The Barnes Eye View

A Meaty Goulash of Movies, Sports, and Conservative Politics

  • Photobucket

The film is set for release May 6 2011

Bookmark and Share

It appears the ole Prez forgot about this little diddy back in 2006

Bookmark and Share

by Lawrence Myers from

Who exactly is Rachel Maddow anyway? How did she get a show on MSNBC? A quick glance at her bio shows, let’s see, no journalistic credentials whatsoever. This comes as no surprise. And yet, considering that she has a Stanford degree in public policy, a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford, and (holy cats!) was a Rhodes Scholar, you’d think she might demonstrate those smarts by not making herself look like a total moron.

I’m talking about her screed against payday lenders. Never mind the usual blather about being “legal loan sharks”. Obviously, had the esteemed Dr. Maddow taken an elective class in economics, she’d realize that payday lenders fill a vital role in providing short-term credit to those in need, and what would happen if they didn’t exist. However, the fact that she failed to point these facts out reveal her weak journalistic skills. Oh, but I forgot, she isn’t a journalist. She’s another academic who should know better.

The sanctimonious conclusion to her hit piece, however, is particularly revelatory. She calls payday loan business model, “usury,” and demonstrates her spelling acumen by putting the correct five letters in the correct order, telling us that “it’s in the dictionary, and actually, also in the Bible.”

Alas, Dr. Maddow manages to demonstrate exactly why she isn’t a journalist. If she were, she’d be able to actually look up the real definition of “usury” in the dictionary while properly interpreting the Biblical passages that refer to it. Then she’d find they have no application to the issue and work an actual balanced story around it.

Here’s the definition of usury from a random Google search:
An exorbitant or unlawful rate of interest.

Let’s take “unlawful” first. States that permit payday loans also specify the maximum allowable fee and/or interest by statute. As long as a payday lender makes a loan within those amounts, the loans are lawful and therefore not usurious. And they do.

Let’s define “exorbitant,” per the same dictionary:

Greatly exceeding bounds of reason or moderation.

We must ask what “reasonable” means in the world of short-term unsecured credit.

If a lender charges a price he deems reasonable that the borrower thinks is unreasonable, the borrower will not take out the loan. If the borrower wants a price he deems reasonable that the lender thinks is unreasonable, the lender will not make the loan.

So what is “reasonable”?

It’s obvious. Ready? Here’s the earth-shaking news: we define “reasonable” to mean “that price that both the lender and borrower agree upon so that a transaction occurs.” Most call this “the free market.” Since hundreds of millions of transactions have occurred in payday loan stores across the nation, both sides must obviously think the transaction is reasonably priced, or they wouldn’t undertake it, per the analysis above.

Therefore, the interest rate is reasonable, and therefore not exorbitant.

Thus, we see that payday loan rates are not usurious because the rate of interest is both lawful and not exorbitant.

Secular usury claim debunked, Dr. Maddow. It is in the dictionary. You got that part right.

It is also in the Bible, but not anywhere close to the way Dr. Maddow thinks it does. We look to Nehemiah for what most people speak of when they mention usury.

Paraphrasing, Nehemiah, Governor of Judah, had compassion for the Hebrew people who had returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity. They were a crushed people. Nehemiah defended and protected them. After learning they were forced to borrow money on their fields and vineyards to pay the King’s tax, he was outraged. He brought charges against the nobles, saying, “The thing that you are doing is not good,” (5:9). “Let us stop this taking of interest,” (5:10), He persuaded them to restore all that they had exacted from their people.

The myopic and incorrect interpretation of Nehemiah 5, as provided by the Doctor of Theology Rachel Maddow, is that it fails to place blame where it is due – on the King. The Jews were oppressed due to the taxes they had to pay the King, not due to the interest they were being charged!

The parable here is that the Jews were truly powerless and starving, while being charged interest on loans for the fields where they worked their food. In this particular scenario, I’d say (as Nehemiah did), that this practice was indeed taking advantage of the poor.

However, much as Rev. Maddow wishes an analogy exists between the parable of Nehemiah and payday loans, none exists. Payday loans, when used and offered responsibly, don’t take advantage of anyone. They help people bridge financial gaps.

When used irresponsibly, the fault lies with the borrower, unless the loan was made irresponsibly. In that case, the lender bears responsibility as well, but not all of it.

Any lender who makes a loan to someone truly poverty-stricken, who already owes other lenders and/or does not have any chance to repay the loan, is being irresponsible. But since 94% of all payday loans are paid back on time, I’d say that situation rarely exists in the payday lending space. What lender wants to make a loan to someone if they don’t have a reasonable expectation of getting their principle back?

So why not just leave it up to consumers to decide what to do, Sister Maddow? I mean, why not at least mention it in your program?

Maybe because the non-journalist in her doesn’t feel required to actually present a balanced presentation. After all, she is a Rhodes Scholar.

Bookmark and Share

by Nate Beeler

Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Words cannot express the sadness I feel.  Not for the trees however but for these people who have no life.  If it wasn't so funny it would be tragic.

Bookmark and Share

by Anthony Barnes
video from CNSNews

Well it certainly seems that Harrison Ford cares about the enviroment. So much so that he wants you to by carbon credits, reduce your fossil fuels and your energy use. There is one big problem with this however, just like every other Enviro-Elitist in Hollywood the rules do not apply to them. Ford owns 7 planes, BUT WAIT!, he only flies one at a time, WHEW!! thank God for that.

What is so great about this video is that the reporter basically just asks the question and allows Ford to pontificate on and on about what people can do to make the world a lucious and beautiful place, and when confronted with his hypocrisy exclaims he doesn't have to walk the walk until everyone else does. The reporter only had to provide the noose for Ford to hang himself with, and he gladly does. Hopefully someday Hollywood will realize that most of us in America really don't care about their opinions and we just want to be entertained.

At least Ford doesn't fly the Millenium Falcon around the planet I am sure the Ion thrusters in that really would pollute the joint.

Bookmark and Share

By Jeffrey Lord on 4.27.10 @ 6:08AM

"I am Spartacus."

It is one of the iconic lines from an iconic film.

Remember Spartacus? The 1960 Stanley Kubrick film based on a Howard Fast novel about a slave rebellion back in the glory days of Rome? Kirk Douglas -- father of Michael -- played the heroic slave leader Spartacus, his good friend Antonius played by Tony Curtis. In the signal moment from the film (said to be a slap at McCarthyism by the film's blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo), re-captured slaves, back in chains, are offered leniency. They will not face crucifixion if they will but give up Spartacus, who sits in their midst unrecognizable to the Romans. Waiting for the answer is Spartacus's foe, the Roman General Crassus, played by Laurence Olivier. After a moment of silence, as Spartacus is about to give himself up to be crucified, one by one the slaves stand and announce "I am Spartacus!" -- signaling their willingness to share their compatriot's fate. The scene epitomizes courage, a willingness to take a stand when the all-too-easy thing to do would be to simply say nothing and get off the hook.

One of the grim facts of war is that one never knows where and when these moments will present themselves. The question always is: when presented with this moment, what would you do?

Most probably, you will never know until the moment arrives.

The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 were presented with just such a moment on the opening day of this war. One minute they were average Americans flying peacefully from Newark to San Francisco on a beautiful late summer day. The next they found themselves shockingly confronted with their Spartacus moment. Four hijackers had taken over their plane during what the Americans quickly learned from family cell phone calls was an all out attack on their country. The World Trade Center towers were in flames, soon to collapse. The Pentagon had just had a jet ram into it. The plane they were on -- United 93 -- was clearly headed back East to Washington -- on target to destroy either the White House or the U.S. Capitol.

The fact that the story is history now doesn't make it any easier to recall. The passengers, doubtless scared witless, decided to rebel. They would not be passive participants in the destruction of their country. One by one they stood up and said, in effect, "I am Spartacus." Or, in the words of passenger Todd Beamer, "Let's roll." A horrific struggle raged, the plane went down in a farmer's field in Pennsylvania. Every single passenger and hijacker died. The White House and the United States Capitol, not to mention an unimagined number of lives on the ground, were spared.

"I am Spartacus," these people were saying to the rest of us. "I am Spartacus."

Comes now the tale of South Park, the irreverent, edgy and sometime (sometime??) offensive cartoon created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The show is a staple of Comedy Central, where it regularly spends its air time, in the words of the New York Post, ridiculing "every sacred convention in the book, from major religions and celebrities to gays and the physically disabled." Which is to say, making full use of the First Amendment right to free expression.

As all of America now knows, Parker and Stone decided to do their thing with Islam and Mohammed, having their characters trying to decide how to portray Mohammed without, well, actually showing him. Which, of course, is forbidden in Islam. This being a comedy show, The Prophet finally shows up in a bear costume.

And in the blink of an eye, a Spartacus moment began to evolve. Again according to the Post, "a New York-based Web site, Revolution Muslim…'warned' Parker and Stone they would end up like Theo Van Gogh -- the Dutch filmmaker killed in 2004 by an Islamic terrorist after he made a film dealing with abuse of Muslim women."

Threatened now, Parker and Stone refused to back down. They prepared a response, inserted as part of the storyline in their next South Park episode. Kyle, the one Jewish kid in the mix (and modeled after co-creator Stone), was to have delivered a 35-second speech at show's end warning of "fear and intimidation." There was to be no mention of Mohammed.

And Comedy Central -- Cowardly Central as the Post promptly dubbed the network -- bleeped Kyle's little talk out completely. Parker and Stone have a statement on their website, found here.

Which brings us to Jon Stewart.

He the Braveheart who has dared to battle -- yes! Can you believe it!!!??? -- Fox News! Stewart is so daring, don't you know, so gutsy, so edgy he actually uses -- OMG! -- the F-bomb on the air! Wow! What a guy! How 1969! The New York Times, unsurprisingly quick to adore this kind of faux courage, responded with an adoring profile, calling this David of the Liberal Media "relentless" as he swings away at the Goliath Fox. Ooooooooo…look! He took on…Bernard Goldberg! Sarah Palin! What a guy! Dust off the next Profile in Courage Award, Caroline!

Then, out of the blue, Jon Stewart found himself in a situation that demanded not the faux courage to take on Fox News. This time, not unlike the passengers of United Flight 93, Stewart suddenly found himself staring his own Spartacus moment in the face. The real thing.

His response?

"It's their right," he said of Comedy Central in a verbal shrug of indifference. "We all serve at their pleasure." In a monologue punctuated by yuks, he defended the network by saying, "The censorship was a decision Comedy Central made, I think as a way to protect our employees from what they believe was any harmful repercussions to them….but again they sign the checks."

They sign the checks.

Now there's a Spartacus moment. "Hey, Spartacus babe, we luv ya, big guy. What a ride that revolt thing, huh? Listen, Sparky, I can't hang up on some cross somewhere. I'm doing the lion-in-the-arena thing next Friday. They tell me the place is sold out. So, well, you're sweet. Really. But General Crassus over there signs the checks, capiche? And, hey, we gotta protect our guys, right? Ahhh, General Crassus? Spartacus is the guy with the dimple-in-the-chin thing going. Front row center."

This Stewart response -- not to mention the response from the Comedy Central suits themselves -- is an unintentional snapshot into the mind of American liberalism. What to do about people who have committed mass murder in places like New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Madrid, London, Bali, Baghdad, Mumbai, and Kabul -- and that only for starters while they figure out how to get their hands on a nuclear bomb or biological and chemical weapons?

Just look sternly into the camera, wring your hands, and say to these misguided people what Jon Stewart said to Revolution Muslim: "Your type of hatred and intolerance -- that's the enemy."

Take that Al Qaeda!

This is really quite remarkable, if in its own way quite predictable. Jon Stewart is by all accounts a nice guy, a talented guy, a smart guy. He has used The Daily Show to successfully carve out a niche as what his occasional Fox sparring partner Bill O'Reilly calls "a cornerstone of the liberal media in America." God bless America and Stewart's freedom.

Yet precisely because Stewart is viewed as the Lion of the Liberal Media, his wimpy response to an actual threat from a group presenting itself as just one more face of Islamic terror serves as a reminder of exactly why so many millions of Americans have come to mistrust President Obama or in fact any liberal when it comes to responding to America's enemies. After all the touchy-feely Obama outreach to Iran -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just continues to build his nuclear bombs anyway. Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry travel to Syria to make nice -- but long range Scud missiles will go to Hezbollah anyway. And so on. Electing Obama was presented as the change that would make precisely this kind of threat to South Park go away. Oops.

There is nothing new here, really. Same thin soup, different bowl. Neville Chamberlain hosts The Daily Show.

The problem is that instead of American national security or that of the West, we are talking about a slightly different issue yet one still vitally connected to the larger whole.

American and Western culture -- the good, the bad and the ugly of it over a few thousand centuries, from Plato to Parker and Shakespeare to Stone -- can thrive only in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom. That freedom, as has been made abundantly clear since 9/11, is under full scale assault.

Whether it's planes being rammed into buildings in the heart of the world's financial center or the latest move in Somalia to ban music, intellectual freedom is under attack. The attackers may be organized, they may be unorganized. They may have billions at their disposal, they may have a box cutter. But make no mistake, they are obsessed with the same thing -- achieving victory over the West and all it represents whatever the cost and however long it takes.

They do not care about the safety and security of Trey Parker and Matt Stone or Jon Stewart or Comedy Central or Fox or MSNBC or the best Jewish deli in Manhattan or the next cover girl for Sports Illustrated or any other production of Western culture. The objective is to kill the target of the moment -- and oh by the way, wipe out the rest of us too. No tactic is too small, no weapon big enough.

Which is why the fact that someone as smart as Jon Stewart closes his eyes hoping his sudden Spartacus moment will just somehow go away is disturbing.

This isn't going away. This is real. It has appeared countless times in human history, and it has reared its head once more. This time at Comedy Central, as unlikely as it might seem. Where the response was exactly the timelessly wrong answer.

The right answer is never to pretend that if you somehow were transported back in time, say to a house in Amsterdam in August of 1944 and the German GrĂ¼ne Polizei were pounding at your door, you could get away with saying: "Hi. Fox News can %$#@@ themselves. You guys sign the checks. Seig Heil. Ann Frank is upstairs, third door to the right, the room behind the bookcase."

The right answer would be, the right answer is always: I am Ann Frank.

I am Spartacus.

I am Trey Parker. I am Matt Stone.

I am Jon Stewart. And I quit.

Bookmark and Share

Its Not the Same GOP

Posted by T. BARNES On 8:59 PM 0 comments

by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

After Republicans suffered consecutive bruising defeats in 2006 and 2008, boastful Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee officials warned that Republicans faced a difficult decision: Go along with the sweeping agenda of the new administration, or suffer the disastrous consequences of taking on an enormously popular president in the 2010 elections.

Perhaps the GOP of 2005 would have taken the bait and swallowed the administration’s bad medicine. After all, Republicans during that period were guilty of spending too much and growing government too much, both of which would become hallmarks of the February 2009 stimulus plan and the loaded agenda that would follow. That GOP became a bloated, go-along to get-along body that forgot how to lead. We blew it, and we were rightfully fired by our bosses – the American people.

But the GOP in the House today is different. Very different. Led by a new generation of young and energetic leaders, we are committed to restoring the public’s trust in our ability to lead as responsible adults.

Let’s take a look at the last 16 months.

In the face of one-party Democratic rule, House Republicans learned fairly quickly that an election won on ‘change’ would result in a far more intrusive and expensive government. At the time, many political pundits joined the chorus of Democrats who warned that House Republicans faced political suicide if they didn’t support the President’s signature inaugural initiative – his stimulus plan. Yet we decided to fight. And we fought hard. The reason we were able to credibly oppose such a popular President was because we presented a much more responsible approach that would have created twice the jobs at half the cost of the eventual stimulus law that has failed to deliver as promised. A 178-seat minority isn’t going to win many legislative battles in the House. But it did prove sufficient to offer a clear contrast and provide the first glimpse of a Republican Party that had returned to its fiscally conservative roots.

From that moment, a revitalized House GOP dedicated itself to developing alternative solutions grounded in the fiscally responsible, small-government principles proven to work for our economy. On the stimulus, instead of pouring hundreds of billions down the rat holes of un-stimulative government programs, we proposed to give private-sector job creators an incentive to hire by exempting small businesses from 20 percent of their tax liability. On health care, instead of the budget-busting government takeover known as Obamacare, we provided solutions such as medical liability reform and purchasing health care across state lines which would lower costs while enabling families and patients to keep the care they have if they liked it. To create real jobs, we offered a “no cost Jobs plan” that would cut unemployment by approving lingering free-trade agreements and halting the deluge of ‘Obama tax increases.’ And on the budget, not only did we challenge President Obama to freeze spending at last year’s levels, but we offered cuts that would save taxpayers more than $375 billion.

We even challenged President Obama in a letter to help us force a vote in the House on the modest budget savings he proposed but which have been ignored by the Democrat majority. As has become routine, we have yet to receive a response.

Washington is always talking about the unlimited ways to increase spending. How about instead we start spending a lot more time talking about ways to cut expenditures and save money. That’s one reason why this Republican Conference adopted an earmark moratorium so we can finally start to fix a process that’s been broken for years. Could you imagine the Republican party of five years ago taking that step?

The point is that in each of these circumstances, we have stood up against an administration and a Pelosi-led Congress hell-bent on reorienting the role of government in America. While we may not have the numbers, our fight and conviction remains strong.

We understand that if our government is going to continue to spend and insert itself into the private economy the way that the Obama Administration and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has, then the America we know and love is in trouble. We will face steeper taxation, slower growth, higher unemployment and less economic opportunity for everyone. That may be a sacrifice Democrats are willing to stomach on their way to creating a European-style social welfare state. But for us it’s an unacceptable and radical departure from the American way.

America is a nation at a crossroads, and it is up to each of us to determine what kind of country we want to be. We must not leave our children a country more in debt and worse off than we found it, and I believe it is one of the biggest moral obligations of our time to act now to put a stop to what is happening in Washington. That means listening to the American people. It means spending less and saving more. It means pushing common-sense solutions that serve the national interest, not the special interests. And it means ensuring that our children have the same opportunity to achieve that we were given.

I am under no illusions – both parties have helped to create a debt that everyone knows is dangerously high. But only one of them is going to keep going down that path and taking our country with it. The other has learned its lesson and has reformed itself.

Bookmark and Share

by Byron York from the Washington Examiner

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

Bookmark and Share

by Wynn Marlow from

There has been a monsoon in Timbale. Anna, leader of the Visitors, intercedes with her technology. Questioned off the record, the Secretary General of the U.N. accuses Anna of “playing politics with tragedy. She used the people of Timbale to gain public and political clout.”

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

The former is an excerpt from the ABC television show ”V.” The latter, the cynical assessment of President Obama’s consigliore and Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel of the economic crisis occurring in the United States.

An opportunity to do what things you think you could not do before? Health care reform? Cap and tax? Government takeover of car companies, banks, and executive pay?

I think the remake of “V” currently showing on ABC must surely have been conceived as a metaphor. The alien visitors whose ships hover over multiple U.S. cities, and who plot to woo humans to join them to achieve their own veiled purpose, are equivalent to the current administration in Washington. Radicals, schooled by Saul Alinsky, affecting cleverly cultivated pleasing faces and voices.

The Visitors are not what they appear to be. They are… spoiler alert… lizards clothed in human skin. If you cross them, they skin you with gleaming metal instruments. Chicago style.

Didn’t Rham once send a dead fish to a pollster who had angered him? A tad short of skinning, but shudderingly similar.

Anna, in the episode which aired on ABC last Tuesday, says, “The future of our species, our cause, our survival outweighs any sacrifice. There is no room for human emotion, for weakness of any kind.”

I can imagine the modern Godfather Emanuel proclaiming similarly to candidate Obama while making his case for the “fundamental transformation” of this country. Yes we can…

Anna of the Other Planet tells Scott Wolf, playing The Reporter, “You’ll get to see progress being made, first-hand.” Oh, that word–progress–and all that is permissible to be done in its name.

On this planet, progress takes the form of Obamacare. We didn’t ask for it. We didn’t want it. They shoved it down our throats regardless.

On “V,” Anna gives Timbale “blue energy” after the monsoon. When asked by her Lieutenant, “Why are we giving blue energy to the humans?” she smugly replies, “Because, once they’re dependent on it…. We can turn it off.”

Sounds like entitlements to me, in all their insidious forms.

At the end of the episode, The Reporter says to Anna, “They think you’re a God.. [But I think] you’re not just visitors. You’re here to stay. But are you here for our benefit – or for yours?”

Hmmm. Something I’d say to Obama and his radical regime, if I had a prime time show on ABC.

Bookmark and Share

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words

Posted by T. BARNES On 8:14 PM 0 comments

Bookmark and Share


Posted by T. BARNES On 4:32 PM 0 comments

by Anthony Barnes


As I have stated before in a previous post I am a fan of the Baltimore Ravens. The following is a list of their draft selections for the 2010 season.  Needless to say with these players the Ravens are looking to stop the run and add some backup for the aging Todd Heap, while adding more weapons for Flacco.  I would have liked to see the cornerback situation addressed but only time will tell whether or not these picks were wise choices.  The Ravens traded out of the first round and added more picks to their 2010 draft which seems like it was the right move.  Their first pick was at No. 43.

2nd Round, No. 43 – Sergio Kindle, OLB, Texas
Kindle is a pass-rushing force with experience in big games. The former Longhorn recorded six sacks in 2009 and 10 in 2008. The reason why Kindle slid out of the first round is because of concerns over his knee, which General Manager Ozzie Newsome said will not require microfracture surgery.
Quotable: "I'm getting Rookie of the Year," Kindle said in a conference call with Baltimore reporters. "That's my goal."

2nd Round, No. 57 – Terrence Cody, DT, Alabama
Cody should pair with defensive tackle Haloti Ngata to give the Ravens a formidable run-stopping wall. Alabama never yielded to a 100-yard rusher with Cody on the line. The 350-pounder was seen by many as a first-round pick, but slid because of previous troubles to control his weight.
Quotable: “The Baltimore Ravens have drafted a defensive tackle who makes Haloti Ngata look like Kate Moss.” – National Football Post, Michael Davis Smith

3rd Round, No. 70 – Ed Dickson, TE, Oregon
The 6-foot-4 pass-catching tight end should add another vertical threat to the Ravens offense while filling a need at tight end behind Todd Heap. Dickson has experience playing at wide receiver and posted 42 receptions for 551 yards and six touchdowns during his senior year.
Quotable: “We think he’s got loads of promise as a receiving tight end. He can stretch the field, he’s got very good hands and catching range. He’s a big target.” - Ravens Director of Player Personnel Eric DeCosta

4th Round, No. 114 – Dennis Pitta, TE, Brigham Young
Pitta adds a sure-handed receiving weapon to the Ravens’ offense. Pitta caught 62 passes for 829 yards and eight touchdowns in 2009 and was one of most impressive tight ends at the NFL Scouting Combine.
Quotable: “I definitely think I’m someone who can stretch the field vertically and create mismatches in the passing game.”

5th Round, No. 156 – David Reed, WR, Utah
Reed, a 6-foot, 190-pound receiver, set single-season school records in 2009 with 81 catches for 1,188 yards his senior year. In Utah's spread offense, Reed ranked 15th in the nation in receiving yards per game (91.4).

5th Round, No. 157 – Art Jones, DT, Syracuse
Baltimore adds depth to the Ravens' defensive line and has a high upside. The 6-foot-3, 301-pounder posted 60 tackles, including 13 for a loss, during his junior year. A torn meniscus tendon in his knee cut Jones' senior season short.

6th Round, No. 194-Ramon Harewood, OT, Morehouse
Harewood, who has just four years of playing experience, is a bit of a project, but is a physical specimen with high upside.
He grew up playing cricket, rugby, soccer, volleyball and track and field in Barbados. Harewood attended Moorehouse on academic scholarship.
Physically, Harewood seems to have all the tools. He slimmed down from 363 pounds during the season to 335 pounds throughout the recruiting process and has really long arms and big hands.

Bookmark and Share

The Fate of Friday the 13th Part 2

Posted by T. BARNES On 5:22 PM 0 comments

Somehow I just don't believe this, Jason Voorhees did not die after Tommy Jarvis hacked him into at least 20 pieces.

Source: Ryan Rotten,

If you read between the lines in any of our past news items regarding Friday the 13th: Part 2, you might see that things were not looking good for the sequel to last year's Friday the 13th.

Today, Brad Fuller replied to a fan via his Twitter account that the second outing with Jason Voorhees is "dead." That's a far cry from a year ago when the Platinum Dunes team was dropping hints about the script.

There's a deeper story behind this and hopefully we'll hear about it soon...

The reboot of the franchise grossed nearly $100 million worldwide.

Bookmark and Share


Posted by T. BARNES On 4:32 PM 0 comments


Bookmark and Share

Cartoon of the Week

Posted by T. BARNES On 4:21 PM 0 comments


Bookmark and Share

Bookmark and Share

by Jake Boot posted on

Give Comedy Central an anal probe. Not because of Jon Stewart’s ongoing tiff with Bernard Goldberg and Fox News, which is just polite, interesting fun. Rather, it has to do with the disturbing news that the creators of the animated sitcom “South Park” were threatened by an apparent jihadist organization called Revolution Muslim over an episode that contains some (mildly) irreverent material about Mohammed – and the cable network caved.

They bent over and censored the show. According to the New York Times arts blog posted this morning, the episode in question, a follow-up to the one that showed the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bear costume, was edited by Comedy Central to avoid further offense. The version that aired Wednesday contained audio bleeps and image blocks (“CENSORED”), apparently inserted by the network, after the Muslim group warned on its website that show creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker “will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh.” This is a reference to the Dutch film maker who was murdered – shot eight times then stabbed, with a note pinned to the knife, like in an Eric Ambler story — on an Amsterdam street after he made a documentary critical of Islam’s treatment of women. Fearing for her safety, Van Gogh’s collaborator, Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was forced to flee the country, and the Dutch Parliament engaged in vigorous debate on the subject of banning certain kinds of speech as “blasphemy.” In other words, they unheroically blamed the victim.

Based on the information so far, the honchos at Comedy Central are cowering like the Dutch. A spokesman for Comedy Central said, according to the Times, that it was not giving permission for the episode to run, without censorship, on the studio’s website.

A few questions:

First, where is Homeland Security on this? (Oh, never mind, they’re most likely busy infiltrating Tea Parties.)

Second, what is it about animation and cartoons that these idiots cannot understand or abide? There is probably no point in trying to explain to them that this is a cartoon series and is deliberately, delightfully offensive. Ever see any of the episodes about the gay teacher? And his leather-clad “assistant,” Mr. Slave? If you happened by any chance actually to be a gay schoolteacher who saw those shows, you either: a) wanted to die, or b) were dying laughing and will continue to chuckle every time you think about it for the rest of your life.

Planet Earth to Revolution Muslim: You need a sense of humor to live in this country. Otherwise go away.

Last, why are our media outlets run by jellyfish? Are there no bravehearts in the newsrooms and control rooms anymore? The Emmy-winning “South Park” is a take-no-prisoners sort of show whose main characters Stan and Kyle (not to mention the inimitable, somewhat anti-Semitic Cartman) bravely tread where no newspaper commentator, Op-Ed columnist, cable news bloviator, or talk radio loudmouth will ever dare to go. They go, literally, where the sun don’t shine. Stone and Parker are — like Theo Van Gogh — free-speech fundamentalists. Are we going to allow courageous artists to go it alone? We can’t let the bullies win.

Comedy Central needs a backbone, and Revolution Muslim needs a bitch-slapping. This is a situation about which the Left and the Right can easily agree.

Bookmark and Share

by Matt Kibbe posted on

FreedomWorks staff and volunteers have suffered through bomb threats, endless hostile abuse from union patch-through calls laced with profanity, death threats, the N-word directed at an African-American employee, and a host of full-frontal creeps. You can find many of these documented here and here.

Many of these orchestrated attacks were launched in the days leading up to our September 12th Taxpayer March on Washington. Where was the moral outrage when we received a bomb threat on September 11th? “There’s a f***ing bomb in your building, bitch,” the caller said. Then, did the media write stories about how the Democrats and their hard left adjuncts had gone too far with their threats, their hate, their racism?

We need to draw a line in the sand. Across this line you do not cross! Let’s all agree to hold the individuals acting badly personally responsible for their actions. As far as I can tell, the bad actors are likely phony infiltrators from tea party crasher groups.

We are a grassroots movement made up of people who believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. Racism and hate are inherently collectivist ideas. As individualists we judge people as individuals, based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I asked the activists that joined with 40,000 of their fellow Americans on the Mall in front of the Washington Monument on the evening of April 15th to police the crowd for any hate or racial slurs. If you see bad actors, ask them to leave. If they won’t leave, get a picture and we will out their bad behavior online in the light of day. I don’t care who you are: we will not tolerate haters or racists in our community.

So when the voice-over guy for Geico Insurance, D.C. Douglas, called and left us another hostile message, and left his phone number, we held him accountable too, posting his message where he calls all of us “mentally retarded,” and potential killers. Geico canceled his contract. He now says that we, “like Glenn Beck, are flirting heavily with sedition.” Strange accusation from an actor that talks for a living.” Americans covet our freedom of speech. We have a sacred right, enshrined in the Constitution, to show up, protest and challenge government policies that are bad for America. Freedom: it’s an insurance policy we should all buy.

Click to Listen: Lance Baxter's Voicemail

Click to Listen: Adam Brandon Confirms the Caller

Bookmark and Share

I know this is a little outdated, but with the state of movies and their reliance on digital effects this is relevant and hilarious.  This is part 1 of 9, the rest can be viewed here.

Chapter six and seven deal with race and how this movie is inconsistent with the original trilogy.  Both well worth the time for a good laugh and good insight.

Bookmark and Share

by Christian Josi  from

“Conservatism is America’s longest-dying political movement” claims R. Emmett Tyrrell in his newest book “After The Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road To Victory.” Yet, says the old warrior, it is also poised and fated to ultimately win the culture war.

As one would expect from the one and only RET, it’s quite a read.

He details the obituaries: the 1950s (when the movement was just coming together), 1964. 1974, 1992, 2006, and 2008. As long as conservatism has been growing, it has repeatedly been pronounced dead. Next he notes that just before 2006 it was the Liberals who were having obituaries written for them–in 1994, 2000, and 2004—a little noted fact.

But, as Bob quotes from the longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer, “every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” By the Bush years the pols were spending wildly and giving only lip service to true conservative principles. Some conservative media darlings were too often merely opportunists, mouthing our principles whilst looking for the next lucrative gig.

In its’ infancy, “conservatism” was but a small group of erudite and engaging intellectuals with a beef. It was far from a racket. It was a great cause focused squarely on limited government and personal liberty. Always this cause has been up against the statists, the so-called liberals (who are not, in fact, very liberal at all). So Tyrrell designates them Liberals–large L. And because said Liberals dominate our media and political culture, they have been in a great position to publicly declare our doom.

Throughout this period, Tyrrell rightly contends, the fact is that Liberals were the ones in decline, moving from being the dominant political movement to third place behind conservatives and moderates or independents. In fact, conservatives now outnumber them 2 to 1, according to Gallup polls.

Liberals, he observes, are different from conservatives to the point that they are almost a different species, possessing the “political libido” of a nymphomaniac (at times that of a sex offender) as conservatives have always had a very restrained “political libido.” The result? Liberals over-politicize as with healthcare where they have taken on the majority of the American people and caused actual violence to ensue. In stark contrast, when conservatives had an opponent of abortion in the White House, Ronald Reagan would not think of forcing the issue on the divided Republic.

Tyrrell’s explanation as to why conservatives have a milder political libido is to be found in his definition of conservatism. Borrowing from the British conservative political philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, Tyrrell defines conservatism as “A temperament to delight in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness—the pursuit being as John Locke put it, the acquisition and exchange of property.”

Whereas conservatism starts as a temperament, Liberalism starts as “an anxiety.” Reality makes them anxious and leads them to create ideological constructs, for instance, affirmative action, color based or gender based society, redistribution of the wealth. Those are the true ideologues.

What has held conservatives back since the political movement took over the country in the 1980s (though Tyrrell demonstrates that conservatism continues to shape the political mainstream) is the Liberal domination of culture, in Tyrrell’s typically clever coinage, the “Kultursmog.”

And incidentally you won’t want to miss Tyrrell’s shots at those conservatives who advance in the Kultursmog by sniping at other conservatives. Of Christopher Buckley he says in part, ‘He [Christopher] would be Bill’s loving son and a louse….In an era of cheap celebrity, Christopher calibrated that such revelations will ensure a few more moments of fame. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton probably make similar calculations.’

But—good news! Today, with an ever-growing “old-school” conservative counter culture in place (including unprecedented assets such as their own television, talk radio, additional magazines, think tanks, blogs, etc), can and likely will beat the Liberals in the real culture war.

With the Liberals alienating the average American with an increasingly astonishing brazenness and a conservative counter culture capable of defining conservatives independent of the Kultursmog, Tyrrell’s got his marker squarely on conservatives’ resurgence—and victory–in the years ahead.

All in all, a good book at a critical time from a good man who edits a great magazine and to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. Read it, then ride to the sound of the guns!

Bookmark and Share

Video: Proud To Be A Tea Bagger

Posted by T. BARNES On 7:07 PM 0 comments

See you on the mall in Washington tomorrow


Posted by T. BARNES On 7:26 PM 0 comments


Posted by T. BARNES On 7:16 PM 0 comments



Posted by T. BARNES On 7:01 PM 0 comments

Obama Nation: Our President by James Hudnall and Batton Lash


Posted by T. BARNES On 6:40 PM 0 comments

by Kurt Schlichter @ Big Hollywood

The script of the upcoming remake of the infamous America-conquered-by-Commies movie Red Dawn (1984) raises an intriguing question – can Hollywood actually still produce a movie where it takes America’s side? The answer is “Sort of.”
There are some welcome ideological surprises lurking within the script’s 104 pages. Shockingly, Hollywood actually seems to accept the premise that if the Chinese and Russkies invade the United States we are justified in fighting back with hot lead instead of teach-ins and choruses of Kumbayah. But the script also displays a bit of the moral illiteracy we’ve come to expect from the Hollywoodoids – naturally, the script has to imply that we kinda brought the invasion on ourselves and that resisting tyranny somehow means becoming just as bad as the tyrants.

The re-imagining of Red Dawn will be released later this year and does very little actual re-imagining of the original’s simple plot. We first meet some all-American teenagers. They play high school football, party, and talk and look like CW series cast members – not real bright, but pretty (the pretty part in the script). For some reason, the Soviets (replaced here by the Chinese with a Russian assist) invade America and seize their hometown. Their town’s tactical significance appears to be that invading it advances the plot. Anyway, the teenagers go up into the mountains, score some of the firearms our prescient Founders ensured we’d always have the right to keep and bear despite the best efforts of those gun control-loving wusses, and launch a bloody guerrilla war against the invaders.

Sure, that sounds awesome in theory, but John Milius’s original Red Dawn was – well, let me be diplomatic – probably one of the silliest movies ever made. And I loved it. When you combine killing communists with unbelievable camp – like the teen warriors’ giggle-inducing battle cry of “Wolverines!” and Harry Dean Stanton’s memorable scene that ends with him hollering “Avenge me!” – and then add some beer, you’ve got one hell of an awesome time at the movies. In the quarter century since its release, it’s inspired a cult following. A young captain even adapted the title as the name of the Army operation that rounded up the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein.

Now, I’m not here to evaluate the aesthetic worthiness of Carl Ellsworth’s script. I’ll leave that task to someone with the expertise to properly critique its unique aesthetic qualities – like noted reviewer Hackey von Hackenheimer. I will say that Ellsworth must have sat through a few of those screenwriting seminars because you can set your watch by the predictable action beats (“Hmmm, we’re three quarters through the script, so time for Act III to begin: {*types into FinalDraft 8*} ‘MCGUFFIN ENTERS and provides motivation for climactic battle sequence.’”)

Let’s just say you won’t walk out of the theater feeling that your prior conception of what “cinema” is has been radically redefined.

Of course, there’s no Patrick Swayze here. Boo. And the new Red Dawn also unforgivably omits the cry of “Avenge me!” in favor of a much lamer substitute. Those interested in specifics of the plot, such as it is, can peruse this spoiler-filled synopsis. As John Nolte memorably put it, we’re here to spot the liberal sucker punches for you, not to reveal fanboy-centric plot points like whether Boba Fett’s helmet will be dented on the right side or the left side.

The hero is Jed, probably because Hollywoodoids think everyone who lives east of the I-5 is named “Jed,” or possibly “Zachariah” or “Cletus.” Jed is a 22-year old Marine who has come home after fighting in Iraq. I guess the fact that he’s not portrayed as a raving psycho counts as something like progress. The script’s view of Iraq is ambiguous, as demonstrated by Jed’s exchange with a local hick who incoherently swings between gung ho belligerence and neo-isolationist cliches.

Returning vets do get into those kinds of conversations, but it’s usually with Blue State quarter-wits sounding off with Mother Jones talking points. Whatever – we should just be grateful Jed doesn’t launch into a speech about how Bu$hitler lied and his buddies died, or how Dick Cheney, in association with the Carlyle Group, hid WMDs in oil wells to raise Haliburton’s stock price.

There are a couple of nice scenes. Early on, the escapees get to a cabin and decide to arm themselves with the firearms stored there. The script does not see this as odd or unusual – it rightly assumes that every American should always ensure his or her ready access to weapons in order to be able to do their duty and defend their society in time of emergency. However, the cabin’s owner had failed to stockpile a sufficient amount of ammunition, and the script properly points out this major lapse. All real Americans should always be ready with adequate supplies of arms and ammunition – after all, “Bang” is the sound an American makes while maintaining this country’s freedom.

Jed trains up his guerrillas and they start killing the Chinese occupiers. That’s cool. Some might scoff at the notion that a bunch of armed rural folks could have any effect against a professional army. I would note the fact that we don’t speak with an English accent and enjoy our beer cold rather than warm and by the pint. I would also note the example of a Finnish hunter who personally took out at least 705(!) Russian soldiers, and observe that deer are harder to hit than people. Now, the training scenes are a bit perfunctory (I’d have gone for an 80s-style musical montage myself) and the “Wolverines” go from high school kids to steely-eyed killers pretty quickly – though they sure babble about their feelings a lot. A lot.

There is also a rudimentary explanation of the theory of insurgency – Ellsworth rightly does not seem to think his kids can win by literally forcing the stronger enemy to flee by inflicting damage, rather than by forcing their departure by setting conditions among the populace that make further occupation too painful to bear. Guerrillas who get in stand-up firefights with counter-insurgents tend to become dead guerrillas.

And there’s a refreshing take on the proper response to those foreigners who murder Americans – the script actually agrees that you fight back and kill them. I wish I could share the exact quote, but just seeing that sentiment on the page of a Hollywood script is a revelation. Did someone at a Rodeo Drive bistro secretly spike Ellsworth’s Pellegrino with Awesome Coolness Pills, because Hollywood needs more of that kind of clarity and old-fashioned can-do. I need a cigarette after reading something like that.

It’s not all awesome. There are a couple of throw-away lines where the Chinese invasion is explained, in part, by the massive liberal-spending binge debt we owe them. There are lots of reasons to worry about foreign debt; I’m not sure the threat of repossession is one of them. The explanation for how the wily, inscrutable Asian enemy (and the script does portray them as wily and inscrutable) pulled off the invasion is pretty lame too.

Also, there’s an unintentionally hilarious scene where the junior varsity guerrillas get a drop on some US commandos, the leader of which introduces himself as a lieutenant in the Delta Force. Ummm. Well, that bunch does not take inexperienced lieutenants. And they don’t tell outsiders they are from “Delta Force.” And pulling an AK-47 on one of those guys is a good way to get a 7.62mm suppository – if you’re lucky.

There are no real sucker punches, but there is at least a sucker tap. The script really falls down on the job toward the middle, where Jed momentarily devolves into the kind of dork who spews the type of moral equivalence that might seem profound to a pampered UC Berkeley sophomore but that is, in reality, really stupid.

He whines that because he’s using guerrilla tactics that he is now just like the jihadi scumbags he fought in Iraq. His girlfriend Toni inarticulately disagrees. This is supposed to be a moving moment, but it only served to move my lunch back up my esophagus.

The character of “Toni” should have smacked some sense into Jarhead Jed since the script didn’t have his drill sergeant around to do it.

You know, the audience is watching an uplifting and inspirational tale of shooting communists and all of a sudden this nonsense pops up. Just stop. Let’s try another example. Nazis liked oxygen. Hey, Americans like oxygen too! Ergo, Hitler and Americans are the same, right? Nimrods. The fact that we kill bad people for killing us does not make us bad too. For the perpetual sophomores out there, the test of the morality of a conflict is the cause you fight for; the tools you use are largely irrelevant. American bayonet – good. Nazi bayonet – bad. I blame the public schools for this kind of nonsense and muddled reasoning – the “critical thinking” they purport to teach is actually anything but.

Let’s clarify for those who remain unclear – the act of shooting, blowing up, bludgeoning or otherwise eliminating those who threaten and murder Americans is an unambiguously good thing. What al Qaeda terrorists, Taliban, Shiite militias, Republican Guards, Viet Cong, North Koreans, Nazis, Imperial Japanese soldiers and their ilk feel or felt deeply in their little hearts and warped minds about their various causes is irrelevant and unworthy of attention — except to the extent that understanding their thought processes facilitates defeating them. Their destruction was and is a moral necessity and unquestionably morally right; their fighting Americans was and is unquestionably morally wrong. Always. End of story.

Any questions? No? Good.

However, the script is admirably forthright on how best to deal with American traitors and collaborators. Let’s just say due process comes quickly and in pistol form. That’s refreshing. As a lawyer, I appreciate trials and such, but as someone who has known folks killed and wounded by such bastards, my perspective is different.

It’s nice to see that in Red Dawn, Hollywood is at least inching toward ideological sanity. The Americans are the good guys. The people trying to kill the Americans are the bad guys. In this way, if in no other, the new Red Dawn is just like real life.

Bookmark and Share