Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ann Coulter mixes it up with the resident liberals on 'The View' -- Whoopi Bleeped.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 28, 2012

Friends, you are going to like this. Ordinarily I wouldn't be covering 'The View" -- a chronically liberal hen party -- but Ann Coulter is a favorite of mine, and she acquitted herself fit and proper on this particular show. Good light reading.

"The View" co-hosts get into heated discussion with Coulter, the author of "Mugged."


The conservative commentator makes the case in her new book, "Mugged" that liberals use race mongering for political advantage.
Host Whoopi Goldberg confronted the author over the topic of race, cursing her out and accusing her of not knowing what she was talking about.
Coulter voraciously defended her book, claiming its more about white liberals, than African Americans.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT...
JOY BEHAR: With 40 days until the election, Ms. Ann Coulter is back with a new book, "Mugged", where she claims that President Obama has abandoned black Americans and that the OJ Simpson verdict was a great thing for America. Please welcome back the very controversial Ann Coulter!
Ann, I need you to tell me, what you are trying to say in this book. Because we don't know what you are trying to say.
ANN COULTER: What I am trying to say is race mongering has been very bad for America, liberals use it to promote causes that nothing to do with blacks and in fact harm blacks. And that excellent lead in you just gave, with OJ, I think that was the movement, having lived near New York City in the 70's and 80's, which was the golden era, it was Trayvon Martin and Duke Lacrosse case everyday.
With the OJ verdict, white America said that’s it, the white guilt bank is shutdown. And that ended up being the best thing that ever happened to black Americans.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: What are you talking about?
COULTER: I meant that no longer...
BARBARA WALTERS: He being aquited was good for whom?
COULTER: Millions of white people watching with the equivalent of in New York, we use the Brooklyn juries who simply would not convict, even guilty black criminals.
GOLDBERG: You know what, hold up Ms. Coulter. Please stop, please stop! If you're going to talk about race, at least, know what you're talking about. At least know what you're talking about.
Tell me how much you know about being black?
COULTER: Well, this isn't about being black.
GOLDBERG: But you just said that this is, you just made all these statements about how black people feel, tell me how you know it?
COULTER: This is not a book about black people, this is a book about white liberals. And I do know and this is a fact, once for years, Republican policies on crime and welfare for example were called racist.
When they finally got implemented after the OJ verdict, implemented by Giuliani in New York, Reagan and Bush judges overall, tens of thousands of black lives were saved. That's a fact.
GOLDBERG: Your facts a just a little shaky. You're saying that because liberals have abandoned black people now because, what? I don't get it, I don't understand.
COULTER: I don't think that liberals ever cared about black people. 5 minutes after the civil rights act of '64, they start calling everything that doesn't have to do with black people a "civil rights issue"
Abortion on demand, homeless rights...
SHERRI SHEPARD: You're saying liberals don't care about black people, then are you saying that Republicans embrace us in a warm fuzzy.
COULTER: I do, we are not embraced back. We try to...
BEHAR: So, the white southern strategy wasn't a republican thing, it was a Republican thing? And also Newt Gingrich calls President Obama a food stamp president, that's not racist?
HASSELBECK: Do you think its racist for Newt to say that the President is a food stamp President?
COULTER: I'm not a big fan of Newt, so we can just skip that for a second and get to the Southern Strategy because I've specifically disproved it. It's absolutely a liberal folk-lore, Republicans were winning the South since 1920, it was the outer states of the South, it was Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia.
GOLDBERG: What are you talking about, we weren't allow to vote?
COULTER: Who was trying to get them to vote, Republicans were! And the first black congressmen were all Republicans and the first black Governor was a Republican.
GOLDBERG: Wait a minute, you are talking about way back after...
SHEPARD: Everyone understands Republicans are way different than the way they are now and...
COULTER: And that's what we are told and The Democratic segregationist were all Democrats, it's a lie that they were Conservative democrats
GOLDBERG: Everyone was a segregationist darling , everybody was! White people were, they didn't matter whether they were Republican or not.
COULTER: Republicans were not...
GOLDBERG: Bullshit! Bullshit, I'm sorry! That's bull, that's bull
COULTER: No, no that is not... ok just read chapter 14 in the book, the first Republicans to be elected in the south
GOLDBERG: I listen to my grandmother, who was there! Who remembers what happened.
COULTER: Howard Baker, an aggressive integrationist, first Republican elected in Tennessee to the Senate, Winthrop Rockefeller, first republican governor in Arkansas, an integrationist.
The Southern Strategy is a lie.
BEHAR: It seems to me that voter suppression is happening in areas where black people and hispanics are and it is really being promoted by the Republicans, not the Democrats.
So, my view and I have a different one from you, it looks as though the Republicans are really going against blacks, not the Liberals. What do you say to that?
COULTER: It's a perfect example, no i'll explain why, of liberals using the label of civil rights to promote a liberal cause they support, ie voter fraud, in fact one of the first states in the union to pass voter ID bill was Rhode Island, 85 percent democrat legislature. And who pushed it? A black Democrat in the house, a black Democrat in the senate. That's a fact!
BEHAR: You may pick out Rhode Island, but there are other states where it's completely Republican driven
COULTER: Why would Black Democrats be pushing this? Because they've seen voter fraud!
BEHAR: Because they want the hispanic vote to go to Romney!
BARBARA WALTERS: Can I ask a general question, everybook that you write is very controversial and shocking and usually an opinion thats desperate with everyone else.
Do you just write these books and try to find whatever it is that's going to make everybody say, "Ah!"
BEHAR: You don't believe this crap?
COULTER: The reason, it's an excellent question. The reason I write these books is because I try to correct things that people believe that are just false.
SHEPARD: Here's a question, because I was reading the book..
WALTERS: And you may be the only one that says it.
COULTER: There are a few things, discovering that we never won the Goldwater states and Republicans didn't win the Dixiecrat states until the Dixiecrats died out
SHEPARD: You keep standing back in the past, you got to come back to the present. But this what I wanted to say.
COULTER: That's new to me, the rest of it other people know.
SHEPARD: You keep saying if you read chapter 14, you make such divisive comments and incendiary comments, and hateful comments at times, it makes people not want to pick up your book and read it!
COULTER: No, I don't think so. What's a hateful comment in here?
SHEPARD: When you talk about, you stay in the past,
COULTER: Well, that’s because that was brought up. It’s just a fact.
SHEPARD: When you talk about voter suppression, which is obviously trying to keep black and Latino.
COULTER: Republicans have never done that, that was a Democrat thing...
SHEPARD: Ann, there are states where they don't even have...
WALTERS: Stop it, can I just say one thing to Ann? No matter what, you sit down here and you got 5 women going bah badda badda, whatever it is, thank you for coming on!

Over $60,000 in welfare spent on each U.S. household in poverty!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 26, 2012

 

Oct 26, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER THE WEEKLY STANDARD

 New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services

"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. 
For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)


Friday, October 26, 2012

How many birthdays did Planned Parenthood prevent in 96 years?


Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 26, 2012

margaret sanger
Margaret Sanger, 
Founder of Planned Parenthood

By Paul E. Rondeau

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest private abortion business in the world, is celebrating its 96th anniversary today.  

Planned Parenthood promotes itself as a leader in women’s health. In reality, PPFA has managed to end the lives of over 6,000,000 human beings in its own facilities since 1970. And, during that same time, it collected over $6 billion in taxpayer money. 

It is the abortion superstore, committing 27 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2010-over 329,000, according to its own report.

Today, a new study by Protect Black Life shows that 79 percent of PPFA surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods, contributing to the dismaying statistic that black abortions are 300 percent higher per capita than whites. This is no surprise to pro-life African-American leaders, whom the mainstream media and politicians avoid whenever possible-especially in this election year.

Margaret Sanger, a member of the American Eugenics Society, stated in her 1932 Plan for Peace that persons from “dysgenic groups” should be given their choice of sterilization or confinement on a farm for the rest of their lives. She saw minorities and the poor as “weeds” that needed to be controlled

Is this why Obamacare contributes another $1 billion to abortions and puts Planned Parenthood into schools?

A world without Planned Parenthood? That would be a celebration.

Paul E. Rondeau is the Executive Director of American Life League

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/10/how-many-birthdays-did-planned-parenthood-prevent-in-96-years/

Democrats oppose the Farm Bill mainly because they don't understand it.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 26, 2012

MOST DEMOCRATS THINK FOOD ORIGINATES IN THE FOOD LION OR HARRIS TEETER.

| October 26, 2012 | Reply
 
farmingWashington, DC- Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement to highlight the Democratic Party opposition to the Farm Bill:
“In Iowa, President Obama pointed fingers at everyone but members of his own party for holding up the passage of the Farm Bill,” said Congressman Steve King. 

“President Obama’s administration, including Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, should be more focused on convincing their Democratic colleagues why the Farm Bill is important for rural America, instead of spending time traveling throughout Iowa trying to convince us. Iowans already understand why the Farm Bill programs are critical to producers and farmers."
 
ICYMI: Below is a compilation of members of the Democratic party who vocally oppose the bipartisan Farm Bill:
  • Secretary Tom Vilsack said “…the House Republicans have added new uncertainty for rural America.”USDA Statement
  • House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is “troubled by the food stamp cuts” and said the cuts in the farm bill “are totally unacceptable.” The Hill
  • House Agriculture Ranking Member Colin Peterson said ““Some won’t vote for a farm bill if there is one dollar in cuts to food stamps.” The Hill
  • Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn “[warned] the House Agriculture Committee that to proceed with planned food stamp cuts is an “abomination.”  Politico
  • House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer “has strong concerns” about the food stamp cuts agreed on by the House Agriculture Committee. The Hill
  • California Democrat Rep. Lynn Woolsey said, “”These cuts are a slap in the face to millions of people trying to make ends meet.” US News and World Report
  • Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro even went as far as to “[urge] Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders to oppose the bill. ‘No farmer is being cut back. They are being made whole,” she said. “The people are getting screwed in this process are the people who can least afford it.’ ” The Hill
Category: Agriculture

Thursday, October 25, 2012

CNN founder, Jane Fonda ex-husband, cheers military suicides

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 25, 2012





















If you want to know why Ted Turner is Jane Fonda’s favorite ex-husband, look no further than statements like these.

As if anyone really needed a reminder, the man who helped found cable news is every bit as hostile to America as his traitorous ex-wife. And no the left does not support the troops. As one anti-war rally banner read, “We support the troops when they shoot their officers.” Now Ted Turner has added an addendum of his own. “We support the troops when they shoot themselves.”

And guess who Ted Turner is supporting in the 2012 election?
“I like Obama policies better because he’s more environmental. I think Romney has gotten too close to the coal and oil industry. And that’s basically and I think Obama is better on the environment and better as far as I think he truly wants to end the wars,” Turner said.
Ted Turner contemplated running for president, but his ex-wife (Jane Fonda) stated she would divorce him if he ran.
“We split up anyway. But you can’t, without a first lady you can’t run any way. When you’re getting a divorce you can’t run for president.”
Tragic. Just think of the kind of Commander-in-Chief that we missed out on.

U.N. 'Human Rights Council' calls for boycott of U.S. companies.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 26, 2012

U.N.'s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs
BY:


The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.
The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.
The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”
The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.
“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”
The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.
“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”
In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”
Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.
When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged, “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

Supreme Court Outcome Will Have Lasting Effects

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 25, 2012


File:NorthCarolinaSupremeCourtSeal.gif





 

 

 

 

 

Rulings on redistricting expected to hinge on election results

Associate Editor, Carolina Journal


RALEIGH — To many, the race is below the radar, taking a back seat to the presidential and gubernatorial contests in North Carolina. But some say the battle for a state Supreme Court justice seat could be the most important race to be decided by the state’s voters this year.

The reason? The outcome of this race will decide whether the partisan balance will shift toward the Democrats or remain with the Republicans on the officially nonpartisan Supreme Court.

Among other issues, the court will decide whether the legislative and congressional maps set last year by the Republican-led General Assembly are constitutional. If the justices say no, it may take a year or more to draw new maps and complete all the legal challenges to them. The justices may wind up drawing the final maps before the 2014 election, and whether the majority is Democratic or Republican could have a significant effect on the partisan makeup of the General Assembly and the state’s congressional delegation.

The race pits incumbent Republican Justice Paul Newby of Raleigh against Democratic Court of Appeals Judge Sam J. “Jimmy” Ervin IV of Morganton.

“I believe in judicial self-restraint,” Newby said of his judicial philosophy. “I believe in separation of powers. It is the legislative branch that makes the laws. The judicial branch fairly and impartially applies the laws as intended.”

Ervin declined an opportunity to talk to Carolina Journal about his campaign for a seat on the state’s highest court. On his campaign Web page, Ervin addresses his philosophy: “The law is the glue that holds society together. As a member of the Court of Appeals, I have applied it dispassionately, fairly, and conscientiously. I will do the same on the Supreme Court.”

During a Sept. 26 candidate forum in Raleigh sponsored by The Federalist Society, Ervin said it shouldn’t matter what a justice's basic political ideology might be.

“Your job is to determine … whether a legal error was committed by the trial judge,” Ervin said. “Your job is to take the facts, examine them in light of legal precedents that you are enforcing in that particular case and determine what the outcome called for by the law is.”

Ervin said he feels that opinions should be written in a way that the losing parties in the case understand why they lost.

Newby emphasized his bipartisan support, saying that former jurists who have examined cases in which he has authored opinions “believe I am fair, impartial and simply follow the law,” adding, “I think it’s important that opinions be clear and concise.”

Both Newby and Ervin said that they felt it inappropriate to comment on issues that they could potentially face before the state’s highest court. And both said that they hold judicial precedent in high regard. “People need to be able to know what the law is so they can plan their own lives,” Ervin said.

During the forum, Newby would refer to his opponent by his common nickname, “Jimmy” Ervin, while Ervin referred to himself as Sam Ervin IV, the namesake of his grandfather, U.S. Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

Both candidates are participating in the state’s N.C. Public Campaign Fund for appellate judges, which is paid for by income tax check-offs and fees assessed to lawyers. And both had more than $300,000 in cash on hand at the end of the second-quarter campaign finance filing period with the State Board of Elections.

But that’s not all that will be spent on the Supreme Court justice race.

Tom Fetzer, a former state GOP chairman and former Raleigh mayor, said that he has formed an independent expenditure campaign finance group along with two former Supreme Court chief justices, Burley Mitchell and I. Beverly Lake Jr., designed to assist in the re-election of Newby. It is called the North Carolina Judicial Coalition.

Fetzer said he expects some sort of independent expenditure committee to form to assist Ervin also.

This isn’t the first time that a committee independent of any candidate’s campaign committee has chipped in with money for appellate court cases. In 2006, a group called FairJudges.net — funded primarily by trial lawyers, the Democratic Party, and unions — paid for ads that characterized their preferred judicial candidates in a favorable light.

Newby brought up the 2006 spending when the subject of super-PACs came up during The Federalist Society’s forum. “I’m certainly a proponent of free speech,” Newby said.

Ervin said that such spending on judicial elections runs the risk of citizens losing confidence in the nonpartisan election process.

Lake said that he had worked with Newby when Newby first joined the court.

“I’ve seen his work and his ability up close,” Lake said. He said he thinks Newby’s time and experience on the Supreme Court give him the edge in this campaign.

“I think Judge Ervin ought to stay on the Court of Appeals a little while longer and get some more experience,” Lake said. Ervin was elected to the Court of Appeals in 2008.

Newby said the law needs to be consistent and predictable, so that an attorney can predict with some degree of confidence how a court will rule.

“Businesses have got to be assured that courts will properly respect property rights and enforce contracts as the parties intended,” Newby said.

Newby said he didn’t have one particular justice that he would model himself after, although he did mention one former United States chief justice that he held in high regard.

“Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist was someone I admired greatly,” Newby said. Newby said he liked Rehnquist’s penchant for respecting separation of powers and practicing judicial self-restraint.

He also mentioned two Eastern District federal judges that he held in high regard — Judge Franklin Dupree Jr., appointed by President Nixon, and Judge Earl Britt, appointed by President Carter.

Newby said his experience on the job is the top issue in the 2012 campaign.

“I’ve got eight years of experience,” Newby said. “I think it is folks wanting the law to be consistently and predictably applied. That’s me.”

Newby, an Asheboro native, was raised in Jamestown. He received his undergraduate degree in public policy at Duke University and his law degree at UNC Chapel Hill. He has practiced law in Asheville and was vice president and general counsel at Cannon Mills Realty and Development Corp. in Kannapolis. He was an assistant U.S. attorney in Raleigh for 19 years. He is an adjunct professor at the Campbell University School of Law.

Ervin was born and raised in Morganton. He received his undergraduate degree from Davidson College and his law degree from Harvard School of Law. He practiced law in Morganton from 1981 to 1999, when Gov. Jim Hunt appointed him to the N.C. Utilities Commission, where he served until winning election to the Court of Appeals.

Barry Smith is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.