Fausta’s Blog

Today’s podcast at 11AM Eastern,
The European Parliament’s resolution, Cuba: MEPs condemn “avoidable” death of Orlando Zapata

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on Thursday strongly condemning the “avoidable and cruel” death of Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata and voicing its concern at the “alarming state” of another prisoner, Guillermo Fariñas. MEPs also repeat their call to the Cuban government for the “immediate and unconditional” release of all political prisoners and urge the EU to begin a “structured dialogue” with Cuban civil society.

Related reading:
Latin American Herald Tribune Euro Parliament Condemns Death of Cuban Dissident
Monsters and Critics Cuba denies role in dissident death, detains more dissidents
Babalu Andy Garcia slams Willy Toledo, and One moment, two men
Penultimos dias Óscar Arias alza la voz por Fariñas

Good-bye, hot pastrami on rye:

The latest nanny state idiocy coming to an eating establishment near you, if you’re in New York, banning salt in restaurant cooking:

“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

$5 says Felix never worked in a restaurant in his life.

Hit & Run asks,

$1,000 a pinch? $1,000 a grain? If the bill passes—which we can only hope it won’t, since it is the ravings of a madman in legislative form—it looks like the folks at most-expensive.net are going to have to revisit their entry on the world’s most expensive salt.

I can’t wait for the day when Felix and Michael Bloomberg insist that restaurants individually provide their patrons with someone to cut up their steak.

Here’s the text of the letter that the 41 Senate Republicans sent Harry Reid telling him they will oppose waiving any violations of the “Byrd Rule” in moving parts of the health care bill through reconciliation:

March 4, 2010
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-221 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0001

Dear Leader Reid:

We understand from press reports and comments that you and the Speaker have made that the House and Senate will use the budget reconciliation process to overhaul our nation’s health care system, which represents 1/6th of our economy. We urge you to not use reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the majority of Americans.

The American people have been paying close attention to the health reform debate; they understand the issues being discussed and they have expressed broad opposition not only to the substance of the health reform bills, but also to the process by which those bills have been developed. According to a February 24 CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans believe Congress should either start over on an “entirely new bill” or not do health care reform at all this year. A Gallup survey released February 25 showed that the majority of Americans oppose using reconciliation to expedite passage of health reform legislation through the Senate.

Overhauling our health care system will affect every single American and is simply too important to be passed without broad bipartisan support. Yet, it is clear that the only reason you are considering using the budget reconciliation process to pass this unpopular bill is because you have not been able to attract any Republican support for your comprehensive health bill.

We recommend you rethink your plans of expediting such legislation through Congress over the strong objections of the American people. We urge you to listen to the advice of Senator Robert C. Byrd, who was quoted in the Washington Post on March 22, 2009:

I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.

Using the reconciliation process to enact major legislation prevents an open debate about critical issues in full view of the public. Health reform and climate change are issues that, in one way or another, touch every American family. Their resolution carries serious economic and emotional consequences.

The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation — a process intended for deficit reduction — to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.

We agree with this assessment—misusing the Senate rules in this way would be a tremendous “disservice” to the American people and it is “an outrage” that we should resist.

In that regard, to endeavor to ensure that the reconciliation process is not used to fast-track an unpopular bill through Congress, we wish to inform you that we will oppose efforts to waive the so-called Byrd Rule during Senate consideration of any reconciliation bill concerning health reform. The Byrd Rule, as you know, was created by Senator Byrd to ensure that reconciliation bills were not used to enact policy changes, the primary purpose of which is not specifically related to the federal budget. As it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, we can ensure that any provision that trips the Byrd Rule will be stripped from the bill, which will require that the bill be sent back to the House for further consideration and additional votes.

We urge you to abandon the use of reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Instead, we encourage you to work with us on a series of bipartisan bills that provide a step-by-step approach to reducing the cost of health care for Americans.

Senate sources also sent a video of Senators DeMint, Wicker, Coburn, and Thune—all former House members— talking about the Dems being responsible for passing the bill through the reconciliation tactic,

UDPATE
Two from Ace:
Constitutional Slaughter: Democrats Attempting Rule Change in House That Would Pass Senate Bill Without An Actual Vote on the Senate Bill,
and More on the Blatantly Unconstitutionally, Recklessly Illegal Slaughter “Rule:” Citizens Would Have Standing to Challenge, which links to Leon Wolfe at Red State,

Having determined that they lack the votes in the House to pass the Senate bills as-is, House Democrats are attempting one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional power grabs ever witnessed – a maneuver to deem the Senate bill ALREADY PASSED by the House by rule, despite the fact that it clearly has not. Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.

And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact.

This is extremely troubling.

Just a little reminder,

Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down, I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we’re trying to do is slow the rate of increase.”

Spoken by Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D-Il)

Well, yesterday the American public found out what Homer Simpson would refer to as “Too much information!” involving groping Eric Massa and a male staffer,

Yeah, I did! Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my fiftieth birthday!”

Ugh.

But, Massa told Beck, “I did nothing sexual.”

Now does he mean “sexual” in the Bill Clinton definition?

Today’s podcast at 11AM Eastern will be on – oh yes – Sean Penn and Hollywood’s love of tinpot dictators.

Might as well stick a fork in the State Department, because they’re done: The US State Department has apologized for slighting terrorist Gaddafi, he of the traveling tent, the Lockerbie bomb, the sartorial flourishes, and the many spellings,

US apologises over Gaddafi comments

The US state department has apologised for comments made about Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland.

Department spokesman PJ Crowley, who made the dismissive comments, said they did not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend.

Col Gaddafi had criticised a Swiss vote against the building of minarets and urged Muslims to boycott the country.

Mr Crowley described it as “lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense.”

Libya and Switzerland are embroiled in a long-running diplomatic row.

Clarification

“I regret that my comments have become an obstacle to further progress in our bilateral relationship,” Mr Crowley said.

And why is the US kissing up? Oil!

Last week, Libya’s National Oil Corporation warned US oil firms of possible “repercussions” over Mr Crowley’s reaction.

The Libyan ambassador to the US sought to clarify Col Gaddafi’s remarks saying the Libyan leader meant an economic boycott not “an armed attack”.

“I should have focused solely on our concern about the term jihad, which has since been clarified by the Libyan government,” Mr Crowley added.

“I understand my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack on the president,” he said.

“These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way.”

Rather than explore, develop and exploit America’s own oil resources, now it’s official US policy to bend over backwards to accommodate psychotic terrorists.

Can’t wait to see what the US will do once the water crisis comes to a head.

And…
The Lockerbie bomber’s still alive, free, and enjoying his $4 million.

Hat tip: Dan.

UPDATE
Robert Spencer:

Dhimmitude at the State Department: Official apologizes for remarks about Libya’s declaration of jihad against Switzerland

Instead, he [the State Dept. official] should be calling on Gaddafi to apologize for the double standard of his call for Muslims to undertake economic jihad against Switzerland for banning minarets when non-Muslim religious practice is restricted far more severely than cosmetic issues all over the Islamic world.

Reported by Pradva, no less,
United Arab Emirates to Follow Third Reich Policies against Jews

The authorities of the United Arab Emirates made an unusual decision. Dubai police chief Dahi Khalfan al-Tamim said on March 1 that anyone who looks or sounds like a citizen of Israel will be blocked from entering the country, even if a suspected individual produces a passport of a different state.

Ah, Dubai, where the police chief can readily identify Jews,

“It is easy for us to identify [Israelis], through their face or when they speak any other language. We used to respect them when they would come holding European passports; we regarded them as Europeans and never treated them badly. But from now on, anyone we suspect to have a dual citizenship, they will be treated with great suspicion,” the police chief said.

Pradva goes on,

Such people would never think of traveling to Emirates. Will Emirates liken itself to the Third Reich and use rulers and protractors to measure the shape of the nose, earlaps and the skull structure? If it does, the UAE will lose all of its friends in the West.

Sadly, they wouldn’t. Look at all the friends of Ahmadinejad.

Marco Rubio spent $100 bucks at a salon and Crist says it was for a back wax,

Gay Patriot wanders if Crist really wants to go there. Erick’s sending Crist some wax.

Now, when I saw Marco Rubio at CPAC he was wearing a suit, dress shirt and necktie, so I can’t tell you about the state of his back. Fully clothed he looks nice.

For the record, as long as Rubio’s not waxing his chest, I’m OK with back waxes.

But I digress.

Crist’s accusation backfired; Gateway Pundit points out that Rubio’s up in the polls, by 32 points.

Lord knows how high the polls would climb if Crist accuses Rubio of getting a manicure.

In the WSJ today:
Toyota to Recall Prius Models Including One in Runaway Incident

Toyota Motor Corp. said Tuesday that the Prius involved in a highly publicized acceleration incident on a California freeway along with many others will be the subject of a future recall to prevent floor mats from pinning down the gas pedal.

Allow me one question, please, but how much of this panic is due to the government’s conflict of interest intervening against Toyota, or on drivers who can’t figure out on their own that the floor mat is pinning down the gas pedal?

Michael Fumento has more on the Prius accelerator highway horror and the hysteria.