Throw them all out!

Please "Google" the New York Representative from Harlem. Use whatever search engine you prefer. I am saying nothing about Charlie Rangel more than "Charlie Rangel." I know the picture says something about Charlie Rangel, but I won't dwell on that longer than his tax statements. Charlie won't answer but I have only one question for Charlie Rangel and that is this: Are you answerable to anyone?

Reasons to Boycott Whole Foods Markets

This is particularly applicable if you are proximate to the Whole Foods Market in Portland, Maine where fresh lobster is not only available, but is an industry. People feed, clothe and shelter their families with jobs in the lobstering industry. But they don't sell any lobsters to Whole Foods Market because Whole Foods Market is worried more about the humane treatment of lobsters than they are supportive of their human neighbors in Maine.

"Although we discovered significant improvements are possible from capture up to in-store tank conditions, we are not yet sufficiently satisfied that the process of selling live lobsters is in line with our commitment to humane treatment and quality of life for animals," said Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of quality standards for Whole Foods Market. "At this time, we believe it is too difficult to maintain consistent conditions throughout the entire supply chain to ensure the health and wellbeing of lobsters outside their natural environment for such a long period of time. Many lobsters are held in storage facilities for several months."

While it might be interesting to debate the perceived differences between "storage facilities" and the ocean floor to a lobster, or for that matter the knife-in-the-brain vs. straight-into-the-pot-of-boiling-water methods of execution, another interesting debate might involve the age-old question, "Why is it OK to sell live mollusks, but not crustaceans?" Do the Oysters not know they are -shudder- being stored on ice?!

Why should we boycott Whole Foods Market?

Reason #1:

Whole Foods Market Stops Selling Live Lobsters

AUSTIN, Texas (June 16, 2006). After evaluating the entire supply chain process, Whole Foods Market® (NASDAQ: WFMI) announced today it will stop selling live lobsters effective immediately.

We love lobster don't we? And lobster is better served very recently dispatched. Oysters are savored when served on the half-shell. Ask any supermarket, the canned oysters are not a big seller. I bet even Whole Foods Market would tell you that the frozen or previously cooked lobster doesn't sell well. We know why not, don't we? It isn't as good. Seafood is like that. We see restaurants and butcher shops touting the wonders of "aged beef," but we do not see "aged seafood" do we? No, we do not. What do we see? We see "Fresh Seafood!" "Today's Catch!"

Whole Foods Market should be able to figure out a way to provide customers with fresh Maine lobster without violating the lobsters civil rights before we dispatch them and eat them with lemon and butter.

Reason #2

There is no reason number two.

There are a number of people, and by that I mean liberals, who think that the Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market is sufficient reason to boycott.

Please add me to the list of people who enthusiastically endorse this boycott!

People who were offended by John Mackey's op-ed should shop elsewhere. Leave the good grapes for people with rational gripes. Have fun at the Megamart! And don't forget the oysters.

Green: It is the new snake oil.

Are you buying?




If you are a taxpayer, you are buying:

Van Jones in the Obama White House link

This is promoting Socialism. This is promoting Social Engineering.

The science of Green is the science of snake oil.

"Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people," Jones told me. "That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off. The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack—Joe the Plumber—becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun."

The quotation above can be found on the Whitehouse.gov website. Really!

Mr. Jones, my goal is to protect my family from people who want to put our country 10 trillion dollars in debt to finance "greenest solutions" snake oil, or any other unconstitutional taxation without representation or for that matter evidence. Speaking of evidence, do you want the "kid on the street corner who just put down his handgun" to come to our homes with a caulking gun? Is that your idea of a greenest solution?

Taxation necessary to pay for basic infrastructure at a local level (i.e. roads and water) and military at a federal level are provided for in the Constitution.

"Joe the Solar Guy" is on his own.

Domestic Enemy

Currently, no one has done more damage to the United States from within than Ted Kennedy.

1969
“Our cities will not be flooded with a million [illegal] immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with [illegal]immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia — and in the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

“The bill will not flood our cities with [illegal]immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” Behind the Immigration Nationality Services Act of 1965 and who is now leading the charge to reform his own error, to reform his own failure, to reform his own bad legislation, Ted Kennedy said, “No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.”

2009

When there was a possibility that Senator Kerry might be elected to the Presidency, Kennedy proposed legislation that eventually stripped the then Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney, of the ability to appoint an interim Senator while a special election to replace the vacated seat was organized and scheduled.

The Governor was stripped of the ability to appoint an interim Senator while the special election process took place. This was what Kennedy wanted when a Republican Governor was in office.

Now that his own Senate seat is facing vacancy, Kennedy wants to reverse his own legislation, again. With Liberal Democrat Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts Governors office, Kennedy wants to restore the Governors ability to appoint an interim Senator. If the government takeover of health care, which Kennedy wants, comes to a vote in the Senate, his vote could be the 51st vote. What was best for the country when the majority didn't want it turned out to be bad for the country. Kennedy wanted it, and now he wants to fix his mistake. Now, what is best for the country according to Kennedy is not what the citizens want and he wants to change the laws he proposed to override the citizens will again.

Confused? Here is all you need to know about Ted Kennedy:

These are the FBI Reports on the investigation of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne:

Click here

The President's July 11th op-ed in the Washington Post

There are nearly 800 comments following the the President’s Washington Post op-ed, “Rebuilding Something Better.” Many of them are very well thought out, and of course, many of them are angry - on both sides.

Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush. Mr. Hennessey wrote a response on his website which everyone with an interest in the facts should read here: http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/12/responding-to-the-presidents-op-ed/

Liberal means Hypocrite

What the Left will not do, continued: Answer the question.

Will the White House Spokesperson answer a simple, direct, yes or no question?

You be the judge.

Socialized Medicine

Rasmussen August 13.

Pride in the United States of America. Not on the left.

All that is missing from the following video is Hillary munching from a bag of Cheesy-puffs while she represents the United States of America as the Secretary of State.

This is our Secretary of State answering a Congolese Student's Question:



This is our Secretary of State in Nigeria comparing the 2000 election in the United States of America to the election process in Nigeria:



If the Secretary of State wanted to show Nigeria problems with the elections in the United States, she might have referred to more current examples:



The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President's chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President's foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States. On January 21, 2009, Hillary Rodham Clinton was sworn in as the 67th Secretary of State of the United States.

Was Roseanne Barr not available?



Respect for the United States of America and what so many brave men and women have sacrificed to ensure our way of life - no repect from the left.

Cato Institute

Is he talking about Barney Frank?

What the left won't do, continued: The left will never take responsibility.

Did you mean, "Please General, call me senator?"

What the left won't do #2: Respect the U.S. Military.


Senator Boxer(D-CA) doesn't have manners. Here is a funny clip. She worked so hard...

She doesn't know anything about military protocol. Sir and Ma'am are the terms in the manual.

What the Left will not do #1: Defend and Protect the Constitution.

Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America:The Left will not.

Obama said as much during a 1991 radio interview broadcast on a Chicago NPR station.

The audio clip on YouTube of this interview has been removed. Here is the transcript:


MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.



"...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

The first and foremost responsibility of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution. Obama has stated, publicly, that the Constitution is flawed.

Should it concern us that these clips are being removed from YouTube? Is Chicago NPR invoking terms of use arguments to have an exclusive interview with then Senator Obama not be broadcast over the internet? It is taxpayer funded radio, isn't it?


What the Left will not do continues with the next post.

This clip where Obama says the Constitution has a "fundamental flaw" was working on YouTube on August 3, 2009.

Why so stimulus?

Video

Wall Street Journal

Link