• COMMENTARY: NEW BAN ON HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES?

This comment was too long for the comments section on the show page, so I am posting it in its entirety here. Guest commentary is welcome; please write me via email and we'll make it happen. My friend Brian wrote the following. -Jz

Two days ago (18 Jan 11) on your show, your guest Matt said he would support a ban on high-capacity magazines and claimed they have no "sporting" purpose. He even went as far as say the average police beat officer had no use for such magazines and that they should be restricted to SWAT officers.

Most of the guns I have aren't for "sporting" purposes. I bought them for self-defense, i.e. for shooting people, not paper or Bambi.

What exactly does Matt consider a "high-capacity" magazine? If you ask most anti-gun pukes, who want all guns banned period, they'll tell you any magazine that hold more than 6 rounds should be banned.

The magazine used by the Arizona crackpot held 30-plus rounds. So what? Does anyone really think he couldn't have murdered just as many people with a 15-round magazine (Glock 19) or a 17-round magazine (Glock 17)? All it would have taken was a magazine change or two, which can be done fairly rapidly or at your leisure if you're shooting at unarmed people.

It should also be remembered that on 6 September 1949, WWII veteran Howard Unruh murdered 13 people with a 9mm German Lugar. The Lugar Unruh used in his rampage held 8 rounds and he had an extra 8 round magazine and 16 loose rounds in his pocket. (A rampage that was probably stopped when he was shot in the thigh by an armed citizen with a .38 revolver)

http://www.dvrbs.com/camden/CamdenNJ-HowardUnruh.htm

Matt claimed the average police beat officer has no use for "high-capacity" magazines and that they should only be used by SWAT officers. I think the beat officers during the 1997 Hollywood bank shootout would disagree. I would think the initial officers on scene at the Columbine massacre wished they had 30-round magazines on hand. High-capacity magazines are very useful when you're in a gunfight with armed assailants. There are also countless other times when officers' lives could have been saved if they had high-capacity magazines.

I know some SWAT officers personally, and while they would be somewhat disappointed that an incident be dealt with before they arrive, they would be relieved that the incident was terminated before to0 many innocent lives were lost.

Lastly, I don't trust any politician or anti-gun activist to tell me what type of gun to own, what type of ammunition or what type of magazine to carry in it.

Addendum: Suppose a `ban on "high capacity" magazines is passed. What happens after the next mass shooting, and there will be another mass shooting.

Will the anti-gun folks then try to limit magazines to five or six rounds, or will they try more restrictive restrictions?

Several years ago ago, I attended a discussion on the UN's plan to limit small arms at the Monterey Institute for International Studies. one of the attendees told me that sometimes the anti-gun lobby needs to propose a law they know will not reduce crime. That way, after it fails the public will accept more restrictive measures.

The anti-gun lobby will not stop at restricting "high capacity" magazines.

• THREE REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HUGE TAX INCREASE

RANT TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT: Let me share with you something that Dick Morris just wrote today. *sigh* You're just not going to believe this. I'm lost for words. Already, we have Republicans acting like they didn't hear a damn thing on November 2nd.

According to Dick Morris, "The formerly solid wall of Republican opposition to any tax increase has now already been - I added the word 'already' - it has already been breached, and it's up to us to repair it and plug it up. Three normally conservative Senators, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire have voted in favor of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission's recommendation for massive tax hikes.

"Coburn, Crapo and Gregg are laboring under the grand illusion that tax increases can reduce the deficit. In fact, the record is the exact opposite: Tax increases dampen economic growth." Dick writes here about everything we know about raising taxes. "Raising taxes never brings in the revenue its supposed to, and because higher taxes hurt the economy, higher taxes increase manditory entitlement spending on medicaid, welfare, unemployment compensation and food stamps, thereby eradicating spending cuts that may have accompanied them."

Now listen: "Coburn, Crapo and Gregg's vote endorses and sends to Congress a report that calls for a nine year tax hike of $1.3 trillion dollars, raising the federal tax burden permanently to 21% of GDP, as opposed to the average of 18% to date - that source is the Americans For Tax Reform. It even eliminates Congressional control over tax increases. They would become automatic after 2013, unless the commission's proposals are implemented."

And, wow. It even gets worse. "The commission calls for higher tax rates, reduction of indexing of tax brackets for inflation; it would raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 23%; it would raise social security taxes by up to 50% for taxpayers making up to or over $150,000 a year; it would double gasoline taxes..." Oh my God. "... and set the inheritance tax permanently at 45%."

Now, this is something we would expect from Democrats, but not Republicans. "Coburn, Crapo and Gregg have done great harm to our cause by endorsing the idea that a centrist approach of combining tax increases and spending cuts is the answer to our deficit. Their approach would lock in Obama's massive increase in government spending.

"When Obama took office, federal..." Listen to this: "Federal, state and local governments combined accounted for 35% of our economy. Now they are up to 45%, ahead of Britain and Germany. We must roll back the deficit through spending cuts, not ratify it through tax increases."

Let me say that again. "When Obama took office," this was only two years ago. "Federal, state and local governments combined accounted for 35% of our economy." That's already too high! And now, just in the time that Obama has been President, that has increased to 45%. Federal, state and local government account for forty-five... nearly half of our economy - is government! Holy mackerel, this has got to stop!

And these three Republicans vote for it?

Judd Gregg is retiring so he doesn't care. And Tom Coburn, and Crapo - what's his name? Mike Crapo, were just re-elected. "Neither said anything about endorsing big tax increases as soon as the ballots were cast. They hid their true intentions from us. Please drown Coburn and Crapo in letters and phone calls to protest their betrayal of our cause. We must make sure that they do not back these tax increases on the floor of the Senate, and that their defection does not encourage other RINOs to break ranks."

Boy I'll tell you, this pisses me off. So the link for Dick Morris' column is in my show notes. You can go here and get all the information on Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo. Addresses and phone numbers but let me give you a couple of phone numbers just in case you want to call, and you're listening to the show - you can pause the program if you're listening at TheJimmyZShow.com, and make the call.

The phone number for Tom Coburn: Area code 202-224-5754. The main phone number for Mike Crapo: Area code 202-224-6142. Those numbers are both in Washington DC, where these sons of bitches are right now. And don't talk to me about my language. [laughs] I am holding back big time. And if you want to call them in their home town offices, Tom Coburn: Area code 918-581-7651; Mike Crapo in Idaho: Area code 208-522-9779.

Let these bastards have it. I can't stand this anymore. We just got done with the election, a month ago - three days longer than a month ago. And these guys are already saying, no, we gotta have massive tax increases. I - I don't know what to say. [tapping fingers] And these are supposedly conservatives! What the hell is a RINO like John McCain going to do? John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe... Lindsey Graham... I guess they're all going to vote for this too.

Son of a bitch, I can't believe this. I'm sorry, I'm swearing I know but - believe me - there are a lot stronger words I'd like to use. You know, this kind of voting - by Republicans - is the best argument for a third party, and I don't know how you tell people who voted, trusting the Republicans one more time on November 2nd... And so many people told me, online, "Hey you know what? I have just had it with the Republicans but I'm going to give them one more chance. If they blow it this time, screw it, we gotta start the third party."

The Conservative Party or The Tea Party Party, whatever you want to call it, people want that third party now - because of this! Because of what we're seeing these Republicans do. Supposedly conservative Republicans voting for a $1.3 trillion tax increase! Playing into the hands of Obozo! This tax increase is exactly what the Democrats want! And we have conservative Republicans voting for it? Oh my God. I don't know what to say.

[laughs] I just want to go crazy! Blah! What the hell did we do on November 2nd? Weren't you listening? You bastards! Oh man. [laughs]

We're always going to have Democrats tell Americans we're going to have to raise taxes. That's what Democrats do. But if we have conservative Republicans going along with it, then maybe the two-party system really is out of date, and we can't trust Republicans at all.

Now I was arguing before the election that we had to give this to the Republicans because the Tea Party is pushing Republicans to the right, and that conservative Republicans generally understand what the American people want. And now you've got Coburn and Crapo and Gregg all voting in favor of a massive tax increase. I don't know how you tell people in the Tea Party now, "Don't start a third party. Third parties are losers," because I can't sit here and tell you that I can go along with the Republican party.

The Republican Party is either going to stand up for the principles that the American people demand, or the American people are just going to say, "Hey, to hell with you then, we're starting a third party." And I... Right now, I'm not arguing for a third party. But I don't know how to argue against it anymore.Not with this kind of crap. So, when I get done with the show today, I'm going to call these rat-bastards. I'll let them know exactly how I feel, and maybe I'll get online and send them a link to my show, so they can hear what I said if they want to.

But Tom Coburn? I just praised the guy for what he said. We listened to that sound byte in the first hour - and now everything I said is out the window. I was entirely wrong about the guy. He's a traitor. Same thing for Mike Crapo - a traitor. The people in Idaho especially, and the people of Oklahoma need to get on the phone and let this guy know. It's intollerable. We are not going to have you do this. I would rather have a democrat in there, because then I know: The Democrat is going to vote for higher taxes.

A conservative Republican like Tom Coburn, voting for this is a travesty. It is unacceptable. And I'm not going to sit here and put up with it. It's not going to happen. I'm Jimmy Z.

END TRANSCRIPT.

• BREAKING: SAN FRANCISCO TO BAN EVERYTHING

San Francisco, CA -- The City of San Francisco City Council has announced its intention today to ban everything. Councilmember and Vice Mayor Kevin Mullin proposed the ban, saying that everything has been allowed for too long, and "it's time to start over and not allow any of anything."

Mayor Gavin Newsome has voiced reluctant support for the idea. "I feel that everything is a pretty big step, but it's better than doing nothing. Someone needs to start the era of prevention."

By banning everything, the City hopes to put an end to frustrating and endless problems. Mr. Mullin claims that banning everything could lead to the end of pollution, emphysema, infant mortality and hang nails. "Our hope is to end these things through banning things that lead to stuff happening."

One thing not included in banning everything is taxes. "Oh no, we'll need more taxes to enforce the ban on everything," said Councilmember Pedro Gonzales, a big supporter of the overall ban on everything.

"This ban is going to require a lot of enforcement. For instance, law enforcement will be required to keep an eye on everything now, because everything is banned," Gonzales said. "If someone opens a Taco Bell restaurant, which is a part of everything, the police will be there to remind the owner that everything - including fast food restaurants - has been banned."

Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto agreed. "It's just become too time consuming to ban one thing at a time. First we ban Happy Meal toys, and then we ban circumcision - it all becomes so tiring." Ms. Matsumoto sighs. "You know, we can save the taxpayers a lot of time by banning everything all at once. Then we can get back to doing the people's business."

Ms. Matsumoto won't go unaffected by the all encompassing ban. With everything banned she has found out that odd spellings of traditional names are banned. "That's true, I'm a little upset but I feel that spelling my name 'Carol' is a small price to pay for the good of San Franciscans. I can live with it."

Homosexuals in San Francisco are relieved to have found a loophole. Since banning everything includes a ban on anti-homosexual sentiment and a ban on homosexual behavior, the city claims the ban on everything cancels out the ban on homosexuality. "Logically, you can't ban both - they offset each other. So homosexuality is not a part of everything," said Mr. Mullin.

Other things included in the ban on everything are candy, children, belches, pencil lead, tires, plastic, insulation, eye shadow, heat, pets, clothing stores, joking around, shaving, carnival rides and greeting cards. Problems likely to be prevented, according to the City Council, are death, injury, disease, unhappiness and divorce.

Story inspired by THIS ARTICLE

• Economic 'Easing'

I sent this article, an excellent write up on Fed Chairman Bernanke's continued and now downright scary Quantitative Easing, to Michael Stollaire.

He was kind enough to forward the following to me. Enjoy...

--Jz

Check out Jesse Ventura (former independent Minnesota Governor) and "Conspiracy Theory" on TruTV:

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

I watch it for the entertainment value, if anything, but check out the most recent episode about Wall Street, and the Rolling Stone article that's mentioned in it:

"Wall Street's Naked Swindle"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64824

Between these two sources, you can see why The Fed has corrupted the American political system, and YES, I do agree that "Quantitative Easing" is simply an unsaid tax on the American people, as if $1 Trillion is printed, this means The Fed bought $1 Trillion in debt. Therefore, if $10 Trillion is in circulation, this created a 10% tax hike, and since The Fed is above the law, and outside the control of the US Government, the system of checks and balances created by The Founders, in order to protect We The People from thieves like Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke, etc. is completely avoided.

I believe that the most powerful person in the world is NOT The President of the USA, but instead THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

I would highly suggest watching the Zeitgeist films:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The stock market simply cannot grow in a linear fashion, and as such, it is necessary for "corrections" to transpire that purposefully decimate the market, meaning the DJIA, NASDAQ, etc. After Bear Stears went bankrupt, the DJIA went from 11000+ to around 6500 points, and now, we are back up to over 11000 points. Now, you can see how Wall Street just doubled-down on their money.

What do we do about it? We need representives in government positions that will crack down on Wall Street, instead of idiots like the Clintons who dismantle laws and regulations like Glass-Steagal (SP?) that prevent disasters like the housing bubble, and so forth.

Trump was on Fox and VanSusteren recently, saying the same thing, that we should not put up with price-fixing of OPEC, which would land Americans in federal prison, and China stealing our wealth, because we create bubbles, instead of MANUFACTURING EXCELLENT PRODUCTS. I really hate Trump, just like I think Ron Paul is a complete weirdo, but you can't argue with them about The Fed being poison, and what America needs to do to regain it's #1 economic status.

The truth is that we are only manufacturing "vapor paper" bubbles: the dot-com internet bubble, the housing bubble, and just wait until the $1.5 Quadrillion derivatives bubble bursts. Yes, that's $1,500,000,000,000,000 ~ a very big number, indeed. For America to survive, we need to manufacture and distribute TANGIBLE GOODS, and not rely on the technology sector to crank out more widgets like the iPad, etc.

Currently, we've got so much corruption in DC that when former Goldman employee, Paulson, says that he needs $800 Billion or America dies, they just do it, with no questions asked, no accountability, and the money just goes into the hands of bankrupt institutions like AIG, Goldman gets 100 cents on the dollar, and billions in bonuses are paid out. It's like playing roulette in Vegas, except you can bet on the double-zero all night, with no accountability, because the house pays you back every time you lose.

I think we've got a minimum of 3-4 election cycles that have to consecutively elect individuals like Rubio and Rand Paul for us to even have the slightest chance of recovery.

--Michael Stollaire

• The Coming Storm - What It Means

In 2008, I made a statement I was vilified for by Conservatives and Republicans. I stated that the idea of a Barack Obama presidency was horrible but not as horrible as the idea of a John McCain presidency. My reasoning was simple. With either man as President of the United States, the socialist ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would continue to destroy the country- as it has since January of 2007. In an article quoted by All-American Blogger, I stated that a McCain Presidency would not move the Conservative message forward while an Obama Presidency would do just that.

Here I am today saying "see, I told ya so"

The victory of Democrats in 2006 and 2008 was manufactured by their own malevolence. It was Democrats and liberals who sabotaged the Iraq war, destroyed the economy and brought about the era of Wall Street bailouts and exploding deficits. The Democrats were masterful at creating these crises and shifting all the blame for them to George W Bush. George W. Bush and the Republicans had the deficit down to $165 Billion,unemployment down to 4.4%, gasoline down to $2.19 a gallon and the Dow up to 14,500. America looks wistfully at such numbers today.

In Bush's second term, his failure was not that he was too conservative, it was that he was not conservative enough. His undoing was not his unwillingness to reach across the aisle but his willingness to. Can anyone doubt that John McCain would have matched (or even accelerated) this acquiescence? John McCain was all about "compromise". McCain-Feingold, McCain-Liebermann, McCain- Kennedy. Ask yourself which party got the better of those deals?

McCain compromise with the Pelosi-Reid congress would have been- to paraphrase Ben Franklin- two wolves and a sheep decided what is for dinner. Even, on the rare occasions that McCain dared to stand up for Conservatism, could he have hoped to sway public opinion? Could he have hoped to get his agenda through such a rabidly corrupt and partisan Democratic congress? No. Americans had drunk the hope/change koolaid by the quart. large swaths of the country were ready to anoint Obama the new Messiah. Had McCain managed a miraculous upset victory, how could he have possibly escaped being the scapegoat for the soaring deficits and hemorrhaging jobs.

Conservatism was not on the ballot in 2008 but Conservatism would certainly have been the scapegoat. The only reason blaming our current ills on the Republican leadership have failed is because America could see-quite clearly- that no Republicans were in the leadership. Can't you see, It was necessary to give the Socialists total control in order that their masks be taken off and a stupid public be awakened to their true agenda

Sarah Palin put it best. "So, tell me America, how is that hopey, changey thing working out for you?"

America now knows what true Socialism now looks like. Now, we finally have our chance to get this right. 2010 has not been a two-way battle between Democratism and Republicanism. It is a 3 way battle between Democratism, Republicanism and Conservatism. Make no mistake, Conservatism is winning the day.

That is what this approaching storm is about and it is breathtaking to watch. Millions of Conservatives have risen up in one voice to purge the Liberals but outside and inside the Republican party. When John McCain said those now famous words that we don't have to be scared of an Obama presidency, Conservatives saw more evidence of a GOP out of touch and that before we can take our country back, we have to take our party back.

This storm represents a full-fledged revolt by Conservatives and the last chance for the GOP to right the ship. If the new Republican majority behaves anything like the last Republican majority, they will be kicked out just as quickly. The American people are demanding Conservative governance. This is not just another cyclical purge, this is something historic. This is going to be a genuine political realignment.

GOVERNORSHIPS

The long term effect of the coming storm will be felt right here. When all is over, the GOP will control between 30 and 35 of the Nation's 50 Governorships. It is here- not the Senate or House- that we will have our strongest firewall against Obama. It is here- not the Senate or the House- where the success of Conservative Governance will continue to be displayed. Finally, it is here- not the House or Senate- where the ground game will begin that will rout Obama and the Democrats in 2012, leading to a Republican Presidency and a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

In 2009, the GOP gained three Governorships- Jan Brewer in Arizona, Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. The courage and leadership they have shown has been amazing. In 2010, they are going to get a lot of help. In addition to holding Florida- the #1 Battleground State- Republicans are poised to pick up the states at #2, #3 and #4. With Republican Governors in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, Obama's reelection hopes would be bleak enough.However, when you also add Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico, the levers of realignment from the 2010 census tip remarkably in our favor.

Republicans won't stop there. Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, Illinois, Oregon and Maine will all replace Democrats with Republicans. New York, Maine and Massachucetts are not out of reach either. California could be an important hold because Meg Whitman would move the state well to the right of the Governator. Add to that Mitch Daniels, who is already doing a superb job in Indiana and the beginnings of a Conservative dynasty are easy to see. This could really be the beginning of the end for liberalism.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Liberal predictions of a Democratic defense of the house are delusional. If you look at the current projections of safe seats on Real Clear Politics, they show a 17 point Republican advantage with 38 tossups. In a normal election year, the two parties would each be expected to win 19 and lose 19 of the tossups. This would put the new congress at a 226-209 Republican majority. That alone would be a loss of 48 seats for the Democrats.

This is no ordinary year. Republican primary participation is the highest in 40 years. The Republicans had more votes than Democrats for the first time in 80 years and the Democratic participation was the lowest ever. The Republican lead in the Generic ballot has been as high as 12 points - the highest ever- and the GOP enthusiasm gap is off the charts. It is highly unlikely that the Republicans will win only 19 of these 38 races. A safer bet is that they will win 28 or better. The conservative end of that scale puts Democratic losses at 60 seats or more. Even that doesn't tell the whole story. So deep is this wave that it is even reaching races that pollsters didn't even think about polling and- almost daily- the list of vulnerable democrats grows.

In January of this year, the Cook Political report listed 39 Democratic House seats as vulnerable. In May, the number had grown to 63. Today, it stands at 79. However, Dick Morris and others believe the true number is much higher. In fact, Morris has gone on record as saying that Democratic losses could break the record of 74 set in 1922, and could even reach 100 seats.

Whether we can reach 100 seats or not, I don't know. Yet, I think I can predict-with confidence- that Democrats will not only not defend the House but will not come within 20 seats of defending it. The Republican majority in January of 2011 will be larger than the one they had in January of 2005.

THE SENATE

Whether or not the GOP will have a Senate Majority in January of 2011, I cannot be certain. If not, they will be very close. Republicans will emerge with no fewer than 49 seats and no more than 55. The median result of 52 is entirely plausible. Republicans will defend all of their own seats- including Florida. In addition, they will pickup Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Colorado, to go along with their Massachusetts pickup in January. Despite her struggles, I am confident that Sharron Angle will also knock off Harry Reid in Nevada.

If Angle does indeed win, it would be the 50th seat and we would need to knock off one more seat from among California, Connecticut, Washington, New York and Delaware. Stealing one of those races is plausible. Two? Unlikely.Three? That is just pressing our luck.

Sharron Angle must beat Harry Reid to keep us in the game. Plus, Reid has just got to go, anyway.

If Angle can get us to 50, Dino Rossi (Washington) followed by McMahon (Connecticut) and Fiorina (California) gives us best chance at 51. Whether or not the GOP reaches a senate majority this year, they are certain to have one in January of 2013, perhaps even a filibuster proof majority. 23 Democrats have to defend in 2012.

OF WILL AND MEANS

Once the GOP takes back the reins in Congress, Governorships and State Legislatures, the must resist the temptation to reach across the aisles. Republicans must have the strong will to bring back Conservative governance- to restore morality and fiscal sanity and to not just stop, but reverse, the relentless march of oppressive government. This could very well be the last chance we have to save this country - God willing.

--SonlitKnight

• A Look At The Senate Four Weeks Out

Can we hit 10 out of 14?

That is the question that will decide whether or not we will win the Senate. Before I go into detail, it is important to marvel at just how incredible it is that we are even having this conversation. That is a conversation that must be had because, should we fall short of taking the senate (a real possibility), Democrats will claim it showed that GOP momentum was not as strong as advertised.

That dog don't hunt.

January 2009

In 2009, when Barack Obama took power, the Republicans were still retiring and bleeding. The idea that even one Democrat was in danger was not even discussed. In fact, the only argument was how many more Republicans would lose. Let me repeat this. In January of 2009, the only discussion was how much worse things would get for Republicans. Additional Republican losses were assumed, not speculated. There was no question of 'if' only of 'how many'?

How many?

From the Democratic perspective, Arlen Specter's party switch was further proof of a permanent Democratic ascendancy. He provided them with a filibuster-proof 60th vote in the Senate and it was guaranteed they would add 2-5 more seats in 2010.

The minimum was 2 because Kentucky's Jim Bunning was very unpopular as was George Voinovich in Ohio. However, Democrats were more than confident they would pick up New Hampshire, Missouri and North Carolina as well. It must be understood that if the election were held in January 2009, the Dems would probably have picked up all 5 seats.

Then to now

The minimum gains the GOP will make in the Senate is 9 seats. (Scott Brown's January win + 8 more in November). The Maximum is 15 (Brown +14).

That means the REAL GOP gains- the picked up seats plus the ones that came back from the dead- means that the GOP's actual position will have improved by between 14 and 20 seats. This was unthinkable a year ago. Only by an incredible 6 special elections being added, did that change.

The death of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, the corruption of Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan, the appointments of Hillary Clinton and Ken Salazar, the wholesale collapse of Obama and the Democrats and the rise of the Tea party have all contributed to the change. The change has been amazing. The sheer scope of changing circumstances bringing us to here is just mind-boggling.

So, looking at the 14 additional races we could pick up. We will go least likely to most likely. Remember, we need 10 of these for a takeover.

The "we need a break" group.

Though it is very doubtful that we can win these 4 races, Senate control may very well depend on us picking off 1 of these races. If we take 2 or more, we are virtually assured of control.

14. Delaware.
This race went from a Democratic lock to a Republican lock back to a Democratic lock. It remains to be seen if it can bounce back again. This was Joe Biden's seat for 36 years. Why are the dems attacking Christine O'Donnell so viciously? It is very simple. If the Dems cannot hold this seat, they cannot hope to hold the Senate because-given the size of a wave that indicates- other races will fall too..

13. New York.
If we lose this race, it is the biggest missed opportunity this year. Kirsten Gillibrand has always been vulnerable. Republicans waited far too long to get in this race. It is hard to imagine what they were waiting for. This is the special election to permanently replace Hillary Clinton. Is Joe Dioguardia strong enough to beat her in this environment? Without question. Does he have enough time? We will see. He has already taken 10 points off her lead.

12. California
This race has been back and forth and I keep waiting for Carly Fiorina to take control over Barbara Boxer. She hasn't yet but I still think she will. This race threatens to be the fish that got away.

11. Connecticut.
Linda McMahon is closing fast on Richard Blumenthal She is still down slightly but, unlike the California race, the trend is our friend in the race to replace scumbag Chris Dodd.
Obviously, if we go 0-4 in the previous 4, the remaining races are all must wins. More than likely, we will slip up somewhere. These are the two races most likely to make us need a steal in the 11-14 group.

10. Washington
Unfortunately, Dino Rossi is the most likely slip up. Even when he wins, he loses. In the 2004 Gubernatorial race, Democrats in the State of Washington, and their willing accomplices in the courts, stole the race from Rossi by simply recounting and recounting until they were able to find enough ballots to win. Democrats repeated this feat in the Minnesota senate race. Does anyone doubt that Rossi must beat Patty Murray by at least 2% for his win to count?

9. Nevada.
This was once the surest pickup in America. Now, it is tenuous at best. What Nevada Republicans and Independents were thinking when they nominated Sharron Angle is a mystery to me. Harry Reid has 100% name i.d. and would be down by 20 points if Sue Lowden were the
nominee, we would have no chance of losing. However, without Harry Reid as the target, we would have no chance of winning. Harry Reid has to defend his spot as one of the heads on the three-headed monster. I believe this race will ultimately be decided as a race between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell for majority leader. I think this race breaks to us at the end and Angle eeks out a small victory.

The We look good group.

8. West Virginia.
This race is billed as Joe Manchin's popularity vs Obama's unpopularity. Manchin is losing the race. What's more? He losing to a guy who only got 36% of the vote in 2006. John Raese might as well not be on the ballot. The RNC is just hammering Manchin as a rubber stamp for Obama's cap and trade plans that would kill West Virginia coal. The ads are working to devastating effect. I think we have this race locked down. It may sound crass but without Robert Byrd croaking (and Kennedy before him), we would not be able to pick up the senate.

7. Illinois.
The numbers Republican Mark Kirk are putting up are not so impressive. However, it is hard to fathom that Alexi Giannoulias is only polling 41% defending Barack Obama's Senate seat. A defacto incumbent polling 41% in a two-way race is TOAST. Consider this. In 2004, Barack Obama won this race by 43 points. Even a 1 point Kirk win would be a 44 point swing in the President's own state. Do I need say more?

6. Colorado.
A true battleground all year but now Ken Buck is up to an 8 point lead over Michael Bennett and pulling away.

5. Wisconsin.
Russ Feingold is getting his clock cleaned by unknown Ron Johnson.

4. Pennsylvania.
Addition by subtraction. Arlen Specter's party jump was such a gift. Now, Conservative Pat Toomey is on his way to Washington.

3. Indiana.
Brad Ellsworth is being destroyed by Dan Coats and this state is coming back to the safe red column.

2. Arkansas.
John Boozeman has a modest 38 point lead over Blanche Lincoln in the land of Clinton.

1. North Dakota.
Byron Dorgan got out of the way of a run away train by retiring. The Republican governor John Hoeven is ahead by 43. I think he is safe.

--SonlitKnight

• What is it about the 'Tea Party' that makes me uncomfortable?

I have been trying to understand what it is about the Tea Party that bothers me. I have been aware that I react negatively to news stories on radio and TV about Tea Party activism in the various elections, and that I need to know why that was happening.

Sure, I've been bothered by the anger I see in conservatives online. There's a difference between healthy anger, righteous anger, and just being emotionally out of control. People responding to an article about Obama, for instance, will just say, "F Obama, get him out of there" or about conservatism, "If you don't like the Tea Party, get the F out of the way", stuff like that.

We have to be a little more convincing than that! You certainly aren't like that - There's a way to say "F Obama" with evidence and being thoughtful about it. We have to convince others to vote for our candidates too, not just the right wingers. We can't win on our own. We have to be attractive, considerate, convincing.

Ultimately, the Tea Party
cannot save this country.

But what really bugs me, and I've been trying to figure out why I don't like the Tea Party as a whole, is really two fold. One we've talked about - I think that the media is beginning to use the 'Tea Party' against us, because we made it easy for them. All they talk about is Tea Party this and Tea Party that, but it's so much bigger than 'Tea Party'. Its not simply about changing government back - to being 'opposite of Obama'. And the media is talking a lot about how the election is not as much about great conservative candidates as it is about how much America hates Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their left wing agenda.

What our movement is about is the Constitution. We want our lives, and our laws, and our representatives in our state capitols and in Washington DC to be based on and adherent to the United States Constitution!

We need to be so much better than "through Obama out" - because if all we are is "vote for us because we're not Obama", we won't end up accomplishing much and in 2012 we'll end up losing our shirts again.

The second reason I have a problem with the 'Tea Party', and this is far more important, is that I don't see a lot of Tea Party proponents - either those activists in the Tea Party organizations or the candidates - talking about how far this nation has strayed from God. Sure, you and I talk about it, and some people like Franklin Graham will talk on TV about it, but where is this message from the Tea Party activists and their endorsed candidates? We need them to speak this message all the time, because without God and our nation depending on Him to save us and protect us, all of this work will have gone nowhere.

I see a lot of conservatives touting the Tea Party on TV; on Fox News shows and other programs like the Sunday morning talk shows, talking about Tea Partiers from the right perspective and from the left perspective, and very rarely if ever does anyone point out that this nation was founded by Godly men, on Godly, Biblical principles, and if we don't get back to that, we won't get back to where we want to be. And that's why I am still uncomfortable with the Tea Party.

Because ultimately the Tea Party cannot save this country. All of the Americans' fervor over the Tea Party, and boasting about how the Tea Party candidates won in the Delaware and New Hampshire primaries, is meaningless unless everyone is thanking God for these victories. It's not just "we the people". We the people can't do squat in and of ourselves. It is "we the people and the God of the Bible" that will get it done.

• Activists Clash with Fountain Valley School Board

by Al Rowley
July 23, 2010

Newt Gingrich said it right. "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.....The time to take a stand is now!"

Well over 100 citizens did just this at the monthly meeting of the Fountain Valley School District board meeting Thursday evening, July 22. A Resolution had been placed on the Agenda to accept and approve the use of some supplementary instructional material which would provide additional important information and correct some of the mis-information regarding Islam contained in the seventh grade textbook "World History - Medieval to Modern Times". published in 1996 by Holt, Rinehart Winston which is used in this and many other school districts.

The supplementary information has just recently been developed by an advisory board of Textbook Alert, a group of college and university academics who are well aware of the extent to which grade 7 History & Social Studies texts used across the nation have been intentionally propagandized to present a sanitized sugar-coated mis-leading portrayal of Islam and Islamic History, primarily through the efforts of an Islamc activist group, the Council on Islamic Education.

This Council, founded and directed by a Muslim immigrant, Shabbir Mansuri, who holds neither a college degree nor academic qualifications as a historian, educator, or theologian, has been working at this since 1990 by lobbying State Departments of Education to remove anything critical of Islam from their curriculum frameworks and even convincing textbook publishers that his group must be allowed to edit their pre-publication textbook drafts to make sure that nothing offensive to Muslims is present which might impede their adoption by any state or local adoption committee. All major publishers seem to have acquiesced, and several texts even list him as a co-author or consultant. The reason this agenda item was introduced at the Fountain Valley School District is because this District has been providing office space for this Council on Islamic Education since 1993...a relationship which is considered highly inappropriate by many.

An overflow crowd of well over 100 filled the board room and 20 speakers took the opportunity to address the Board during the "public comments" period. While the Board normally allows 4 minute per speaker, Board President Tony McComb surprised those who had signed up to address the Board by arbitrarily announcing they would be limited to two minutes, so many opinions from the public were obviously and intentionally not permitted to be expressed or heard.

Only one speaker, a Fountain Valley High School coach, spoke against the resolution. He voiced his opinion that the kids really seem to be learning all they need to about Islam and he feels there is no need for any supplementary material. A significant number of the other speakers were immigrants from Muslim countries where they have had first-hand experience with Islam and sharia law, some as Muslims, some as persecuted non-Muslims minorities. One of them, a 13 year old 8th grader reported much of what he had been taught in the 7th grade about Islam here was simply not true. The fervent and highly emotional expressions of these speakers brought intense vocal responses and applause from the supportive audience; to the extent that the Board President requested that there be no audible response until each had finished their remarks and that it then be limited to clapping only. It was not lost on the audience that he had not only cut the speakers time in half but also tried to silence even their own expressions of support.

One speaker, noting that the public part of the meeting seemed not to have started with the Pledge of Allegiance invited all to stand and join him in the Pledge. While the audience did, the Board sat and watched uncomfortably until finally one by one some reluctantly rose and joined in.

A former Muslim Iranian Navy Captain, once in charge of all training for the entire Iranian Navy, warned the Board about the intentions of Islam to conquer the entire world and force it to submit to Allah and sharia law.

A member and immediate past president of the Board of the Anaheim Union High School District, Orange Counties largest high school district, admonished board members for not even making eye contact with the speakers and assured them that her board would have passed the resolution and adopted the Supplement without delay. Several Muslims and ex-Muslims warned the board about the true intentions of Islam to conquer America and how it is laying the foundations for conquest by brain-washing America's youth so they will willingly accept Islam.

We know of no law or State Education
Code requiring that 'supplementary
instructional materials' (which this
clearly was) must be vetted and
adopted by any state agency

A member of ACT! for America informed the Board that while ACT! had provided input at two public hearings of the California Curriculum Frameworks Committee, in Sacramento which could well have resulted in changes to the next generation of History books scheduled for 2012, but that State budget cuts have forced the cancellation of all further work on new textbooks for 2012. As a result schools may be forced to continue using their existing flawed texts until possibly 2018 or later. He stressed that the need for correcting supplemental material thus becomes especially critical and important.

A substantial number of the audience remained for over 3 hours until the very end of the meeting when the Board finally addressed the issue of the Resolution. Asked by the Board President to each express their feelings about the Resolution and the supplemental material, none refuted the information therein, but one after another their almost identical objections came forth: Judith Edwards voiced her opinion that any supplemental materials must come down from the State, Ian Collins announced "There is a procedure..." without ever explaining what it was. Christine Alcorn insisted that "this must be done at the State level." New Board member Nicola Weiss echoed. "We must follow proper procedures". Board President Tony McComb mumbled something about not having the procedures or authority to adopt supplemental materials. Several mentioned the fact that the Board couldn't very well adopt supplementary information for one group because then they might have to do it for others as well. The Board then decided that the Resolution, which had apparently only been on the agenda as an "Information item" was not important enough to be placed on the next agenda for further consideration as an "action item". By doing so they have deemed it not even worth further consideration and simply tossed it into the trash can.

The SRO audience was composed of an interesting spectrum of the community. A number were local residents of Fountain Valley, A number were immigrants from Islamic countries who are obviously very concerned about what is being taught to our children about Islam. A number were members of various ACT! for America chapters in the area. The Resolution had been drafted by a well-informed Fountain Valley parent, Steve Jackson, who is not an ACT! member.

There were about a dozen Muslims standing outside in the parking lot near the entrance before the meeting, but they were not seen accosting anyone or entering the Board Room at any time. One attendee suggested, "They probably didn't need to as they knew it was a done deal".

This may well have been the case. The fact that the entire 5 member board, presented with overwhelming community concern and evidence that their grade 7 History textbook contains erroneous and propagandized information about Islam, and also provided with a creditable piece of supplementary instructional material which could balance and correct this AT NO COST, and then unanimously reject it ... all for the very same reasons ... seems strongly to indicate that this issue had probably been decided before the meeting.

We think the Board has also lied. Either that or they have been badly mis-informed by their Superintendent. We know of no law or State Education Code requiring that "supplementary instructional materials" (which this clearly was) must be vetted and adopted by any state agency. Most all California school boards have a written board policy regarding the introduction and use of supplementary instructional materials. We'll wager that these need not be State adopted. We find that Fountain Valley School District also has such a Board Policy No. 6161.11, We will be getting it and we plan to review it closely.

As noted, there seemed to be no Muslim protestors present. A 4-column article announcing the board meeting entitled "Activists Clash Over History Text" which appeared in the morning's Orange Country Register included comments by the local CAIR leader and Shabbir Mansuri, founding director of the Council on Islamic Education, so obviously Muslims knew about the meeting and could have turned out in large numbers.

It appears that the Fountain Valley School Board and Superintendent Marc Ecker indeed fit Newt Gingrich's description of "willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could".

Meanwhile, The O.C. Register's version of last night's board meeting, which didn't seem to make it into this morning's edition, is now up on their web page. You can view it at

http://www.ocregister.com/news/textbook-259040-district-material.html

You can also send in comments. Their reporter obviously viewed the meeting a bit differently than I did.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jimmy Z adds:

Also, these links as well worth reading:

• OC Register: Activists plan to protest textbook's portrayal of Islam
• OC Register Blogs: Islamaphobes target Fountain Valley schools

Wow, some folks really are in the dark.

• ON TEA PARTY IMPLOSION:

YES, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

On my Tuesday show, I read reports about Mark Williams (I DO think his letter crossed a line), the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Federation, led by David Webb who was acting quite like a tea party 'leader' when he 'booted' Mark Williams and the TP Express from the 'Federation'. http://thejimmyzshow.blogspot.com/2010/07/jimmy-z-tuesday-show.html

I've seen the tape of David Webb, proudly telling Ben Jealous of the NAACP that he had booted Williams and the Tea Party Express. This is as wrong headed as the NAACP forcing Shirley Sherrod out BEFORE they looked into the entire video. David Webb is not THE leader of the Tea Party, but he sure enough seems to want to be seen in that light.

FACTIONS AND FOCUS

"Let them vent?" We have just a little over three months before the election. This is hardly the time to vent. Maybe these 'leaders' should be looking past their differences for a time, and show a smart camaraderie from now until election day. We need as much kinship and we can get right now. The opposition is about to unleash a heaping helping of attack ads, hate speech and dirty - real dirty! - campaigning, and we do not have time to vent and separate. We have to come together like never before.

What I said on my show months ago is more true than ever - the Tea Party is a term, not an organization. It combines many organizations. ResistNet isn't a 'member' of a Tea Party organization as much as it is a member of the Tea Party movement. Call it the Constitutional movement; call it the Back to our Foundation movement; call it the Freedom and Liberty movement ... or call it the Tea Party movement - but the NAME is not important. The GOALS are.

We ought not lose our focus. The media is going to do a lot more of this. They are going to celebrate the Tea Party as long as the Tea Party is eating its own. Watch Face the Nation, at the 13:30 minute mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QHaHiCU9Co David Webb is playing along with the major media. He didn't talk over any of this is private with the Tea Party Express. He didn't bring Mark Williams into his office or get him on the phone and have a long talk first.

DEMOCRATS, DISAGREEMENT & SOLIDARITY

Might they have come to an agreement for an apology and come together? Wouldn't that have been better? This was clearly a move to exhibit POWER on Mr. Webb's part.

Would democrats and liberals have done this to themselves? Of COURSE NOT!! They would have had a press conference and taken the time to show that they are still working together; that Mr. Williams will apologize for the letter, but that their goals and political agenda is more important than a fictional letter to President Lincoln which may have crossed the line of good taste.

Ben Jealous of the NAACP got exactly
what he wanted all along - division
in the ranks of the Tea Party movement -
something we cannot afford to give him.

I get so damn tired of conservatives cutting each other down and battling with each other at times like this. And I have to ask, because 'race' is a major part of this issue: Is it possible that one reason Mr. Webb felt it necessary to immediately and without further discussion boot Mr. Williams (and since The Express was not willing to immediately do so, Mr. Webb immediately booted the entire Tea Party Express) is because Mr. Webb is African American? I'm not questioning his conservatism. I am questioning his judgment here, just three months and one week before the mid term elections.

RACE RELATIONS, BAITING

Conservatives do not see race. That's part of what makes us great - we DO believe in Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character - not the color of their skin. And by the way, the reason liberals judge people based on the color of their skin is because liberals lack character - that's the last thing they want to be judged on!

letter racist? letter outrageous? enough to boot him? is the letter truly racist?

I read the entire 'letter to Lincoln' on my show this week. I didn't like it; I think it was offensive. I also believe Mr. Williams showed poor judgment writing it even while the democrats had already begun their 'tea partiers are racist' campaign. The timing of Mr. Williams' satire could not have been worse.

Still, with all of that being said, the letter called for a meeting. Mr. Webb and Mr. Williams and perhaps others from the 'Federation' and the 'Express'. They should have come together with an understanding - and explained in detail what the letter to Lincoln was trying to illustrate.

THE DAMAGE DONE

Now, thanks to Mr. Webb - a Tea Party activist no less - the letter is forever an example of racism within the conservative movement. And Ben Jealous of the NAACP got exactly what he wanted all along - division in the ranks of the Tea Party movement - something we cannot afford to give him.

ON PARTIES, MOVEMENTS AND LEADERSHIP

On of the things that so many folks in the Tea Party movement do not understand is that, until the Tea Party has organized and agreed to a leader, many people will see their opportunity to become a leader. And that's not necessarily evil - it's pretty much natural for some to want to lead. I'll be honest, that's why I started the Jimmy Z Show on my own web site - I wanted to 'lead' myself, and not have to be a part of someone else's plan or leadership.

The Tea Party suffers now, a short time before the mid terms, because it had no leadership. The NAACP is a different animal altogether - a group with a mission and a leader in Ben Jealous, and so that's why Face The Nation needed a Tea Party 'leader' to discuss the issue with Jealous. They got David Webb, and to be honest, I don't remember hearing of him before.

The Tea Party Express has been arguably the best known Tea Party organization, for it's bus tours and rallies all around the country. To cut them down and boot them in a very public manner is inexcusable. [To be fair, it is relevant for you to know that I have criticized the Express for being a 'for profit' organization who has made a fair amount of money for its parent company over the course of time].

We have a lot of work to do, and at this point in time, we do not have time to 'let them vent' or 'throw wheat to the wind'. We have a country to save, damnit, and this battle between factions within our movement is doing nothing but delighting our political enemies.

I welcome your comments - here of course, or on my show page at http://thejimmyzshow.com, or at thejimmyzshow@gmail.com, or anytime, 24/7 at 714-90-JZJZ-1.

REBUTTAL TO MY NRA RANT

20% of Union members are also NRA members. These members helped elect George W. Bush in 2000. (Zogby International, 2000

In rebuttal to Jimmy Z:

Some views from the other side….

Here from the NRA: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=13902

And: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5888

And the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061605341.html

"What the NRA has managed to do is turn an issue about life and death into an issue of pure politics," Rand said. "They've done it by pushing this myth that they are much more powerful than they really are." (It’s Not a myth)

And the OpenSecretsblog: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/06/disclose-act-exemptions-for-the-nra.html

And on the “lighter” side: From the Times-Picayune in New Orleans, I think you will enjoy this:
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1276669952112120.xml&coll=1

In Summary:
The way we, Jauntos and Trixie, sees it…they (the NRA) are “in bed” with the left solely for the reason of maintaining 1st Amendment rights for NRA members and because Reid, the RED, supports the 2nd Amendment which is ALL that NRA cares about, the members rights. That’s what we pay the dues for, not just the cool magazine. “Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer”.

The rest of it goes the way of the ballot for everyone, including NRA members. We just have someone on the inside looking out for us. Pelosi and Reid will be gone in November anyway.
AND I’m keeping my Life Membership. (so there‼)

And, by the way, I think you should have read more of the first rebuttal comment to Eric’s blather. But it IS your show, right?

Off Topic… I think that Arizona sign is a good idea if nothing else but to SHAME that wanna be Kenyan President and their so-called Senator (aka Wrong-way- J) into some sort of action.

Jan Brewer For President‼ Bobby Jindal For Vice-President‼ or vice-a-versa.

Just my $0.000002 worth.

Kip op da gode wirk ya commy idot‼!

JC