Off To the USNA

I will be gone next week, delivering my precious son to the United States Naval Academy.

The first six weeks are called "Plebe Summer" and is essentially USNA boot camp; the "transition from civilian life to Naval Academy life." Then in August he will start his university studies, and officially enter Plebe Year.

The value of the scholarship is $300,000. Phenomenal. It took unbelievable hard work, dedication and focus. We are so proud of him.

And the USNA makes a point to include parents wherever appropriate. We'll be attending the Army/Navy game!

See you in one week. Go Navy! Beat Army!

fj

Hillary's Liberal "Values"

Liberal "values." How's that for an oxymoron?

Freedom and equality in America.

Fairness. Public Interest. Spreading the wealth. Fairness Doctrine - fair playing field, my arse. They want control of the airways and we know it. It's pathetic. Fight back, chickens.

Liberals, led by Hillary and Company (Soros, Ickes, Podesto) want to shut Conservatives up through the "Fairness Doctrine." Silence Conservative radio.

Liberals are jealous about conservative success, conservative outreach, conservative values. Yes, conservatives have real values: marriage between a man and a woman, smaller government, economic responsibility, free market, first amendment, right to life (birth and death),

Hillary Clinton, in her 30 year plan to become a 2-term President, needs to silence conservatives because we know she's a liar, a cheat, she's a despicable human being, power desperate, mean, soulless (as described by people who know her well), she's a bully, master manipulator, and she's a very angry, man-hating feminist. She's condescending. She's also a criminal.

She's two-faced, and a mercenary. She's a true leftist as exhibited by her actions, but as proof of her mad desire to become President, she massaged her Senate voting record so that it did not reflect her leftist views, and no one could accuse her of being one politically. That's mercenary.

She's been called a congenital liar by several big Washington insiders. She's an anti-American feminist, she's really an atheist.

Her Wellesley College thesis, which was under lock and key since 1992 ordered by the Clinton Administration, was a socialist piece of work, examining and focusing on Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals."

Hillary is probably the most corrupt, insincere politician in office. She retaliates against enemies, is a hypocrite about her own personal life, a radical feminist, supports gay rights and abortion, is a narcissist and her end justifies her means. She's already flopped as a senior administrative official of the executive Branch. How can anyone think she'll make a decent President?

I guess the end justifies the means...

Liberal "values." Yeah right.

More Sacramento Nitwits

I have written before on my blog that I live in the Sacramento neighborhood of Land Park. It's a lovely old neighborhood that features a big park, our local zoo, a 9-hole golf course, kiddie playlands and some beautiful older homes as well as tree-lined streets. Our neighborhood has often been compared to beautiful areas in the Midwest - it has that feel.

Land Park is also the home of resident kook Steve Pearcy (of hanging soldier effigy fame), lots of liberal state workers and granola crunching, Prius-driving middle-class hippies, and of course, Governor wanna-be Phil Angelides.

Land Park has a neighborhood Association that I frequently disagree with because of their "design" decisions and property rights infringements. However, a recent issue has sprung that I am on the same side on with these folks - politics makes strange bedfellows.

Our intellectually lazy City Council and not-so-bright Mayor agreed with West Sacramento that a bridge over the Sacramento River connecting the two sister cities would be a great idea. That, I agree with. West Sacramento has in recent years, massively developed several new neighborhoods and the areas main artery streets are bottle necked with commuter traffic. (Way to go West Sacramento planners...)

However.....

The not-so-bright Sacramento officials tried to quickly approve a plan to connect the very busy streets of West Sacramento with Land Park - a strictly residential neighborhood. The estimate of increased cars on our main artery Broadway, was about an additional 35,000. Broadway is an already very busy street and even more so now with our city's "beautification" attempts as well as the paraplegic sidewalk corners that now jet out into a lane of traffic and make it dangerous for pedestrians, wheelchair pedestrians and cars alike.

The Sacramento Bee writes: Planners instead agreed to explore the entire riverfront for what they say is a much-needed crossing.

The move came after neighborhood groups complained a Broadway bridge would flood residential streets with cars, and after two legislators sent a letter urging the city to study a bridge designed more for mass transit than cars.

City officials acknowledged they had jumped the gun by focusing only on Broadway.

"There has been no analysis done to say Broadway makes the most sense vs. other locations," Assistant City Manager Marty Hanneman said. "We also need to look at what type of bridge this should be -- for cars, or for bike and pedestrians only, or streetcars some day."

City officials had launched a $400,000 study, jointly financed by the city of West Sacramento, of a four-lane bridge connecting Broadway in Sacramento with South River Road in West Sacramento.

Sacramento has already spent $400,000 on a "study" to determine that West Sacramento needs a bridge connecting to Sacramento, and they explored no other option than to dump 35,000 additional cars each day onto a residential street. I could have told them that for $4.00. Any idiot who lives in or near downtown could have told the planners that.

SacBee continues: ...city staffers will meet with counterparts in West Sacramento to discuss a new bridge study where everything is on the table.

When asked, Hanneman said options might include looking at a bridge connecting Southport in West Sacramento with Interstate 5 and Sutterville Road in Land Park.

A bridge there has long been opposed, however, by many Land Park residents. Jim Randlett of the Land Park Community Association said his group believes that a bridge focused on car traffic is wrong there and anywhere along the river.

"People will just jump off freeway and use surface streets as an escape valve," Randlett said.

The City of Sacramento only came up with one other option and that is to connect to Sutterville Road? Stupid. Again, anyone living in or near downtown could tell you that. Sutterville Road is also a bottle necked street, and the other artery-street in Land Park.

But the more stupid aspect of this is that the only argument that opponents of this bridge have some up with so far is that the bridge should be for pedestrians and bicycles.

Spare me. Two local legislators, Sen. Darrell Steinberg and Assemblyman Dave Jones, sent a letter asking the city to consider mass transit (read Light Rail, buses or street cars) options rather than focusing on a bridge mainly for cars. This is the brilliance we get from our elected officials? And both of these guys are former Sacramento City Council members. They are also proponents of a bicycle and pedestrian-only bridge.

50,000 people now live in West Sacramento. The drivers coming from this growing metropolis as well as from Davis, CA further to the west and from the Bay Area would all seek to escape the gridlock of the freeway and spill over onto residential streets in Land Park.

I am not invoking a "not-in-my-backyard" attitude. This just doesn't make any sense - 30,000 cars or a pedestrian and bicycle bridge. These planners are not dealing in the reality of actually moving traffic. They are stuck in you-should-take-public-transit mode or ride-a-bike mode. That's nice. But it's not realistic. This is California and everyone here drives a car. Deal with it you dreamers.

My husband should have been an architect - or a planner. He see the big picture in his head. Me? I need a map, but I can surely tell you when something stinks.

Talking to my husband about this over a glass of wine in the backyard the other night, made the solution abundantly clear - the Pioneer Bridge (over the sacto River) must have lanes added east and west, and the freeway access to and from West Sacramento needs to have 2-3 lanes coming off the freeway and getting on. Or, build the bridge over I-5 at Elk Grove Blvd, widen I-5 and make the commuters come in I-5. But why not tie in to an existing bridge and just widen it?

The City and Assembly nitwits talking about building a brand new pedestrian and bicycle-only bridge are obviously getting used to wasting taxpayer money. Apparently there is an abundance of money available for these idiots to waste or they wouldn't be so comfortable coming up with such ridiculous ideas.

Or perhaps Sacramento officials are not being sincere with West Sacramento, and really have no plans to execute a connector bridge, thus rendering West Sacramento a wasteland.

However, I think the reality is that Sacramento officials have already made up their minds on this issue, as alluded to by Assistant City Manager Marty Hanneman: "Broadway might be the one that comes out after all this, but at least we'll have traffic and economic data on it," Hanneman said.

Sounds to me that they are willing to spend another $400,000 on a new "study" to appease the opponents, but will divert the traffic to Broadway anyway.

Call them on it. These people are arrogant fools, who need to be removed from office. There is no accountability with our City officials unless we demand it.

Proving That Liberalism is Really Theft

Liberalism is dangerous; it appeals to our most lazy, selfish desires.... the "take care of me" side.

In order for liberal politicians to "take care" of us, they must take money from those of us who work, and give it to those who do not work. Or as Economist Walter E. Williams more eloquently explains, "in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American."

Liberals are masters of couching their explanations in carefully chosen words... Buzz words... Thought-provoking words, such as "rights." They explain that you have the "right" to health care, food on your table, a roof over your head, and affordable gasoline for your car. But by claiming these "rights" for people who do not work to earn the money to pay for these things, the government must take money from employed members of society and give it to others to pay for these "rights."

The government doesn't just magically come up with these funds on their own; we are taxed unlawfully, and "wealth is redistributed."

Walter E. Williams explains: "A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce."

Since I was a child, I have asked how individuals can expect to receive money when they have not worked to earn it. And that's where liberals come in: Socialist agendas have considerable appeal, but they produce disaster, and the more socialist they are, the greater the disaster (Williams) And I not-so-eloquently explained, liberalism appeals to our most lazy, selfish desires - to get something for doing nothing.

Thomas Sowell explains: "It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.

Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?

What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?

Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?"

"Price gouging" is an excellent example. The phrase is used when prices are higher than most people are used to. But there is nothing special or magic about what we happen to be used to. "Price gouging" and "greed" explain rising gasoline prices -- and that price controls will put a stop to it, which every economist in the world knows does not work (remember the 70's). The real problem with "gas prices," is that in the United States, liberals have made it impossible to meet the demand for more petroleum by banning drilling and preventing any new refinery from being built anywhere in the country in the last 30 years. Can you say ANWR oil reserves?

In the Queen's english, we call this rhetoric.

Liberals love to say "Alternative energy sources" and we are supposed to swoon -- and certainly not ask any rude questions like "At what cost?" (Sowell)

Then there are the famous "obscene" profits of oil companies. How dare they make a profit. No one in America should be allowed to make a profit... except for Bill and Hillary, John Edwards, John Kerry, The Kennedy clan, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid (can you say obscene profits for Pelosi and Reid?)... C'mon. No liberal politician ever comes out of office anything less than a millionaire - not even William "Freezer Burn" Jefferson. He's loaded with ill-gotten gains. But he wants to tax the hell out of you and "redistribute" it to his pathetic non-working constituents in Lousianna. Jefferson is an 8-term Congressman, so don't feel too sorry for his post-Katrina constituents as they have been loving his pork for years.

Rhetoric.

Oil company executives make big bucks - almost as much as liberal movie stars who are never criticized for "greed." Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are big box office draws, but they never complain about making $15 million for a flop... that we stupidly pay $10 a ticket to see.

The fallacy of greed is an explanation made simple by Thomas Sowell: "If you want to explain why some people have astronomical incomes, it cannot be simply because of their own desires -- whether "greedy" or not -- but because of what other people are willing to pay them."

It means demanding that ignorance override knowledge.

The ignorant are not just some separate group of people. As Will Rogers said, everybody is ignorant, but just about different things.

Liberals play one everyone's ignorance. And the most ignorant vote liberal.
You'd have to be ignorant not to notice that while politicians vote for more taxes on working people, those in this country take welfare are able to live pretty well for not working... cable TV, car, apartment or house, food, health care, school, clothing... What exactly DO they want for? Unemployed" in America and unemployed in Russia or Mexico are vastly different conditions. And our "unemployed live like kings comparatively.

A job? Dignity? Where's all this "self-reliance" liberals espouse so freely?

Politicians can't legislate dignity. The liberal, self-absorbed rhetoric and pandering to the ignorant is becoming more and more obvious. Liberals want more of our paychecks to give away to those who do not work.

We're getting fed up. And we vote.

William Jefferson Gets Freezer Burn

FINALLY!

Breit Bart (AP): An indictment charging Rep. William Jefferson, D- La., in a long-running bribery investigation is being announced Monday, federal officials said.

The indictment is being handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. A press conference was being organized for late Monday in Washington to discuss the case.

A Justice Department official familiar with the case said the indictment outlining the evidence against Jefferson is more than an inch thick and charges the congressman with crimes that could keep him in prison for up to 200 years. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case.

Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson's home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer.

Jefferson, 63, whose Louisiana district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly but has maintained his innocence. He was re-elected last year despite the looming investigation.

Jefferson, in Louisiana on Monday, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Two of Jefferson's associates have already struck plea bargains with prosecutors and have been sentenced.

Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, admitted soliciting bribes on Jefferson's behalf and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Another Jefferson associate, Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, pleaded guilty to paying between $400,000 and $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations. Jackson was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.

Both Pfeffer and Jackson agreed to cooperate in the case against Jefferson in exchanges for their pleas.

The impact of the case has stretched across continents and even roiled presidential politics in Nigeria. According to court records, Jefferson told associates that he needed cash to pay bribes to the country's vice president, Atiku Abubakar.

Abubakar denied the allegations, which figured prominently in that country's presidential elections in April. Abubakar ran for the presidency and finished third.

Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotape taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson's home.

In May 2006, the FBI raided Jefferson's congressional office, the first such raid on a sitting congressman's Capitol office. That move sparked a constitutional debate over whether the executive branch stepped over its boundary.

The legality of the raid is still being argued on appeal. House leaders objected to the search saying it was an unconstitutional intrusion on the lawmaking process. The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson and his legal team had failed to respond to requests for documents.

Some but not all the documents seized in the raid have been turned over Justice Department prosecutors.


This will get interesting... Now Nancy Pelosi has a problem: WaPo: Democratic leaders fear that Rep. William J. Jefferson's indictment yesterday on racketeering and bribery charges, coming exactly one year after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered his ouster from the powerful Ways and Means Committee, could rekindle a smoldering dispute between the speaker and black lawmakers who were once pillars of her power.

For months, the Louisiana Democrat's mounting legal peril has bedeviled Democrats as they sought first to point to corruption as a tool to oust Republicans from control of Congress, then pressed for ethics and lobbying changes that they said would usher in a new era of clean politics on Capitol Hill. For every thrust Democrats made against the GOP, Republicans parried with Jefferson, saying problems in Congress were bipartisan.

Through it all, much of the Congressional Black Caucus has stood by Jefferson and against the Democratic leadership. And yesterday, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), a veteran caucus member, said it would be "as supportive of our colleague as possible, in terms of saying a person in America is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."

Pelosi would not say what actions she would take, but she called the charges "extremely serious" and, if true, "an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power."

"Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress," she said.

That's right - the Democrats have a long-standing committment to upholding ethics...

Michelle Malkin opines: Looks like the GOP, seeking a decision on whether Jefferson should be expelled from Pelosi's mostethicalhouseever, may move as soon as today for an ethics review of the lurid 16-count, 95-page indictment against the Freezer King. Jefferson holds one last committee seat on the Small Business Committee. But probably not for long:

"I can't imagine that based on what's happened and what we've done [on ethics rules changes and lobbying legislation] that at the very least, he'll be asked to step down from committee," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who stressed that he was not speaking for the leadership. "We've set down a pretty clear marker about what's going to be expected."

That'll earn Emanuel more scorn from the nutroots and accusations of racial double standards from the Congressional Black Caucus--which, as I noted last June when he was stripped of his Ways and Means seat, gave Jefferson a standing ovation after he accused the Dem leadership of singling him out because he was black.

Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

The Dems don't like it when their rules bite them in the butt.

Boo freakin' hoo.