Monday, June 1, 2009

We Have Some Winners In : “It’s Anatomically Impossible…Butt”.

We Have Some Winners In : “It’s Anatomically Impossible…Butt”.


Keep Track Of Ralph Lopez In Afghanistan Here…


Net Right Nation Blog

Just Say No to Government Motors and Obamacars-


Written by Hugh Hewitt   

Monday, 01 June 2009 14:49

From the Washington Examiner:

I won't buy a socialist car, which means I won't be buying a GM or Chrysler car for as long as the U.S. government owns huge blocks of the companies.

Today's bankruptcy filing by GM will see the end of a once-great car company and the birth of a federal government-union partnership dressed up as a business.  It won't work, even with the $50 billion federal tax dollars plowed into the new entity past and present, and not even with the UAW's "concessions." 

Governments can do very few things well and almost nothing efficiently.

Yes, it can build amazing armies and the weapons and technologies to support them, but only at extraordinary cost and only with often dismaying waste.  We pay these prices because we absolutely need the incredible effectiveness of our military that results from the enormous investment of resources.  We also recognize the sacrificial spirit of the men and women in uniform who serve in the military.  They aren't in it for their jobs or the health benefits.

But a government -run car company is a very unnecessary, indeed a deeply dismaying prospect.  And not primarily because it won't make good cars at competitive prices, though almost certainly neither the new GM or the new Chrysler will do so.  History tells us these ventures are highly unlikely to succeed.

Rolls Royce and British Leyland Motor Corporation were nationalized by the British government, the former in 1971, the latter four years later.  Neither intervention succeeded in making either company profitable.

Six months ago the New York Times ran an article that reminded readers that British Leyland "went through £11 billion of inflation-adjusted British taxpayer money, or $16.5 billion, in the ’70s and ’80s before going out of business."

"All that is left of the company now are memories of cars like the Triumph," the story continued "and a painful lesson in the limited effectiveness of bailouts."

So a year and two and five from now we will see the brave new car world of the U.S. looking increasingly like the very familiar failures of the past.  If Congress remains in the hands of democrats, the tax subsidies will continue to flow until finally, under some American Thatcher down the road (may it be 2013), the game is called and the very expensive ghost given up.

Even if these massive subsidies for a time present appealing products at subsidized prices, however, I won't be visiting a GM or Chrysler lot no matter the product offered.  The very idea of a socialized American car company ought to cause millions of Americans to reject the idea of doing their car shopping at those venues.

The DNA of America is coded with private enterprise and individual risk-taking and reward. The idea of the government owning businesses of any sort is not merely bad economics, it is terrible government.  Buying a GM or a Chrysler is consenting to a massive leftward lurch in the American form of government, a "buying-into" a bought up company, and one gobbled up in a series of transactions which pummeled the private investor while protecting the pols and their union supporters. 

Any American who values their traditions of free enterprise and political freedom will urge the federal government to disinvest itself from these companies immediately.  The federal government can quickly put its controlling stake in the companies on the market and do so at whatever price makes the market.

New, private sector leadership can then decide how best to proceed in the new world of rising government mandates on gas mileage and hybrid design.  The billions sunk into these companies will only be partially recovered by a quick reconversion of the government's ownership into private stock, but so, too, will the bleeding of tax dollars end and, more important, so will the experiment with American socialism.

Buy Ford. Buy Toyota.  Buy anything that isn't owned and operated by the federal government.  There are plenty of great cars out there.  You don't have to buy one that costs not just your cash, but also your commitment to free enterprise and all the benefits that flow from it.

Examiner columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at


Tucker Carlson Once Criticized Calling "Your Opponents ... Racists," Now Uses Word To Describe Sotomayor

Following President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson has stated that Sotomayor made a "racist statement" in a 2001 speech and suggested that she might be a "racist kook." But Carlson previously criticized the use of the term "racist" as an attack against political opponents. On a 2002 broadcast of CNN'sCrossfireMedia Matters for America senior researcher Eric Hananoki, before his employment atMedia Matters, was in the audience and asked Carlson whether "it hurts conservatives to associate themselves ... with people like Ann Coulter who routinely make bigoted and racist comments." Carlson responded in part by stating that "dismissing your opponents by calling them racists and bigots" -- which he described as "what many Democrats do reflexively" -- is "name calling" and "beneath contempt."

From the June 27, 2002, edition of CNN's Crossfire [transcript from]:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. This question is for Mr. Carlson. Do you think it hurts conservatives to associate themselves with women or people actually -- like people like Ann Coulter who routinely make bigoted and racist comments in her column? And my name is Eric Anokee (ph). I'm from Honolulu, Hawaii.

CARLSON: That's great, Eric. I'm not a -- I'm not familiar with the bigoted and racist comments. I do -- that you refer to -- I doubt they exist. But I would say Ann Coulter has one good point. I think she's a little over the top sometimes -- but that dismissing your opponents by calling them racists and bigots, which is what many Democrats do reflexively, that is not argument, that is name calling. I think it's beneath contempt.

CARVILLE: We like name calling on CROSSFIRE.

As Media Matters noted, on the May 26 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, Carlson distorted a comment Sotomayor made during a 2001 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, stating that she had said that "because of your race or gender, you're a better or worse judge; that female, Latina judges are likely to render wiser decisions than white male judges." Carlson continued, "That's a racist statement, by any calculation."

Additionally, in a June 1 online discussion, Carlson said of Sotomayor's comment, "Sotomayor said something stupid. It might just be easier to apologize for it." After a questioner criticized Carlson for calling Sotomayor's remark "stupid" and stated that Carlson had taken Sotomayor's statement out of context, Carlson responded: "I think 'stupid' was a charitable description, since it suggests her wording was unintentional. If that's precisely what she meant to say, she's a racist kook and ought to step down from the bench right now. But I'm giving her every benefit of every doubt."

From the discussion:

Alabama: Tucker, have you now watched or read the remarks of [Supreme Court Justice Samuel] Alito since they were brought to your attention on Fox yesterday? If so, wanna explain the difference?

Tucker Carlson: Of all the talking points partisans are instructed to repeat during nomination fights, this is among the all-time lamest: Alito did it too. First of all, it's false. Alito never claimed that growing up Italian made him a better judge than, say, your average black woman. But even if he had some something that stupid (and I would have opposed seating him if he had) what's the point? That Obama has nominated someone every bit as mediocre as Bush did? Not much of a defense.

Sotomayor said something stupid. It might just be easier to apologize for it.

Happy Monday by the way.


Sigh...: Mr, Carlson, sigh. After I just commended you for being civil, you now call one of Judge Sotomayor's comments "stupid." Just as the right did with Pastor Wright, you all are taking her quote out of context. She was merely saying that having experienced discrimination herself, that she would have a better perspective on discrimination than white males. She NEVER said she was "better" than white males.

Ana Marie Cox: I'm gonna defend Tucker's right to call her comment "stupid," if only because I think we can all agree that her life would be easier if she had made her point using a different set of words. Words more like yours, Sigh.

That said, I do think what you say here IS what she meant, and the only criticism she deserves for not being especially far-sighted in how her words might be interpreted. Which is, when you think about it, an important skill in a judge.

Tucker Carlson: Have you read her comments? I have, and in context. She said that her "physiology" as a Latina gave her wisdom superior to that of the average white man. Which means....what? Latinas have bigger brains?

I think "stupid" was a charitable description, since it suggests her wording was unintentional. If that's precisely what she meant to say, she's a racist kook and ought to step down from the bench right now. But I'm giving her every benefit of every doubt.


This Week In God: Conservatives Attack the Capital

Posted by Steve BenenWashington Monthly 


Also from the God Machine this week: a disgraced priest, Sotomayor and religion, and Liberty University.

First up from the God Machine this week is a church-state story that we've been following, about the ongoing complaints about the new visitor center that opened in December on Capitol Hill.

Some religious right activists and far-right lawmakers, led in large part by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), are outraged that the visitor center is largely secular. For example, near the center's entrance, there's an engraving: "We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution." The quote comes from Rufus Choate, who served in the House and Senate in the 1830s, and DeMint described the quote as "offensive."

This week, Roll Call reported that some GOP lawmakers are pushing a bill that would spend $150,000 in taxpayer money to etch a reference to "In God We Trust" as the national motto into stone, and placed prominently in the Capitol Visitor Center.

"There are number of references or appropriate religious references in the Capitol Visitor Center, but this is something I think is important," said Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), the bill's lead sponsor and the top Republican on the House Administration Committee. "We do have 'In God We Trust' over the rostrum in the House ... [and] it has a relationship to the Founding Fathers' documents."

Actually, Lungren's wrong; "In God We Trust" doesn't appear in any of the "Founding Fathers' documents." Literally, not one. In fact, the nation's founders chose "e pluribus unum" as a national motto -- a reference to the nation's unique diversity -- and Lungren, the Heritage Foundation, and other conservatives want references to it replaced.

Lungren's bill, submitted last Wednesday, currently has four co-sponsors in the House. Expect that number to grow.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Liberty University, the evangelical college in Virginia started by televangelist Jerry Falwell, caused some controversy last week when it yanked official recognition for the on-campus student group for Democrats. This week, my friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked the Internal Revenue Service to review the tax-exempt status of the school, arguing that Liberty, as a tax-exempt institution, cannot legally favor one political party over another.

* Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, oddly enough, will not oppose Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination. "I like the fact that she is not brandishing her religion," Donohue told Steven Waldman. "I do not want Catholic judges to rule as Catholics but as judges. I am all for Catholic legislators having a Catholic-informed opinion, but a judge has a different charge. Unless something pops that we don't know about, I am not going to oppose her. Indeed, the experiences I had working with the Puerto Rican community lead me to quietly root for her."

* And finally, in Miami, the Rev. Alberto Cutie, a Cuban-American priest, is a celebrity, often referred to as "Father Oprah." He has hosted shows on Telemundo, is a syndicated Spanish-language columnist, and headed the archdiocese's Radio Paz and Radio Peace broadcasts, heard throughout the Americas and in Spain. Cutie ran into a little trouble recently when he was photographed showing quite a bit of affection for his girlfriend -- which is generally frowned upon among Roman Catholic priests. This week, Cutie left the Catholic Church, was received into the Episcopal Church, and announced his wedding engagement.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Fair Use Notice: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.