Author: Papa Giorgio

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Praises Islamo-Fascism and Helps Crush the Spirit of True Freedom and Feminism

Published by Papa Giorgio

“This is the most wonderful time in which to live and be among the young people who are helping your country and bringing about change during this exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state,” Ginsburg said, according to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. “Think of the people who lived before you and did not have this opportunity because they lived under a dictatorial regime.”

Two things to note that have already happened before Justice Ginsburg’s praises:

…In a matter of months, Egypt’s ultra-conservative Salafists have beaten a path from marginalised religious sect to major political force…

We meet the president of the Salafist Al Nour party as he leads prayers at a mosque in Alexandria. “Before the revolution prayers were on more general subjects…now we are freer and we can be more frank,” Emad Abdul Ghafour tells us.

Like fellow members, he’s brimming with confidence. They’ve just scored 24% of the vote in Egypt’s landmark elections, making them the second biggest bloc in parliament. Not bad for a political party founded just nine months ago.

Hosni Mubarak’s departure in February 2011 has seen Egypt’s Salafists emerge from the shadows. Before, they operated in the half-light, in little mosques like these, the former leader’s security services – wary of Islamists – never far away.

Now, they can openly advocate their agenda. Their ideal society is that of the first Muslims, one based on a strict adherence to the Koran and Sharia law.

What is striking among the party’s leaders and supporters is the belief that this model will soon become reality. They’re buoyed by election results which have seen Egyptians vote overwhelmingly for Islam – the Salafists coming in second only to the Muslim Brotherhood.

…read more…

The second is that the most popular movement in Egypt — the Muslim Brotherhood — is on the same page with the second most popular movement:

Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis agree that Sharia should be imposed on Egypt

Whatever their disagreements may be about how Sharia should be implemented, if the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis do succeed in imposing Sharia upon Egypt, we will see restrictions on the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the rights of women and non-Muslims. Wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, this has been the case. Yet in the U.S., we are forced to believe on pain of “Islamophobia” charges that Sharia is so multiform as to have no particular content and is fully compatible with Constitutionally protected freedoms — and on the basis of these false claims, anti-Sharia legislation is struck down.

…read more…

 

The Evolution of Tyranny Against Women

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via LR:

From one comment from the video site:

From a young Iranian woman suffering from Islam rules in Iran to all my sisters in the world especially TUNESIAN AND EGYPTIAN : It’s not just about Hijab that would make you suffer, it starts with Hijab which is a tool to control you then comes other forms of restrictions and limitations, violating all your basic rights. The aim is to make a good society for men not women and children….

The Good and the Bad from Indiana: They Are the 23rd State to Become a Right-to-Work State ~ Awesome! (and, Republicans Fight Against Smoking Law-To No Avail)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This great news comes from Libertarian Republican:

Governor Mitch Daniels signed legislation passed by the Republican-controlled legislature late Wednesday, making Indiana the 23rd state in the nation to have Right-to-Work.

From the Muncie Free-Press”Right to Work the law in Indiana”:

Right to Work is now the law in Indiana, making it the first Rust-Belt state to pass the measure that prohibits labor contracts requiring workers to pay union dues.

…read more…

Smoking law makes its way through their state senate, take note it is the Republicans holding out for freedom (via Libertarian Republican):

The vote on the House side was 61 to 34. Most of the No votes came from Republicans. Here’s a partial list of some Republican Reps. who we know voted pro-liberty: Reps Culver, Dermody, Kubacki (photo), Friend (photo), and Wesco. (Note – Each one of these Reps. from their websites is a “family values” conservative.)

…read more…

The California [Taxpayer Funded] Bullet Train vs. Private Business

Published by Papa Giorgio

West Coast Blog has this story about the final cost — so far — of the California boondoggle known as the Bullet Train:

Bullet Train From SF to LA Doesn’t Cost $33.6 Billion Anymore… Try $100 Billion!

Ok, so that headline may sound like Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies. How many of you actually read it in the Dr Evil voice? But even though it wasn’t Dr Evil speaking the headline, it sure feels like he is controlling the budget for high-speed rail project in California.

The high-speed rail project was approved to build a bullet train, very similar to those in Europe and parts of Asia, to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. It would cut the traveling time between the two cities from 5-6 hours (by car) down to 2 Hours 40 Minutes. When it was passed 3 years ago, the estimated cost was $33.6 Billion broken down as follows:

$15 Billion – Federal Government
$5 Billion – Local Government
$10 Billion – Private Investors
Remainder – California

But in the last 3 years, the California High-Speed Rail authority has had problems raising money from private investors. Surprise? Not only has the project had trouble finding investors, the estimated date of completion of 2020 has been pushed back to 2033. This delay in time has caused the majority of the cost increases and estimated costs are now expected at $100 Billion. FYI: the entire California state budget is only $86 Billion.

…read more…

Take note the almost instantaneous ballooning effect of the total cost via government meddling, here is the L.A. Times giving the most recent total cost update:

As the price tag for California’s bullet train has soared to nearly $100 billion, a central argument for forging ahead with the controversial project is an even loftier figure: the $171 billion that promoters recently estimated will be needed for new roads and airports if no high-speed rail is built….

….The bullet train is aimed at meeting future transportation needs of the state….

Newsflash! People are leaving California, not coming to it!

Another L.A.Times story says this:

…When the first business plan surfaced, it projected a $34-billion cost. By 2009, the estimate had jumped to $43 billion, in part because the authority included future inflation in the estimated cost of building the system over the next decade.

In August, the authority released two planning documents that signaled even higher costs. The cost of building only the first two segments in the Central Valley had jumped in price by as much as 100%, not including future inflation…

…read more…

 And HotAir points out the death knell for this type of liberal thinking:

CA auditor warns bullet train project financing “increasingly risky”

Few people probably noticed the absence of “high-speed rail” from Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech last night. The issue took a prominent position in SOTU speeches in 2011, when Obama dedicated five paragraphs to pushing it, and in 2010, when Obama promoted the high-speed rail project in Florida that Governor Rick Scott killed. Last night’s mentions: zero.

Perhaps the White House didn’t have a good answer as to why their pet rail project in California has become so expensive and bloated that the state auditor issued a warning hours before the SOTU began about its financing becoming so “increasingly risky” that state lawmakers should consider whether to proceed (via Andrew Malcolm):

In the latest in a series of cautionary reports by outside agencies and groups, the auditor’s report finds that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has made some progress in addressing planning and fiscal concerns but still has important work to do to ensure that the project can be built as promised.

“The program’s overall financial situation has become increasingly risky, in part because the authority has not provided viable funding alternatives in the event its planned funding does not materialize,” the auditor’s report says.

The authority has secured $12.5 billion for the first leg — from Los Angeles to San Francisco — of what is planned to be an 80-mile network, according to the report says. But it notes the projected cost of that phase has risen to between $98.1 billion and $117.6 billion.

The auditor warns that the state has no clear way to raise the $105 billion in funding necessary to complete the project, but that’s just half of the problem:

“The success or failure of the program” depends on obtaining up to $105 billion in additional funding, which has not been identified, the report says. It also finds that cost estimates for the initial phase do not include operating or maintenance outlays, which the auditor estimates could total $97 billion between 2025 and 2060.

…read more…

Use EBT Cards In Strip Clubs? GOP: No | Dems: Yes

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Language Warning)

This from Sweetness & Light:

….this update from CBS News:

House bans welfare recipients’ money from strip clubs, liquor stores

[…]

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that prohibits welfare recipients from using their government subsidy in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.

The measure easily received the necessary support of two-thirds of House members, with 395 voting in favor and only 27 opposing.

So this was a very bi-partisan vote. Funny how CBS doesn’t use the word. But we thought bi-partisanship was wonderful.

House Republicans introduced and promoted the proposal as a way to eliminate government wasteful spending. It has passed the House before, and they re-introduced it again hoping it will become part of a bill to extend the payroll tax credit, which both the House and Senate is expected to debate this month.

The Senate has not agreed to take up the measure….

…read more…

This is an old debate that is wrapped up well by state Senator Bob Dutton (31st Dis., California), in his post…

Democrats Kill Bill to Limit Welfare Recipients From Purchasing Alcohol/Tobacco with EBT Cards (4-2011):

An effort by Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) to move California closer to making sure that those who receive welfare use those taxpayer funds as effectively and efficiently as possible was killed by Democrats during a hearing of the Senate Human Services Committee this week.

Senate Bill 417 would have prohibited those who receive welfare from using their Electronic Benefits Card (EBT) for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products. Currently, those with EBT cards receive both their food stamps and welfare money, called CalWORKS benefits, on the ETB card. While current law does not allow recipients to use their food stamp portion of their benefits to purchase alcohol or tobacco, they can buy those items with the CalWORKS funds.

“You would think a simple common sense reform like trying to make sure taxpayer money is not used for the purchase of alcohol and tobacco would find bi-partisan support,” Senator Dutton said.

Abuses of the EBT card has received national attention over the last year, after the Los Angeles Times reported how millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being withdrawn with EBT cards from Indian Gaming Casinos, strip clubs, cruise ships, and Las Vegas. While the Governor issued an Executive Order to stop the use of EBT cards at these locations, it did not address stopping the purchase of alcohol or tobacco.

“These funds are designed to help the neediest in California meet their basic requirements of providing food, clothing and shelter,” Senator Dutton said. “I doubt there’s not a taxpayer in this state who believes purchasing alcohol or tobacco with welfare money constitutes a basic need and should be allowed.”

…read more…

I also wrote on this topic after the L.A. Times broke the story, which states:

The Capitol Casino, which occupies a pair of small rooms a few blocks from the legislative chambers in Sacramento, appears on the social services website showing where clients can get money. Each room has an ATM: one is so close to a poker table that a player with long arms could lean back and withdraw cash without leaving his chair; the other is a few steps from the blackjack table.

At the Casino Royale on the outskirts of Sacramento, the first thing patrons pass as they walk to the gaming floor is the ATM with a sign next to it saying, “Exceed your ATM daily limit here!!”….

…read more…

What is the liberal response? Here it is:

 

BREAKING: World Net Daily`s Joseph Farah Already Leading the `Birther` Charge Against Marco Rubio ~ Misguided Interpretation of the Constitution

Published by Papa Giorgio


The Hill reports the following:

Conservative Joseph Farah on Tuesday evening predicted that “10 percent of the Republican vote” would fail to get behind Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as the hypothetical vice presidential nominee because they will believe the circumstances of his birth make him ineligible.

Farah has been one of the most prominent and persistent voices of the so-called “birther” movement, which argues that President Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States due to doubts about his birthplace and the citizenship of his parents.

Farah’s objection to Rubio might serve as a rallying cry to voters convinced that Obama’s presidency is illegal according to the rules set out in the Constitution.

“Rubio is not eligible,” Farah told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “He’ll lose 10 percent of the Republican vote because he is not a natural-born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years.

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. Farah’s argument against Rubio’s “natural born” status relies on a strict definition also used by Farah and others who raised doubts over Obama’s eligibility. The strict definition requires that both parents be legal citizens at the time of the birth.

Rubio’s parents became naturalized citizens in 1975, but were permanent legal residents of the United States when Rubio was born, according to Rubio’s office. Rubio’s official biography has already been scrutinized, due to questions over the date his parents arrived in the United States as Cuban exiles.

Farah’s website, World Net Daily, is now reporting on the potential controversy under the category “Certifigate.” The website first raised the question in May, but Farah raising the issue in a national television appearance could be a signal of things to come should Rubio appear on the Republican presidential ticket later this year.

…read more…

And via The Daily Caller:

Host Sean Hannity said Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is more likely to share the ticket if Romney wins the GOP nomination. But Farah declared that Rubio would not be eligible.

HANNITY: I think that’s taken. It’s got to be Rubio. That’s my guess.
BOB BECKEL:  If it’s not, somebody’s lost their mind.
FARAH: Rubio is not eligible.
HANNITY: Whoa, what do you mean, ‘Rubio’s not –
FARAH: He’ll lose 10 percent of the Republican vote because he is not a natural-born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years.
HANNITY: I don’t believe that. I don’t think that’s going to work.

…read more…

World Net Daily took the mantel of birtherism from the Democratic attacks against Obama, now they will lead the way against Marco Rubio:

MIAMI, Fla. – Some national news media are declaring that U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible for the presidency or vice presidency, even though Rubio’s constitutional eligibility remains unclear and the popular Florida Republican has himself downplayed any interest in running on a White House ticket.

In a Daily Caller piece today titled “Coming soon: Rubio ‘birthers,’” journalist Matt Lewis warns, “There is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right – some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a ‘natural-born citizen.’”

Lewis explains the logic by citing a May 22 WND report examining the issue, which noted, “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”

Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller thinks those questioning Marco Rubio’s natural-born citizenship are racists or misguided adherents to the Constitution.

That report examined both Rubio and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, both of whose parents were legal U.S. residents but not legal U.S. citizens when the future politicians were born.

“Who knows how big this thing will get?” asks Lewis. “Maybe it’s just a small fringe movement – but it is a ‘thing.’ The good news here, of course, is that the rise of Rubio birthers proves that birthers are not merely partisan hypocrites who solely attack Democrats like Obama. They are, instead, either consistent racists – or consistently misguided adherents to the Constitution. But hey – at least they aren’t partisan hacks.”

…read more…

Michael Medved took a call from a birther who used the same line of thinking that Joseph Farah applies to the constitution, Medved uses the callers own source to explain why Obama (and now Marco Rubio) are eligible: