The Alaska Fund Trust launches
Via HotAir.com.
The official legal defense fund for Gov. Palin has finally launched.
There is a rather unfortunate upper limit (so Mr. O'Reilly won't be able to drop a couple grand into it, although I'm looking forward to seeing him publicize it on The Factor), but I guess as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter too much.
Barney Frank Rewrites History – Says the Poor Should Not Own Homes
Found via HotAir.com:
Well, I for one am glad that the congressman has changed his opinion on the issue. I am glad that he acknowledges that people don't deserve homes by their sheer existence. They must be able to afford it (on their own; the government intervening will just inflate the price of home ownership, as it has with cost of education).
People are not entitled to anything (that's right, not even the "American Dream"; you earn that dream, not handed out to you), perhaps other than (just because we live in softer times) not to starve and perhaps to be treated for illness when they step through that emergency room doors (provided that either they can afford the care or that the care won't be so expensive that it will be an unbearable burden on the provider). Anything above that, they must earn it.
If they don't, well, the life of a pauper is exactly the thing they deserve.
Perez Hilton Says Carrie Prejean Gave Inaccurate Information, Shanna Moakler Wants Her to Shut Up
The war between Perez Hilton and Miss California is far from being over since he lashed out against her for declaring that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" at the Miss USA pageant on Sunday night. But it seems the self-confessed Queen of Media has changed his tune a little, initially he lashed out that Prejean gave "the wrong answer" to his question but now he said he marked her down primarily because he disagreed with her facts more so than her opinion.
"She started off on the wrong foot, she was spieling inaccurate information," Hilton told Tarts at the Us Weekly "Hot in Hollywood" party at MyHouse on Wednesday night, referring to Prejean’s statement that ‘we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.’ "I live in the state of California and I can’t choose, the state doesn’t allow me. She was under pressure and she let the pressure get to her and dug a really deep hole for herself."
Bzzt! The liberal can back peddle all he wants, but the facts remain as they are: he marked down Miss California out of his bigotry and ignorance (do judges usually give zeros at all at these beauty pageants?).
Her facts are not wrong, his facts were wrong. This wasn't a regional Californian pageant. It was Miss USA, and in USA, it's still true that people can choose: you can move to Vermont. I won't go into details about how Prop. 8 isn't a ban on gay relationship—it's defense of the definition of word "marriage"; no one will oppose anyone who wants to make domestic partnership legal equal of marriage, as far as privileges and powers go (because there are some real differences there at least for the moment). But it still remains that factually (and, for me, opinion-wise as well) Miss Carrie Prejean was right: people can choose in USA.
Here's the video I just re-watched to make sure that I remembered her answer correctly,
and I want you to take note of the way Mr. Hilton phrased his question: "Do you think every state should follow suit?" So, if we believe that America is a land of freedom and choice, it appears that it's actually Mr. Hilton who wants to eliminate choice: the choice for an American to live in a land where "marriage" is still defined (legally speaking, of course) as that between a man and woman and reserve some other word, maybe "civil union" or "domestic partnership" for ... shall we say, nontraditional relationships.
Yes, Vermont legalizing gay marriage the proper way (that is, democratically and not by some judge) was a great thing. It provides more choice to people. But arguing that everybody should do what Vermont did is a bad thing. It limits choice to people.
And if Mr. Hilton can't accept that, well, he will remain the bigot he has abundantly proven himself to be.
P.S. Oh, and as for her Hollywood managers and agents wanting to stifle her First Amendment rights (yet again proving that liberals only pay lip service to free speech and freedom of the press, rather than genuinely wanting someone's opinion heard), I'm sure others have said this before and I will say: if Miss Prejean wants to stay in show business at all, I think there will be a much greater career for her as news anchor, reporter, or correspondent than there ever will be in acting. Hollywood is not a place for good, pious people to be.
Napolitano Apologizes to Veterans Group for 'Rightwing Extremism' Report
Napolitano met with the American Legion at its request for about 45 minutes in a private meeting. The group had called for an apology from her in a letter earlier this month.
It was at least the third apology Napolitano has offered ever since the report was leaked to the media nearly two weeks ago, prompting a growing chorus of criticism -- including a small group of vocal conservative lawmakers calling for Napolitano's resignation.
"We connected meaningfully about the important issues that have emerged over recent days, and I offered him my sincere apologies for any offense to our veterans caused by this report," she said in a statement. Napolitano pledged that her department has "fixed the internal process that allowed this document to be released before it was ready."
To me, it still doesn't sound like a real apology. She keeps qualifying her apology ("apologies for any offense ..."). It sounds like she's saying "sorry" because she annoyed some people, not because her action (or her department's action, at any rate) itself was irresponsible and reprehensible whether or not anyone was offended (the vets could've taken it as a joke, in some bizarro world).
A sincere apology is an unqualified, unconditional apology. Maybe the difference is in me reading it whereas those who met her heard it in person—God knows a lot gets lost in writing words down especially if it's not written by the person herself, and given that the vets present were satisfied and this being Fox News, I have to believe that those who met her believed the apology to be sincere—but it would have been much better for those of us who couldn't be there in person if we could see an unqualified, unconditional apology for the report written down.
Turkey: Obama Failed to Honor Slain Turks in Statement Condemning Armenian Killings
Obama broke a campaign promise and refrained from branding the WWI-era massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey a "genocide," but Turkey says the president also failed to express sympathy for slain Turks.
Oh, my. What a grave insult. President Obama failed to honor Turkish heroes? That's like not bowing to the dignified Saudi kings!
This, if anything, is yet another proof that you can't please everybody—and why you shouldn't run a campaign based on pleasing everyone. You may be able to do that for a short time (mainly by bashing someone unpopular), but that's the limit. As Lincoln said, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time." Or was it about fooling people? I keep mixing those two up.
We should stick to our principles and interests and let things be. We shouldn't make statements about events that we weren't involved in. Either we feel so strongly about it that we declare war (constitutionally, through Congress), or we shut up. Condemnations without consequences is worse than acquiescence with apathy. We let the world be, and we make the world let ourselves be.
Ron Paul At The Arab American Institute Conference
Last outdated Ron Paul video for the night:
Skip to 16:00.
That's exactly my sentiment. I am an American, and I put America's interests above anything else. But, like other immigrants, issues and happenings in their country of origin ... can affect me emotionally.
Non-interventionist policy is the only policy consistent with both ideals. Don't damage America's position or interests by making it take sides, and don't generate enmity among loyal immigrants in America by making it act against any particular country.
Ron Paul Short Promo Video
I guess this is somewhat late now ... but I'm surprised that he support repealing the 16th Amendment (which I support as well—U.S. would benefit from abolition of income tax and the monster of IRS), mainly because I thought he didn't support national sales tax either.
Does he mean to have the federal government subsist only on excise tax and tariff? If that monster could, that would be like heaven, but then, wishes are not horses.
More realistically, we should probably cut down federal services and income tax rates gradually over the years. Shift all the government services (if any) to the states, as well as taxes (be it income tax or sales tax). If one state wants to provide a lot of services and tax a lot, well, fine. The people will still have a choice to move to another state. As it is, you practically have to move out of U.S. permanently to avoid federal income tax (I believe you still get taxed on income you earn outside U.S.), but as bad as it may have gotten in the last century, U.S. is still the best country to live in—we just want to make it better (by restoring her founding values).
On the whole, I think I agree with everything he says in this video. That's ... such a rare pleasure.
Ron Paul My Main Concern Is Reversing Our Empire Mentality
He sounds like a bit of a windbag here (maybe it's just me, but I want "questions" to be short. You know, end the question before I forget what you were actually asking), but he is right on one thing: We don't need an "American Empire".
There can be a danger in being unwilling to wield your big stick. But there is no reason we should wield our big stick for anybody else except for us. For allies, especially proven, loyal allies like U.K., perhaps. Anybody else (especially "friends" like the freaking French)? No way in hell.
We should withdraw all our troops, slowly but surely from the worldwide bases (places like Korea and Europe are a few where we do not belong and do not need to be), and eventually dissolve NATO itself. After all, what good has it done us? Where are NATO forces in Afghanistan? What happened to "attack on one of us is attack on us all"?
We don't have to necessarily go back to post-WWI isolationist policies. We can still trade. We can still sell conventional weapons to those who can afford them (and those who won't kill their own citizens with them). We will still be the arsenal of freedom. But there's no reason our men and women should die for the entire world. Let the rest of the world carry their share of the burden.
We should stick to using our manpower and technology for defending America (North America, if it has to be, since if Canada or Mexico is taken over by hostile force, that would be rather great threat) and her borders. Keep spies and informants in foreign nations, if necessary—not soldiers risking their lives day and night.
NOM Launches Religious Liberty Ad Campaign!
I couldn't find this ad on YouTube site itself (the parodies outrank it and outstrip it by far), but luckily it's on their website:
This ad makes better argument against public schools than gay marriage. After all, the strongest argument that they have is that gay marriage may need to be taught in school, as part of government sanction of gay marriage (that is, a gay union using the word "marriage", not just any legally recognized gay union).
Yes, I've heard gay marriage supporters argue that this argument is bogus—but I don't quite believe them.
But, regardless, imagine we had no public schools at all. Instead, imagine we had healthy network of private schools (such as Catholic schools). It can either be funded privately by parents (who presumably no longer need to pay for failing public schools through property tax, etc.). Or if changes in tax codes are not wanted, then they can be charter schools (although significant portion will have to come from local tax rebates as public schools are mostly funded through local taxes).
The parents and students will have a choice. If a school teaches gay marriage and it offends them, then they can take their business elsewhere. If a school does not teach gay marriage and it offends them, then they can take their business elsewhere. Let the people vote with their money (or, at least, the money their presence will bring). A significant minority can survive and thrive in that atmosphere, rather than being oppressed by the tyranny of majority.
Incidentally, this will also solve the whole evolution vs. creationism argument in public schools. Let each school choose, and in turn, let each parent and student choose. After all, this is America, the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
The world's intelligence agencies and defense experts are quietly acknowledging that North Korea has become a fully fledged nuclear power with the capacity to wipe out entire cities in Japan and South Korea, the Times of London reported.
Really? That's news to me. If I remember correctly, North Korea's underground test was a dud—the quakes it produced were too small to be coming from a nuclear bomb (although tad bit too large to be a regular-sized conventional explosive). North Korea has not done any successful nuclear testing.
And its "missile testing" wasn't exactly a success either.
Besides, if North Korea was a nuclear power, don't you think they would announce it? After all, the true power in possessing a nuclear device isn't in actually using it. It's in letting others know that you have it and may use it if forced to.