Visit this site for verifiably accurate opinions on all things political - in contradistinction to the INcorrect opinions you are likely to find elsewhere. I'm an American Libertarian Nationalist Republican. Ponder that one a while. Almost all are welcome, but at the request of management: no vegetarians or soccer fans, please. We have our reasons. Thank you and welcome to: Revealed Truth.
New for 2005!
51 Things You Can Do To Annoy The Politically Correct
Links Worth a Look:
Blogs That Reveal Truth
Ace of Spades HQ
Iraq the Model
Kim's Daily Rant
Michael The ArchAngel
Right Wing News
Best of the Web
Enter Stage Right
Institute for Justice
Kudlow's Money Politic$
Media Rsrch Center
Poor and Stupid
Tech Central Station
Flags of the World
Yours is a Very Bad Hotel
Unintentionally Hilarious Leftist Paranoia
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Media hypocrisy on the filibuster
The shamelessness of the mainstream media in its presentation of the filibuster of Bush judicial nominees is truly a sight to behold. Check out this article on Powerline.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently editorialized in support of keeping the filibuster.
"To end debate in the Senate and force a vote requires a successful motion for "cloture," which takes 60 yeas to pass. From the first days of the Senate, the principle of unlimited debate was the hallmark that set it apart from the House....
In his statement on the 'nuclear option,' [Senator Norm] Coleman says that senators have a 'right to vote 'yes' or 'no' on judges.' In fact, they have that right in a cloture vote; it simply takes 60 of them to advance a nomination...."
But here's what the same vermin at the MST had to say back in 1994 when Bill Clinton's domestic agenda was threatened by GOP filibusters in the senate:
"The 'Action, Not Gridlock' group hopes greater public awareness will rein in the Senate minority's impulse to filibuster. The group has been loath thus far to propose a rules change to make cloture easier for the majority to attain. But a reasonable proposal, like the one advocated by Don Fraser, would provide a useful rallying point for reformers. Fraser favors gradually dropping from 60 to 50 percent the vote required for cloture, over a period of days or weeks. Prolonged debate would still be possible, but a vote could not be forever delayed.
As Fraser notes and the other 'Action, Not Gridlock' participants surely know, the filibuster is a formidable foe...Many Senators in the majority still defend the practice. That's why those who would end the overuse of filibusters dare not pull their punches. They should go on the offensive with a reform plan, and prepare for an arduous but very worthwhile fight."
There's simply no end to the hypocrisy of the likes of the editorial board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. You know and I know that if the GOP was filibustering a dozen Clinton appellate court nominees it would me front page news and we'd be hearing breathless reports on CNN every 10 minutes about Republican obstructionism. I'm sick to death of it. Which is why I grow more and more angry about the likes of John McCain and Lincoln Chaffee. They do as much harm as good.
It's time for conservatives to start running serious primary opponents to these RINOS
What would Pablo Serra do?
"I made a pilgrimage to Santiago seeking to resolve the Social Security debate with a simple question: What would Pablo Serra do?
I wanted to compare our pensions to see the results of an accidental experiment that began in 1961, when he and I were friends in second grade at a school in Chile. He remained in Chile and became the test subject; I returned to America as the control group.
By the time we finished college, both of our countries' pension systems were going broke. Chile responded by pioneering a system of private accounts in 1981. America rescued its traditional system in the early 1980's by cutting benefits and raising taxes, with the promise that the extra money would go into a trust to finance the baby boomers' retirement.
As it happened, our countries have required our employers to set aside roughly the same portion of our income, a little over 12 percent, which pays for disability insurance as well as the pension program. It also covers, in Pablo's case, the fees charged by the mutual-fund company managing his money....
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds. He has more money in it than most Chileans because his salary is above average, but lower-paid workers who contributed to that fund for the same period of time would be in relatively good shape, too, because their projected pension would amount to more than 90 percent of their salaries...."
This is more than I typically exerpt, but I thought it important to make the point. Said point being: Democrats care not one whit for the welfare of Social Security recipients. They care only for maintaining their power base through the ongoing wealth transfer aspect of Social Security.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Hey, Chris Byrnes of Anarchangel has a new job! Check out his site and wish him well.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
And now you know.....the REST of the story
You've probably heard all about the "crisis" at Trinity International University here in the Chicago area. Threatening, racist letters were received by police, leading to the evacuation of minority students from the Trinity campus.
Local racial scab-picker and race-baiter Mary Mitchell pontificated at length on the subject in one of her recent columns in the Chicago Sun Times. "Moving minorities into hotels won't solve Trinity crisis" screamed the headline accompanying her recent blatherings on the subject.
"Among my concerns is that Trinity -- a religious institution -- is involved at all. That hiding among the sheep is a wolf who is threatening to kill another human being because of his or her race. If I had a child at Trinity, I'd be more worried about how many more wolves there might be."
Wolves, indeed. It turns out that the author of the letters is a piece of garbage by the name of Alicia Hardin. And Alicia is NOT of the caucasian persuasion.
No, it seems that poor Alicia "was unhappy at Trinity and wanted to leave." So the little darling started writing her letters in the hopes that her parents would pull her out of the school for the sake of her safety.
So is Ms. Hardin being held without bail, underneath the jail? The FBI was dragged in, after all. Untold resources of local and federal law enforcement were consumed in tracking down the threat to minority students at Trinity International...this will surely be treated as a serious matter.
Nope. She was released upon posting $5000 bail. "It's kind of a sad story, actually," said Lt. (and world class moron) Ron Price, apparently of the Bannockburn, Illinois police department.
I'm sure this resolution will be given the same national attention the original "crisis" was.