an economic paper of depth.

She has pedigree. Her husband is Nobel laureate George Akerlof, the scourge of efficient markets theory. She co-authored “Market for Lemons”, the paper that won the prize.

Currently vice-chairman of the Fed, she was a junior governor from 1994 to 1997 under Greenspan, and then president of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010. She was head of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 1999, when she handled the Asian crisis. You could hardly find a safer pair of hands.

Read More…

James Woods: ‘I Don’t Expect to Work Again’ in Hollywood (After Criticizing Obama)

 

James Woods Headshot - P 2013

The actor has been critical of Democrats and the president and presumes his political opinions will cost him jobs.

After repeatedly criticizing President Barack Obama, actor James Woods suggested in a tweet late Tuesday that his politics may cost him work in Hollywood.

Woods has been critical of Obama before but in the past few days seems particularly incensed at the president’s handling of the partial government shutdown. He tweeted, for example: “This President is a true abomination. To have barricaded the WW2 vets, but allow illegal aliens privilege…” The tweet linked to a USA Today article.

Read More…

Obamacare: A Hill to Die On for the Democrats

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: October 8, 2013

Notwithstanding the naysayers from the left and the right, the bullying White House is running scared, as evidenced by its increasing nastiness, name-calling and petty manipulation of the government shutdown.

President Obama must be shocked that his usual demagogic tricks aren’t working this time, that instead of the Republicans caving in deference to his dictatorial demands, they are united and holding firm, and that he, not the Republicans, is cratering in the polls.

The apparent panic of the mainstream media liberals is another good barometer. From ABC to NBC to CNN, liberal hosts are increasingly anxious and combative toward Republican congressional leaders who fearlessly accept their invitations to sit for combative ambush interviews.

CNN’s Candy Crowley was particularly frustrated with Sen. Ted Cruz’s unwillingness to affirm any of her negative predispositions and accusations against him and other Republican leaders. He simply would not take the bait as she pressed, over and over, to get him to openly concede that the GOP is responsible for having shut the government down.

Read More…

Gulf states to introduce medical testing on travellers to ‘detect’ gay people!

Kuwait: The Gulf state is said to be developing a test that willl 'detect' gay people

Kuwait: The Gulf state is said to be developing a test that willl ‘detect’ gay people

 

A medical test being developed by Kuwait will be used to ‘detect’ homosexuals and prevent them from entering the country – or any of the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC), according to a Kuwaiti government official.

GCC member countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – already deem homosexual acts unlawful.

This controversial stance is being toughened, with members of the LGBT community stopped at the border and banned from entering the country, according to Yousouf Mindkar, the director of public health at the Kuwaiti health ministry.

He told Kuwait newspaper Al Rai: ‘Health centres conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, we will take stricter measures that will help us detect gays who will be then barred from entering Kuwait or any of the GCC member states.’

Those taking part in homosexual acts in Kuwait, if they’re under 21, can receive a jail sentence of up to 10 years.

Earlier this month Oman newspaper The Week was suspended over an article that was deemed to be sympathetic to homosexuals, according to the BBC.

It’s illegal to be gay in 78 countries, with lesbianism banned in 49. Five countries mete out the death penalty to gay people – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania.

Read More…

Obama OKs Amnesty rally on ‘closed’ National Mall

A few scattered barriers around the National Mall have signs informing visitors that the area is closed as a result of the government shutdown. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

A planned immigration reform rally will take place on the National Mall on Tuesday even though the site is closed due to the government shutdown.

Organizers for the “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform” were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday.

Read More…

Planned Predators and the moral structure of pedophilia

The moral structure of pedophilia is simply this: the welfare of children is subordinate to the sexual gratification of adults.

Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team, established a charity called The Second Mile, for boys, mostly fatherless, who were living in troubled homes. It is not clear that he did so initially to lure boys into a trap. But that is what eventually happened, according to the testimony of the men who recalled with shame and disgust their initiation into sodomy.

Raymond Lahey, former Catholic bishop of Antigonish, was apprehended in the Ottawa airport and his computer files scanned. They contained nude pictures of boys. Lahey resigned in disgrace. The Canadian press tried hard to conceal the sex of the children, and suppressed any report about the exotic destinations to which the bishop commonly flew. One isn’t to inquire too closely into travel agencies that do a hopping business flying men to places like Thailand, which teems with boy prostitutes. And girl prostitutes too; apparently Thailand is a favorite sweating-off ground for Korean businessmen.

We should be thankful that the Sanduskys and Laheys are still considered monstrous. But in contemporary America that condemnation rests on sentiment and not on moral reasoning.

We should be thankful that the Sanduskys and Laheys are still considered monstrous. But in contemporary America that condemnation rests on sentiment and not on moral reasoning. No one can simultaneously explain why their actions were so vile and uphold the first commandment of the sexual revolution: fulfill thy desires.

It may be argued that the boys were too young to give genuine consent. They were dupes. That may be true of the boys in Pennsylvania, but it cannot be true of the hardened street children in Bangkok. But the horror, the disgust, is out of all proportion to a memory of being duped. If somebody tricks a boy into giving him fifty dollars for a lump of fool’s gold, the boy now grown will look back on the incident with irritation and contempt for the trickster, but not with any horror. The shame of Sandusky’s victims arose not from the trickery, but from the act itself into which they were tricked.

Besides, the fact that a child cannot give genuine consent is not in itself morally decisive. We compel children to do plenty of things for their own good—or for what we say is good. A public school teacher in Toronto has written a set of lessons requiring young children to imagine wearing clothes appropriate for the opposite sex. He’s been congratulated, not by the wary parents, but by a school board that insists that teachers are “co-parents.” What he’s doing, of course, is subjecting naïve children to an exercise that promotes his own sexual aims.

No, it isn’t how Sandusky and Lahey did what they did, or under what circumstances, that explains the disgust. It’s what they did—but nobody wants to acknowledge that.

The reason for that reluctance becomes clear, if we keep in mind the moral structure of pedophilia. Sexual gratification trumps. Thank goodness that for now, there aren’t many men who are sexually attracted to youngsters. In that single case, we raise the banner for the children. But in no other case.

Read More…

Translate

Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Thursday, April 24, 2014