Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else see the irony in the juxtaposition of these two protest signs outside of an appearance by Sarah Palin in Eugene, Oregon?
It’s a darned good thing that the person holding the sign that says, “Hope she chokes” (with the Obama logo a nice touch, by the way) is doing so in Eugene’s “hate-free zone.” Why, if someone had displayed a sign at a Tea Party rally that said something about our President choking, it would have been declared a symptom of the violence inherent in the conservative system, with apologies to Dennis the Peasant. Maybe the two protesters should coordinate their message a bit better.
Well, actually, The Oregonian's gotsomething, although it's not like the leftist cable channels will be doing round-the-clock coverage of "violent" tea partiers, including those with AR-15s (black ones, actually, with faces obscured by careful video editing).
Nope, the left's "Hope" of violence against Sarah Palin just doesn't flow with the narrative.
OPEN LETTER TO JAMES B. WEBB: WORD TO THE WISE, EXTENDED VERSION (SO BE WISE)
James (OR WHATEVER YOUR REAL NON-COWARD NAME IS), FWIW (a reponse to your sterile big talk):
You told me not to comment on your blog some time ago, and I have observed your rules. But when Repsac3 stalks and taunts American Power with genuine racist insults, when he refuses to observe my rules and common decency, you're down with that ... of course you're into racist photoshopping and cyberstalking, so NST, yo!
Frankly, son, you're nothing but a child to me, with an overdriven playground gotcha mentality. Fact is, every single time I've argued substantive points you've ignored them and moved on predictably to insults and snarks: On the budget deficit you blamed Bush and FAILED. On my post on faith, morality and fighting Satan, you dissed it without a single mention of the issues ... FAIL. On Sean Trende's RCP analysis on the November congressional elections? Ignored it again ... FAIL. And you recently wrote at my blog:
"I'm not suggesting that the left isn't responsible for many acts of hate and violence in the world. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the myopic worldview that one side of the ideological aisle is so much better/worse than the other and regardless of which side says it (and I hear it from both on a constant basis) they always sound like uninformed children when they do."
Actually, the contemporary left's entrenched ideological culture of violence is unmatched on the conservative right. And I responded to you with a link to Jamie Glazov's, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Glazov's book is deeply argued and written from personal experience of tyranny and terror. His parents were Soviet dissidents. Their lives were put on the line for speaking out against the Communist Party in 1968, when Jamie's father signed the famous "Letter of Twelve" human rights manifesto. The forward to the book was written by R. James Woolsey, who was President Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995. United in Hate received critical reviews from both sides of the spectrum, and retired United States Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInery called the book "a must-read if America is to survive the global war against Radical Islam." In short, this is serious stuff, worth engagement. And what was your response to the citation for United in Hate? Totally predictable:
That's exactly what I mean when I talk about uninformed children, Don. Thank you as always for illustrating my point.
Breathtaking juvenile anti-intellectualism topped with a staggering heaping of brain-addled stupidity. But that's to be expected from someone who's not right in the mind, oddly consumed by some kind of big man syndrome (when in fact nothing seems to warrant such a psychology, which thus raises appropriate and characteristic questions of megalomania). And let's not forget your online perversions and stalking. When called out on these you own them with insecure phony laughter and some backslapping with your braindead followers in the comments at Brainrage.
So, JBW, let's be real, okay. Honestly, you're but a lost child to me. I'm a Ph.D. professor with 15 years experience teaching. I'm a father of two who's been married for 16 years. I've traveled widely and have nearly lost my life. But credentials, wisdom, life failings, and experience mean nothing to you, BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT ALL ALREADY. Anyway, I understand the sources of your disrespect (hey, four years of college and you've got knowledge), but it's obvious to anyone who's been around the block a couple of times that you're all talk and little action. And the fact that James B. Webb is not your real names adds a hilarious touch to any mention by you of the word coward. So, here's a bet. You will not come out and identify yourself, and you will not meet me for a beer where you express a little humility and respect for someone who ought to be, frankly, your intellectual mentor. I'm in the O.C. Name the bar, on a weekend evening, and we'll meet. So, what do you say big boy? You have my e-mail. Send me your name, phone number, and a location, and we'll meet like men ... instead of playing meaningless tit-for-tat on blogs that few people actually read. Donald BONUS DEDICATION: "No Values", from Black Flag's 1980 EP, Jealous Again:
I don't care what you think I don't care what you say I've got nothing to give you Why don't you just go away
I've got no values Nothing to say I've got no values Might as well blow you away
You're just a hole in the corner Always loaded to the hilt I could try some satisfaction I could destroy everything you build
I've got no values Nothing to say I've got no values Might as well blow you away
Don't you try classification When you know it won't work What if I try some annihilation Throw your face in the dirt
I've got no values Nothing to say I've got no values Might as well blow you away
Don't you try pretendin' Telling me it's all right I might start destroyin' Everything in my sight! No values No values No values
When I drove down to the Oceanside Tea Party on April 15th, I thought about Camp Pendleton differently than ever before. It's interesting to see John Basilone, who is memorialized across the Marine base, featured as one of the key heroes of Spielberg's "The Pacific." From Wikipedia:
The Marine Corps has named infrastructure for him on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, including an entry point onto the base from Interstate 5 called "Basilone Road"; a section of U.S. Interstate 5 running through the base called "Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone Memorial Highway"; and a parachute landing zone called "Basilone Drop Zone".
Some of the first episodes are playing on rerun right now on HBO. Not as good as "Band of Brothers," but needed nevertheless, over-theatricized or not.
Added: From Allahpundit, " An RGA staffer tells the Daily Caller that the clip was made entirely in-house by younger staff members. Video software these days is an amazing thing, my friends."
BRITNEY SPEARS' worried father has banned her from leaving home without wearing a bra.
Dad JAMIE - who has legal control over all Britney's affairs - fears his troubled daughter is getting close to the brink again and has imposed a host of new rules on the Womanizer singer.
He is embarrassed by constant pictures of her nipples popping out of her clothes and has insisted she only leaves her Los Angeles home wearing the correct support.
Jamie, 57, is taking the order so seriously he has even threatened to sack one of the 28-year-old's security guards who has let her be photographed bra-less several times in recent weeks.
Jamie recently forced his daughter to dump her 38-year-old boyfriend JASON TRAWICK because he was worried she was falling back into her emotional turmoil after years of recovery.
He feared their volatile relationship was sending fragile Britney close to the edge.
A pal revealed: "Jamie's control over Britney's life is incredible. He hates the pictures of her with her nipples all over the place so he has banned her from leaving the house without a bra.
Despite multiple reports to the contrary ... Britney Spears' father has not given her a bra ultimatum -- in fact, we're told he laughed when he heard the story.
As the tale goes, Jamie Spears was embarrassed by pics of Brit Brit showing off her nip nips, so he imposed a "must wear a bra" rule on his famous conservatee. But sources close to the family tell us there is no such rule in place, nor has there even been any thought of one.
These are the exact Alinsky tactics of folks like Captain Fogg, David Hillman et al., Ex-DLB, and James B. Webb. I can't believe how sick these people are sometimes.
President Obama on Friday strongly criticized restrictive immigration legislation pending in Arizona, calling for a federal overhaul of the nation’s laws instead.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active duty service members in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said that failure to enact immigration reforms would open the door to “irresponsibility by others.”
The “others” he cited in this case apparently referred to state lawmakers in Arizona, who have approved an immigration bill, which, if enacted, would require the police to ask people about their immigration status if officers have any reason to suspect that they’re in the country illegally. The state Legislature sent the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer, who hasn’t indicated publicly whether she will sign it.
Mr. Obama said the Arizona bill threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
No surprise that Obama's in bed with communist open-borders extremists on this. Pictured is the Spartacist table at the March 20 ANSWER protest:
**********
UPDATE: Some pics from the live broadcast of today's John and Ken Show, KFI AM-640. I didn't get a chance to take a good set of photos. One of the head security honchos ushered me away before I could get some solid shots:
And despite arriving before the 2:00pm start time, there was very little seating:
I went back out to the van to listen on the radio. Sheriff Joe came on the air at 2:00pm and I went back over to the hotel to see if I might be able to snag an angle. Here's a sign near the front desk:
The room was overflowing by now, however:
I listened a little longer out in the van, then left to check on my kid at his after-school kids club (he's fine). There's another Sheriff Joe Arpaio event tomorrow, so I might have more then ...
As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.
Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments, and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:
One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles. And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are from "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."
But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2010 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2009 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2083. Projections utilizing OMB data are taken from the White House FY 2011 budget.
I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.
Our lead item Monday, "Why the Left Needs Racism," seems to have struck a chord. One hostile response is especially interesting because it illustrates our point so effectively. It comes from MediaMutters.org, a formally independent group that produces propaganda for the Democratic Party:
First and foremost, it's remarkably insulting. The implication of Taranto's theory is that African-Americans aren't sophisticated or observant or intelligent enough to know real racism when they see it, and are thus continuously duped en masse into voting for Democrats. It couldn't be the case that black voters actually care about issues and have real reasons for voting Democratic, they're just puppets who are motivated by racial sentiments that Democrats prey upon. Taranto and his pals at Fox & Friends might think they're attacking the Democrats, but they're actually demeaning black voters.
It is a commonplace that politicians frequently make appeals based on fear. It hardly seems controversial to assert that fear of racism is not uncommon among black Americans. It would be surprising if it were otherwise at a time when the regime of systematic subjugation known as Jim Crow is still a living memory. We argued that politicians appeal to a fear that is widespread among their constituents--which is to say, they behave in a way typical of politicians.
MediaMutters' suggestion that black voters are "just puppets" is racist and repugnant. In this day and age, one hesitates to dignify such a foul idea by rebutting it, but since MediaMutters raised it, here goes: Black voters are just like other voters. They make their decisions based on a combination of reason and emotion--and on elevated emotions as well as base ones. (The item MediaMutters is attacking attributed black support for President Obama in part to "pride in the first black president," which we called "a normal and wholesome attitude.")
The smear artists of MediaMutters have put forward a racist idea and falsely imputed it to us in an effort to defame us as racist because we criticized Democratic politicians. This is one of the clearest examples we've seen of how the appeal to fear works.
The advantage in public support the Democratic Party built up during the latter part of the Bush administration and the early part of the Obama administration has all but disappeared. During the first quarter of 2010, 46% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 45% identified as or leaned Republican.
The survey interviews date from January, where at that point the new administration had been in power for less than a year. This has to be some sort of record. President Obama's destroyed the brand and, amazingly, die-hard Obama Zombies are going down with the ship in massive numbers.
The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.
From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.
Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.
I think that in person you are probably a decent fellow who cares for this country and who tries to do the right thing, but that in the realm of politics, your honor and integrity are non-existent. Clearly, your religious beliefs have not done anything to prompt you to act in accordance with basic ethical standards. And although I doubt it will play out this way, I sincerely invite you to ask yourself why you have chosen dishonesty and misinformation over a mere correction that would have taken you 30 seconds to write and which would have cost you nothing in terms of ideological point-scoring.
If I'm not mistaken, Barrett wants an update to this post on Wikileaks, where I note, "the video and illustrated photo are added just for idiot Barret Brown, who like all hardline leftists, denies truth for a manufactured reality." (Now updated.) Or it could be this post, where, after debunking Wikileaks' propaganda, I write, "Sorry, Barrett, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Better go back and visit Jawa a bit more." (Now updated.) The Jawa reference is to Rusty Shackleford, et al., who did the yeoman's work in debunking the lies of Julian Assange.
But what's particulary interesting is that, in fact, when first contacted by Barrett, I went to update my posts -- but I couldn't find Barrett's alleged correction. And readers can check for themselves. Below are the relevant headlines at Barrett's blog. Only the first post cited includes anything resembling normal blogospheric practice indicating revisions, such as "UPDATED", or "CORRECTION APPENDED", etc. Frankly, looking again, I'm just now finding what could be seen as a retraction, but the post is not marked in any highlighted fashion, or is the post appended to previous entries to reflect a major rethinking or recognition of others. Truth is, Barrett Brown lives in his own atheistic world of hate, but see the titles for yourself:
Here's where he corrects his mistakes, but there's no special mention at the post or anywhere else. And Barrett never sent me the link as a courtesy heads up:
Amazing resemblance to Johnny Rotten (social conservative). Anyone for some "Bodies"?
she was a girl from birmingham she just had an abortion she was a case of insanity her name was pauline she lived in a tree she was a no one who killed her baby she sent her letters from the country she was an animal she was a bloody disgrase body i'm not an animal body i'm not an animal dragged on a table in a factory illegitimate place to be in a packet in a lavatory die little baby screaming fucking bloody mess it's not an animal it's an abortion body i'm not animal mummy i'm not an abortion throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess i'm not an discharge, i'm not a loss in protein, i'm not a throbbing squirm fuck this and fuck that fuck it all and fuck the fucking brat she don't wanna baby that looks like that i don't wanna baby that looks like that body i'm not an animal body i'm not an abortion body i'm not an animal an animal i'm not an animal... i'm not an abortion... mummy! ugh!
Christopher Layne has been so consistently wrong about the "inevitability" of America's relative international decline that further iterations of his thesis are essentially humiliating episodes of self-flagellation. And the bonus in this case is that Layne's publishing at American Conservative, which by now is the laughingstock publication of contemporary (anti-American paleocon) ideology. See, "Graceful Decline":
The United States emerged from World War II in a position of global dominance. From this unparalleled military and economic power came a Pax Americana that has endured for more than six decades. It seemed the sun would never set on the U.S. empire.
But America is increasingly unable to play the hegemon’s assigned role. Militarily, a hegemon is responsible for stabilizing key regions and guarding the global commons. Economically, it offers public goods by opening its domestic market to other states, supplying liquidity for the world economy, and providing the reserve currency. A hegemon is supposed to solve international crises, not cause them. It is supposed to be the lender of last resort, not the biggest borrower. Faced with wars it cannot win or quit and an economy begging rescue, the United States no longer fits the part ....
That the United States needs a post-Pax Americana foreign policy should be obvious. But there is no guarantee that the U.S. will adjust to a transforming world. Even as the globe is being turned upside down by material factors, the foreign policies of individual states are shaped by the ideas leaders hold about their own nations’ identity and place in world politics. More than most, America’s foreign policy is the product of such ideas, and U.S. foreign-policy elites have constructed their own myths of empire to justify the United States’ hegemonic role. To move successfully to a post-Pax Americana foreign policy, Americans will need to move beyond these myths.
The foundational American myth of empire is exceptionalism, the belief, dating back to the Puritans, that the U.S. is different, better, and morally superior to the rest of the world. Americans have always looked at the outside world suspiciously and viewed it as a source of contagion: war, imperialism, militarism, religious intolerance, non-democratic forms of governance, and latterly totalitarianism, genocide, and terrorism. All these bad things, we believe, come from “over there.”
GSGF posted on this today, and says it much better (more pithy) than I can: "Yawn. Must. Stay Awake."
I'll just add that as long as we've got folks like Angie Harmon unabashedly speaking up for American exceptionalism, I expect American Power to endure quite a while.
Those in our media élites have been taught to see “the other” as the victim of Western cultural hegemony, hence they excuse the violent posturing (and actions) of those deemed spokesmen for (or representatives of) the Third World and/or the “oppressed.” By contrast, any attempt to stand up for the ideas which made this nation great are seen as retrograde, reversion to their perverted image of what our nation’s past was. (Perverted because they define our past by its worst aspects, oblivious to the fact that at least since Reagan, conservatives don’t want to turn back the clock.)
I just posted on Matt Kibbe yesterday (seems like a mellow dude, and JSF had kinds words for him). Well Kibbe's speaking out today against (yet) more leftist hatred, at Big Government, "Geico Cancels a Hater" (via Memeorandum):
We are a grassroots movement made up of people who believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. Racism and hate are inherently collectivist ideas. As individualists we judge people as individuals, based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
I asked the activists that joined with 40,000 of their fellow Americans on the Mall in front of the Washington Monument on the evening of April 15th to police the crowd for any hate or racial slurs. If you see bad actors, ask them to leave. If they won’t leave, get a picture and we will out their bad behavior online in the light of day. I don’t care who you are: we will not tolerate haters or racists in our community.
So when the voice-over guy for Geico Insurance, D.C. Douglas, called and left us another hostile message, and left his phone number, we held him accountable too, posting his message where he calls all of us “mentally retarded,” and potential killers. Geico canceled his contract. He now says that we, “like Glenn Beck, are flirting heavily with sedition.” Strange accusation from an actor that talks for a living.” Americans covet our freedom of speech. We have a sacred right, enshrined in the Constitution, to show up, protest and challenge government policies that are bad for America. Freedom: it’s an insurance policy we should all buy.
This is the typical demonology you get from those sickended dead-souls on the left:
I have pointed this out many times before, but it's worth repeating yet again. One of my all-time favorite movies is The Shawshank Redemption. In it, Morgan Freeman, aka "Red", coined the term when prisoners become dependent on the prison system and can no longer survive without it - institutionalized. One of the older prisoners, Brooks, was willing to kill to stay in the system as he knew nothing else after so many years. Yet they let him out and he promptly hung himself. He was institutionalized. The Democrats have institutionalizing the black population in this country, no different than slave masters did many decades ago. The same party that fought for slavery, not against it, segregated schools and filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 now has shackled the black population to another form of slavery - slavery to the state. Stripped naked of their dignity, their hope and their self-reliance.
And don't forget the Democratic Party's "Blood of Martyrs" racial grievance shakedown strategy:
"Our vote is soaked in the blood of martyrs, the blood of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham, Alabama. This vote is sacred to us. This vote can't be bargained away...given away. Mr. President, in all due respect, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale!"
But as Williams asks, what record of achievement could the Democrats claim to justify continued black partisan support?
The answer: absolutely nothing. But by waving the red flag labeled "blood of martyrs," Sharpton diverted all attention from dealing with bad schools, persistent high rates of unemployment, and a range of issues that are crippling a generation of black youth. Somehow, "blood of martyrs" remains the anthem of black politics at the start of the twenty-first century. Black politics is still defined by events that took place forty years ago. Protest marches are reenacted again and again as symbolic exercises to the point that they have lost their power to achieve change. As a result, black politics is paralyzed, locked in a synchronized salute and tribute, by any mention of the martyrs, the civil rights workers who died violent deaths at the hands of racists. The major national black politicians invoke these icons and perform shallow reenactments of the powerful marches of the movement as hypnotic devices to control their audiences. And if people try to break the spell by suggesting we move beyond these ancient heroes and their tactics, they are put down with language that implicates them as tools of the white establishment, reactionaries who've "forgotten their roots." Race traitors.
And leftists will defend this bankrupt agenda to no end, despite contrary evidence from real folks on the ground:
The post isreally about delegitimizing the tea parties, and especially a recent South Carolina Tax Day Tea Party. As one website put it:
Tea party activists in South Carolina apparently didn’t receive the memo to tone down their incendiary rhetoric, in the wake of death threats and violent acts waged against U.S. lawmakers. A tea party rally held in Greenville over the weekend provided the few thousand in attendance a cornucopia of racism, hate, paranoia, seditious calls to take up arms against the government and anti-gay rhetoric. And the offensive remarks receiving the most attention were those made by the event’s keynote speaker, race-baiting nativist and former U.S. congressman Tom Tancredo. He took to the podium and whipped up the crowd with an anti-Obama racist birther rant: “If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?”
The rally was organized by the Upcountry Conservative Coalition. The group’s mission statement: “We the People…are coalescing to reclaim our God given rights by restoring our Constitutional Republic.”
But leftists have long attacked Senator Graham on his sexual orientation, often using crude homophobic stereotypes:
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an unmarried/never married 52 year old with a funny, forced way of walking, has been far more fastidious with his homosexuality. Again, "everyone" knows-- except the voters in conservative South Carolina. Not that it doesn't come up from time to time; people talk. In fact, the head of the Democratic Party in South Carolina said something when the effeminate Lindsey decided to run for Thurmond's senate seat. "He's a little too light in the loafers" to succeed Strom Thurmond. Graham got into a really queenie tizzy fit and loudly threatened to sue-- although he didn't. (They never do.)
In light of the teabaggers' crude outing of Lindsay Graham, I took a little trip down memory lane and revisited the history of the right wing attacks on gays as threats to national security. I guess that Mad Men craze has unfortunately put McCarthyism back in vogue.
A new poll shows most Americans oppose legalizing marijuana, but as California voters are set to consider the always controversial topic in the fall, many readers are questioning the poll's validity.
In the Associated Press-CNBC poll, 33% of respondents favored legalization while 55% opposed it. The results showed a division in age as younger people were more likely to support legalization, while older people were more likely to oppose it. Women and Republicans also strongly opposed legalization.
California voters will consider the issue of pot legalization in November.
The California initiative would allow anyone 21 or older to possess, share and transport up to an ounce of weed for personal use and grow up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel. It would allow local governments, but not the state, to authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana and to impose taxes in order to raise revenues.
Proponents of legalization cite the financial and social cost of enforcing pot prohibition and argue that marijuana isn't as dangerous and addictive as legal substances such as tobacco or alcohol. While opponents can argue rising teenage use and the harm that marijuana can cause smokers.
According to the AP, the poll conducted April 7-12 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media involved telephone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
Marijuana is always is a hot topic among our readers -- and some questioned the accuracy of the poll. Here is what they had to say about the results ....
If a driver under the influence of marijuana runs into my SUV...do I have the right to beat the living crap of the stoner? ....
Pot users will be more likely to be unemployed and more likely to need free public health care.
On break with my boys, Saturday. Hanging out at Taco Bell across the street from the dealership.
Also, cleaned up my post from this morning with the profanity. My apologies. That's not so much like me, and I haven't felt right most of the day. Frankly, I do it mostly to push the boundaries and confound the lefty freaks. But that needs to be way less frequent. I'm practically morphing into that which I reject (i.e., unwashed netroots atheist commies), and THAT bothers me.
The fact of the matter is that many Americans have soured on President Obama, including those who once were his passionate supporters – the left-wing gay community. I never quite understood their support, since Obama’s views on gay marriage (the Gay Left’s litmus test) are the same as former President Bush’s — and Bush was seen as the devil incarnate. But that being said, there are enough bodies under the Obama bus to have tipped off The Gays that they’d be next.
Looks like some gay Americans aren’t playing their part in the Obama script now. It is just sad that the White House increasingly looks like the Soviet-era Kremlin when it comes to tolerating different points of view.
Kibbe starts to talk like a third party leader, which bothers me. Good stuff other than that (and toward the end, Kibbe predicts for a landslide GOP takeover in November).
Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, has asserted that the report “bestows virtual immunity on terrorists and ties the hands of any nation to protect itself.” The U.S.-led war on terror, with its vast tally of civilian deaths, Oren wrote, could never pass muster before such an inquiry. Ehud Barak, Israel’s minister of defense, declared that democracies “must not allow themselves to be handcuffed by the abusive application of lofty ideals.” What, after all, was Israel to do against an enemy that intentionally based its fighters and rockets in the midst of civilians, daring the IDF to produce the kind of collateral damage that would provoke international opprobrium? The argument comes down to this: If international humanitarian law really does criminalize Israel’s behavior in Gaza, then abiding by it is a suicide pact for countries, like Israel, confronted with terrorism. And if that’s the case, then states must choose either surrendering to their enemies or enduring global censure—or international humanitarian law must change.
With just over six months to campaign, Democrats face a substantial risk of losing the House and surrendering much of their advantage in the Senate, as Republicans capitalize on strong discontent with President Obama and continued voter concern over jobs and the economy.
The trend marks an erosion for Democrats since the beginning of the year, after the retirement of several senior lawmakers and the polarizing healthcare debate. Even recent signs of an economic rebound — the first glimmers of job creation, the stock market surge, a big rise in consumer spending — may not help Democrats, unless it translates into a significant drop in the unemployment rate by fall.
The good news for Obama and fellow Democrats is that, unlike the Republican landslide of 1994, strategists are well aware of the peril the party faces — Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown saw to that — and have much more time to fight back.
"Democrats got a heads-up," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster with dozens of clients in the midterm election. "They can raise more money, do opposition research against opponents, do focus-group testing on how to beat these guys. ... In 1994, they had very little notice a wave was coming" ....
Still, several trends are running strongly in Republicans' favor, after two dismal elections that first cost them control of Congress, then the White House.
The party holding the White House almost always loses congressional seats at the midpoint of a president's first term; since World War II, the average is 16 House seats. However, the losses have been much greater when a president's approval rating is below 50%, where Obama has been hovering of late ....
"The question is not whether we have an uphill climb," said Maryland Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, head of the party's House campaign committee. "The question is the steepness of the hill."
It's going to be tougher in the Senate (the GOP must win all 10 closely contested states), but it's not like it's getting any easier for the Dems (see, "Distrust, Discontent, Anger And Partisan Rancor").
My son and I build stuff during off-blogging hours. That's one of the cool things about having a wife and kids (not to mention God). Maybe JBW should quit troll-stalking babes on the web and try some traditional values. Seriously, that's got to beat posting anti-child atheist trash or Rachel Maddow bullhockey talking points:
Oh! It's a memorial for human beings who died 15 years ago. We are remembering them, and that brings Bill Clinton, who was President in 1995, to the fore. There was nothing partisan about who lived and died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Children — individuals who never thought about politics — died that day. Yet here is Bill Clinton using his special prominence today to unleash a political attack to push back a populist movement that threatens his political party.
Dr. Biobrain's hurting for traffic, I guess. He complained long ago that I was ignoring him (whaa!) so by now he's crawling on hands and knees for attention. See, "Donald Douglas Doesn't Know What a Tax Cut Is."
And Ex-DLB, who's apparently a gang-bang blogger, finally found some cajones in the comments at Biobrain's, although he's still fail on Obama taxes. See, "Obamacare and Taxes: The Final Tab."
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
