Ricci v. Destefano

Finally someone has tried to put a stop to liberal's illogical quest for equality at any cost. This time that someone got to be the Supreme Court……

In a 5-4 decisions the Supreme Court ruled that the 20 New Haven, Connecticut firefighters whose tests scores EARNED a promotion were unfairly thrown out. Why were these tests scores thrown out you may ask? -Because 19 out of the 20 firefighters who EARNED the promotion were white! (I guess they forgot to mention that 1 firefighter who EARNED the promotion was Hispanic)

Apparently the Civil Service Board decided to strip these firefighters of their promotion because they……

1. Wanted to increase diversity

2. Assumed that since no African Americans scored high, then the test it must be racist

3. Are complete and utter morons

And while I hope the third is not true, evidently by their reasoning, it is as certain as Newton's Laws.

It is a sad America when we concentrate so much on diversity that we will go as far as to strip promotions from those that earn it. It should not matter what race, ethnicity, or religion of people did better on this test….if 20 African Americans EARNED a promotion, then 20 African Americans should get the promotion they worked so hard to EARN.

If you find yourself thinking, "Well, if these liberals are complaining that this test is racist, then they must have some point?" …..don't bother with the thought, I had the same thought and after much research, there is no point…..

Maybe liberals would have a point if

……a private company had not been hired out to review the test to determine that no racial biases were apparent.

……the questions weren't straight from the study material (which is what Michael Blatchley, one of the firefighters commented)

……the majority of the people giving the oral part of the exam were not minorities

It feels like liberals are trying to pull out all of the stops to win more constituents, seriously I hope that is the reason, if they seriously believe in the BS that they are claiming then we are getting ready for a load of hurt.

All I know is that if I am in a house that is on fire, I want the person who is MOST QUALIFIED to be putting out the fire and saving me. The race of the firefighter is such a childish issue at that point.

If something like this were legal, then there is precedent for quotas for lets say……the number of white and black athletes in sports dominated by one race………..hockey…….basketball? This is heading down a slippery road my friends and it opens up a dangerous Pandora's Box.

Thank God for the Supreme Court taking some sense into this case! I felt like I was reading a bad Al Franken joke!

PS: Sotomayor rejected this claim by these firefighters in an appeals court (good thing she is replacing Souter who ruled in the minority on this case)

Miss California

What is more American than hot dogs, apple pie, and well…..Miss America? The reaction to the response of Miss California over the weekend to an inappropriate question has sparked a most un-American outcry. Carrie Prejean of California was surprised when she was asked during the 2009 Miss America pageant whether she thought other states should follow the lead of Vermont in legalizing same sex marriage. Her response was as follows, ""I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

The question was asked by notorious celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, who did I mention, is gay. (By the way, how come a gay man is judging some of the most beautiful women in the world?)On his blog after the show Perez Hilton blasted Ms. Prejean with expletives. He even went as far as to go on news shows defending his tirade and stating the favorite to win, Ms. Prejean, lost because of her answer. Mr. Hilton said that he wanted someone that represented everyone, not just straight couples.

I think I will take the next few seconds to now go one my own personal tirade on my own blog against this celebrity blogger. What could be more fitting? So you say you want Miss California to represent you, well, what about the 52% of Americans who upheld proposition 8 this November. Had she of supported gay marriage then she would actually be in the minority in her own state. Does he also realize that Miss California holds the same opinions as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and "Billary" Clinton? Was it not Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states to not recognize same sex marriage from other states (not to mention it says that the federal government cannot treat same sex marriage as marriage for any purpose)? Why are we then bashing this woman's honesty? I want my Miss America to be honest. It is always joked that during Miss America only superficial and politically correct answers are given. Why should she thus hide her own opinions in the closet? Or does Perez Hilton not remember what it was like to hide in the closet?

Congratulations Miss California! You represented your state statistically and were honest even when knowing that it would cost you the pageant!

Shame on you liberal bloggers, Perez Hilton, and all of the out of touch with reality Hollywood liberals!

Stop Hiding Stewart

The portrayal of the FOX news network is extremely unfair. It is a relentless attack from all angles, whether it be from its rivals on television, newspapers, or entertainment. What is so wrong about presenting the news in a different way, a way that is more hesitant and skeptical of everything the "Anointed One" does or says? The reason that FOX gets such a bad rap is because all of the other media outlets are so far left and biased in the opposite direction of FOX, that they collectively gang up on and try to discredit an alternative view point. I recently saw Bill O'Rielly as a guest on David Letterman's Late Show, only to watch Mr. O'Rielly be verbally abused for his opinions and his show. Who is David Letterman to call out a Harvard graduate and say that his show is awful and his ideas stupid? This is only one instance of many in which conservative spokesmen are being disrespected and degraded everywhere. What really infuriates me is the fact that liberals get these conservatives on their show, give them a thorough tongue lashing with their audience cheering every step of the way and only allow their guests brief moments to respond before continuing, never fully giving them a chance to defend themselves and their ideas. On the off chance that conservatives are given an opportunity to present their case, make good points and show people that they are not the evil, not the cynical men and women they are made out to be but are actually intellectuals who want to engage in a stimulating debate and argue the points, the host cowardly steps back and says "I'm just a comedian, I can't be taken seriously." (Yes I am talking about you Jon Stewart)! You are like that tiny twerp who takes his jab and then hides behind his big brother because he can't take the retaliation. Mr. Stewart, you are an intelligent man, everyone knows it, why than are you so afraid to engage in an actual intellectual discussion with an exchange of viewpoints instead of a barrage of attacks and assumptions and then say "well don't argue with me I am just a comedian"? Sir, you are a coward! If you are so confident that you are right and that the ideas you stand for are correct, why do you continue to hide behind the curtain of comicality and ludicrousness?

Oh Barney Frank! One Mumble Short of an Osborne’s Episode….

When did I realize that Barney Frank was a disgrace? Well, I will have to confess that I cannot remember the first time I heard him speak, but I would say that is when I knew he was a disgrace. More recently however, Barney Frank (D) MA called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in an interview with a gay rights website(and defended it later on TV). Not only is this a poor public relations move on the part of Congressman Frank, it is utterly untrue. So are the millions of Americans who oppose gay marriage "homophobes"? Although I am sure, some are, the majority are not and just have a different opinion than Congressman Frank. Isn't that what Democrats have been trying to champion for years?....their openness to other people's ideas…..Or did they mean an openness to others in their own parties ideas? Frank is bringing out a whole new partisan side by the Democrats. On countless occasions Barney Frank will demean and disrespect Republicans to their faces. What a message to our nation's children about elected officials! I think what may even anger me most is Barney Frank's accusing the Republican Party of racism when many were opposed to giving out mortgages to those who never had the chance to pay them back. You know Barney Frank; I really would like to smack you, not because you are of a different political view, but because you are a total and utter moron. You represent what is wrong with Washington, the corruption, the partisanship, and the idiocracy that are the roadblocks to success. Your ignorance and fear mongering to play toward your social liberal constituents is a sad ploy. Thank you again Barney Frank for your attempt to polarize America, maybe with the help of your obnoxious mumbling on TV, America will look beyond their surprise that you can form sentences and listen to the content of what comes out of your mouth……

The Unfairness Creed

Recently certain Democrats in the Senate, such as Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), have voiced their opinion about bringing about the highly controversial "Fairness Doctrine". The "Fairness Doctrine" is a policy that says that anyone who holds a broadcast license and is talking about controversial issues must show both sides of the story. Don't people make their own news shows so that they can voice their own opinion? Who is it that decides if something is controversial? What and how long will the news be when everyone has to explain and promote the ideas of every side in every situation?

This, of course, is supported by democrats, showing once again that they can't stand the success of conservative talk radio and will do anything to limit its effects. I find it funny that the Dems, who will fight to the bitter end for freedom of speech, will try and take away that freedom from their political opponents. Don't our boys overseas fight for their rights too, while the Dems in Congress fight for the rights of liberals alone? This clearly impedes on freedom of speech and it would be great to see Keith Olbermann's face when it's Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh's turn to counter his point. Or is that case too fair for the Senate Democrats? Would this impede on their freedom of speech? Should the NY Times have to add a conservative Op-Ed piece for every liberal one?

May God protect us from the progressive liberal's tyranny over anything that doesn't align with their own political philosophy!

It is a sad day in America when we care so much for equality that we need to monitor any aspect of society when there is more than one conflicting view.

Watch for Jindal Tonight!

I encourage everyone to watch the GOP's response to Obama's state of the union tonight. Governor Bobby Jindal from Louisiana has been given the honor and is looking to give the GOP a new direction. It is common thought that Jindal may run for the Republican nomination in 2012 even though he has claimed he is concentrating on doing a good job as Governor.

Congressman Hall

Below is a copy of a letter to my local congressman about the stimulus plan.

Congressman Hall,

I am a Political Science major from Poughkeepsie, NY who is currently enrolled in the State University of New York at Geneseo. Over the past weeks I have kept a close eye on the stimulus package and am increasingly becoming concerned regarding what this bill actually contains. Being a fiscal moderate, I was open to the idea of the stimulus, so let it be known that my concerns are not ideological. Why are members of congress using the stimulus plan as a chance to pack as much pork barrel spending into the bill as they can? A stimulus that is supposedly so important, so fundamental, so crucial to the lives of every American that we have elected officials using it for personal gain. What could be more un-American? I understand that many Senators are currently trying to trim the stimulus and eliminate some pork, but why did you feel the need to vote for a bill that contains so much in pork, that is essentially both socially and morally corrosive to our great society. In fact, I will be specific and name merely a few examples of such fiscally irresponsible spending, $335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases, $200 million for new contraceptive service, $25 million for ATV trails, and a myriad of others. These projects do little to nothing to stimulate our economy and are ideological agenda setting for a government that is supposed to be the "change" we needed. I bring my concerns to you not out of anger, but out of sheer concern for our country. The indebtedness that is going to be left for both my generation and the generation after me will be extreme, and the money appropriated to these pork projects will just add an unnecessary burden. I know I speak for many in my district who are either too busy or too politically illiterate to voice their concerns, but who I assure you, they vote and vote often.

College Conservatives, Stay Strong!

A word of advice for you college conservatives out there; take every word your political science professors say with a grain of salt. Being a political science and international relations major I have taken my fair share of classes with liberal professors professing their ideas. It is not easy for conservatives like us to constantly be berated in class by PhD's who claim that every cornerstone and pillar to the conservative ideology is baseless and stupid. The result of this berating has us constantly questioning and defending our opinions, which should not happen when we are in class to become more educated citizens and in turn make more informed decisions. How can we make educated decisions when our entire college years have been dominated by liberal professors professing only one side of the argument? The result, whether intentional or not, is that instead of producing informed citizens who can make their own decisions, they manufacture people with the same opinions as their teachers. As liberals I thought that they were suppose to be open to differing ideas, understanding and tolerant of others? I guess not when it comes to the bullying of college kids by educated, and proven political scientists. These professors don't care that they are there to present the facts and let us, the students, make our own decisions regarding the correct course of action or stance on an issue. They are arrogant people who think their opinion is the right one and that all others are meritless and foolish. I am perfectly fine with having a left-leaning professor who states his/her opinions but only when their statement is accompanied by "but that's just my opinion" or some other variation. It can not be expected to learn from professors that do not have opinions or beliefs, after all they have been studying politics for most of their lives. All that we ask is that they keep their opinion in check and realize that there is more than one point-of-view. So to you college conservatives, no matter how few you are, be strong and do not secumb to the tongue-lashing of your professors. After all, if you do make it out of college and still believe in your conservative ideas your that much stronger. Your beliefs will be severely tested but remember their opinions are not the only reasonable and acceptable opinions out there, no matter how much they make you think otherwise.

How America is Paying for the Democratic Party to Prosper

$819 billion, how can one fathom an amount of money so large, so fictitious, so absurd that would even make Bill Gates gag? At first glance, one may think (well maybe not us fiscal conservatives), 'Great Obama is really pushing to get our economy pumping!', but with a closer look, one can really see all of the earmarks and pork barrel spending that frankly, should cause quite a stir (but won't). The 647 page document that is the Stimulus gives Democrats a great chance to bank on all of the promises they have made in the past. Luckily, at least some of their earmarks got cut out of the original bill because of some controversy, $200 million for new contraceptive service and $20 million to renovate the National Mall. Fox news reported that "$25 million for new ATV trails; $400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global warming research; $335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases; and $650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion. " are all in the stimulus. Isn't the point of the stimulus to stimulate the economy, not reward past promises? How on earth does $25 million for ATV trails stimulate our economy? Can't we find better things to do with that money? If this is a violation of the people's trust in government, then I do not know what is. With the same logic, if the Republicans were in charge, we could add 'stimulus' money to purchase more hunting land for hunters, expand aid for faith based rehabilitation, and increase wages for soldiers! Why wouldn't we satisfy our base and entrench our foothold on capitol hill (oh wait, we wouldn't, anyone heard of moral responsibility). NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THE STIMULUS. We are allowing the party in power to make good on all of these promises on our tax dollars! Democrats defend the bill by pointing to the $30 billion in the stimulus for infrastructure. …….hold on, 3.66% of the total stimulus is for infrastructure? What a success! Well, congrats to all of you ATV riders, at least someone will benefit!

Inauguration

I would like everyone to take a look at the article I posted on the right hand side of the blog. I think this guy puts it best. "My hopes and expectations for Obama, therefore, are much more reasonable, and I will be able to take in the history and the pomp without the accompanying anxiety that Inauguration Day will bring to my more liberal friends." We need to step back and look at this day as a day to respect the amazing ability that our country can change power peacefully. Come tomorrow, we can be go back to battling and debating policy, but today, just relax and enjoy the fact that we no longer have to listen to liberal rants about President Bush. When liberals say negative things about American policy, we no longer have to hold this illogical burden of trying to defend policies that are neither conservative in nature nor a political issue. Just relax as the Democrat takes control of the wheel and tries to drive through the same bumpy road that we have been driving. As cliché as it may seem, the driver driving has little to do with the road ahead and will hit the same bumps and potholes as another driver would.

How bad will 2010 be for Republicans?

A lot of conservatives have been wondering what 2010 holds in store for the Republican Party. I knew the party that held the presidency usually lost some seats in the midterms but I was not sure to what extent, here is what I found since 1950……

1950- Dems control presidency lost 28 House, 5 Senate

1954- Reps control presidency lost 18 House, 1 Senate

1958- Reps lost 50 House, 16 Senate

1962- Dems lost 45 House, gained 4 Senate

1966 Dems lost 47 House, lost 3 Senate

1970- Reps lost 12 House, 3 Senate

1974- Reps lost 49 House, 3 Senate

1978- Dems lost 15 House, 3 Senate

1982- Reps lost 27 House, 0 Senate

1986- Reps lost 8 House, 5 Senate

1990- Reps lost 8 House, 1 Senate

1994- Dems lost 54 House, 8 Senate

1998- Dems gained 5 House, 0 Senate

2002- Reps gained 6 House, 2 Senate

2006- Reps lost 30 House, 6 Senate

So 11 out of 15 midterm elections since 1950 ended in the party that controlled the presidency losing seats in both the House and Senate.

Roland Burris

There is one thing that has baffled me recently. How in the world can former state Attorney General Roland Burris sleep at night? There is something to be said about someone who accepts an appointment from someone (that someone being Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich) when that someone is under investigation for bribery for that position they were being appointed to. I am not saying that Roland Burris is not qualified for the job, but I am saying he should have said, thanks, but no thanks, I will wait for everything to clear up and try to get appointed by whatever other body would get your (Governor Rod Blagojevich's) appointing ability. This whole incident just screams Illinois politics and when Burris is surrounded by a tainted legacy, he will know why.

Affirmative WHAT?

Affirmative action is an outdated, unconstitutional, unfair, progressively corrosive policy that needs to be eliminated by our politicians in Washington. First, I’d like to point out that the 14^th Amendment gives all US citizens equal protection under the law. How then can we look at two different people and give one preference over the other on physical appearance only? How then can we look at two people, regardless of color or creed and tell them that one of them has a specific genetic trait that is more preferable for admission or employment. How then was this policy put into practice in the first place? One of the building blocks of our nation, the Declaration of Independence states that, “All men are created equal”.

I’d like the time to even contrast this policy to that of basic economics. I think it is hard to find someone to disagree with the fact that for our country to compete on the global stage, then we need the best and brightest representing us both in foreign countries and domestically. Well, affirmative action takes this policy and throws it upside down. It takes the most qualified applicants and sets them aside for those that are less qualified but belong to some minority group. I am not saying that minorities will not sometimes be the most qualified; I am saying that when they are not the most qualified, they should not be hired. I would even go as far as to say that on applications for anything, having the race of the applicant on the application should be illegal. It is nobody’s business what race or ethnic background you are from, employer or admissions counselors should not even see this information.

I understand that many liberals point out that lower class black people are born with fewer opportunities than upper and middle class white people. What I do not understand is why one needs to look at race to attack an economic issue. What better to help poor people than by focusing on….well….being poor….rather than race. Isn’t actually being poor a more accurate portrayal of being poor than the race of that person? Why does Kobe Bryant’s child have an edge over your or my child? If such a program promoting equality of opportunity is enacted, then why are we looking at race over economic status?

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in a case about college admissions at the University of Michigan that race can be used in college admissions, but it cannot be the overriding factor. This ruling that the Supreme Court decided, lets every college deal with something that is very subjective. The student who challenged this program was upset that in admissions at the University of Michigan, a point system was used. A student had to receive a certain number of points to be accepted to the University of Michigan. For a perfect SAT score, the student would receive 12 points, but for belonging to a racial minority the student would receive 20 points. The lawyers for the plaintiff said that 20 points was equivalent to a whole grade point increase. Clarence Thomas (who is by the way, African American), in his dissenting opinion, said, " The law school, of its own choosing, and for its own purposes, maintains an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results. Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy." I will be thankful though that in previous decisions, race was allowed to be used in admission, but racial quotas were banned. Maybe one day our Supreme Court justices will wise up and make a better decision.

I was not alive when JFK introduced this program. I do not know what it was like to live with extreme racism and prejudice. I do not understand the so called race wars of the 60’s. What I do know is that in today’s day and age, affirmative action not only does little to prevent racism, but it fosters anger and resentment from lower class white citizens because they are born with the same lack of opportunities that their lower class black neighbors are born with. It is not 1961, and as hard as it might be for liberals to end a program that (the only man who may be more Jesus like than Obama) JFK started, it needs to be done.

Please God Not Kennedy

Unless you have been living under a rock the past few weeks you know that
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late John F. Kennedy, is seeking the
Senate seat soon to be vacated by Hillary Clinton. Carline Kennedy, who has
always shied away from the spotlight, does not deserve to be considered for
this position. She has no qualifications that Kristin Gillibrand, Brian
Higgins, Andrew Cuomo, Steve Israel, or Thomas Suozzi lack, except for maybe
her last name. Although I strongly disagree with the views of all these
politicians, they have experience and have been in politics for most of
their career. Ms. Kennedy on the other hand, must think that she has a right
to the seat due to her last name because she certainly knows she's not
qualified enough for the position. Ms. Kennedy claims that being a mom,
being a Kennedy and being the director of the Office of Strategic
Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education (a three-day a
week job) has prepared her for the United States Senate. She has yet to take
stances in which she would depart from either Mayor Bloomberg or the
Democratic Party and she has yet to disclose her financial statements or
state disagreements she has with other potential appointees. She claims that
she would be a good representative of all New Yorkers, yet she has never
ventured past her multi-million dollar penthouse suite in lower Manhattan.
There is more to the state of New York than just the five boroughs and Long
Island. I think it is also important to note that since registering to vote
in 1988..."Records show Kennedy did not pull the lever for any of her fellow
Democrats in city primary races for mayor in 1989, 1993 and 1997 and 2005,
which Republicans went on to win three out of four times in the general
election. She was also AWOL for the primary and general elections in 1994,
when Sen. Daniel Moynihan was running for reelection to the seat Kennedy
hopes to hold. "-nydailynews

Just two months removed from Sarah Palin and all of the criticism for her
lack of qualifications, Caroline Kennedy, is trying to be appointed to the
Senate (believe it or not, Palin is the Governor of Alaska, Kennedy has
never held public office). For someone who hasn't always voted and doesn't
value the democratic process, being appointed is the ideal way for her to
take office. It is the only way she would have a chance at getting to
Capitol Hill, especially for someone who in a recent 30 minute interview
with cable station NY1 said the words "you know" 168
times.-thewallstreetjournal God knows that if she were to run for election
with her lack-luster resume she would surely lose. Despite these facts and
her utter lack of qualifications, the prospect of having a qualified Senator
is not looking too bright. She thinks that because she is a Kennedy she does
not have to work her way up the food chain, gain experience or any of that.
David Patterson, as the governor of New York, will appoint someone to finish
out Clinton's term, which ends in 2012. This person will most likely be
Caroline Kennedy. Let's face it, David Patterson is a nobody, he wasn't even
suppose to be governor, but if he appoints Ms. Kennedy to the Senate, he
would have an influential and powerful friend for life. He would be doing
her a huge favor because it really is her only chance to become Senator of
New York.

God Bless America

Gov. Barkley?

Charles Barkley, former NBA star and current television analyst, has likely never been accused of being too restrained or too quiet. Instead, Barkley has earned a great deal of attention for himself by making outlandish comments to nearly any reporter that will listen. Unfortunately for his prospective political career -- Barkley has stated he intends to run for Governor of Alabama in 2012 -- his latest statement was given to a police officer, not a reporter, and will be published in public record, not on a newspaper sports page.

After being cited for DUI and being taken to the local Scottsdale police department, Barkley gave incriminating statements to the investigating officer.



This incident report, acquired by thesmokinggun.com, indicates that Barkley failed to obey a stop sign because he was hurrying to pick up his "date" for the evening. You can read about her (alleged?) talents in the document above.

We probably won't know for some time how this latest incident will affect the political career of Charles Barkley. However, given the MSM's penchant to destroy public figures accused of adultery or sexual misconduct, Barkley might save his reputation by staying out of the public light for a year or two.