Monday, December 29, 2008

Media Double Standard: Kennedy v. Palin

It is incredible to watch the liberal media slither away from the Caroline Kennedy bid for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat for New York state. It has become painfully clear over the last few days that Caroline Kennedy is nothing more than a sheltered aristocrat who is simply not equipped to represent any populace of any size merely because she not aware of the struggles of every day people.
If you need proof of this, watch this video to see if you hear any passion or vigor in her voice between her canned, cliched responses. In case you're wondering, yes, you will hear even more "you knows" and "ums" that other media has already pointed out.
So where is MSNBC or CNN on this? Curious that you would ask.
Roland Martin cites the U.S. Constitution to justify that Caroline Kennedy doesn't NEED qualifications in his commentary "If Clinton could do it, why not Kennedy?"
By the way, for all the Kennedy haters who are stuck on stupid when it comes to qualifications, go and read the U.S. Constitution. There are just three requirements as outlined by law for the seat:
"No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
That's it; end of conversation when it comes to the issue of qualifications. Anything beyond what the Constitution says is entirely subjective.

Funny that he didn't seem so forgiving about a certain Governor from Alaska, even though being a state governor is a pretty big deal compared to being yet another attorney from New York (yawn).

Domenico Montanaro from MSNBC
whines about Caroline's press coverage to date:
In reaction to Kennedy’s media rollout, the New York Daily News’ Goodwin takes out the sledgehammer. Under a headline that reads: “Say goodnight, Caroline: How JFK's daughter flubbed the audition to become the next Senator Kennedy,” the woefully unimpressed Goodwin writes, “That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her.”
He goes so far as to call her “quest” a “cringe-inducing experience” and that “her mini-campaign has proved she has little to offer New Yorkers except her name.”

Boo. Hoo. Reading that made me see comparisons between Montanaro and this guy...WARNING: LANGUAGE.
It goes without saying that it is quite amazing how two relatively inexperienced people can be portrayed so differently depending on what groups they represent.

Friday, December 19, 2008

The video clip that could come back to haunt Axelrod and Obama

There was an article the other day on that pointed out how snippy David Axelrod got with Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski when pressed about Obama's link to Blagojevich, but you actually need to see the entire 12-minute clip...Joe Scarborough takes Axelrod to the woodshed about how the claims being made by the Obama camp not being involved with Blagojevich now or in the past didn't wash with Obama's own statements from an older interview, and he does a great job taking Alexrod to task...note how Axelrod's annoyance grows with Scarborough's persistence.

First, watch the 2002 clip of Obama, saying how he's helping Blagojevich:

Here is the Morning Joe clip, where Axelrod now says Obama DIDN'T help Blagojevich:

Alexrod on the results of the internal review the Obama camp allegedly conducted regarding staff involvement in selling Obama's Senate seat: "...nobody's more eager...uh...then...uh...we are to be able to...uh...release that..."

Note to self: File under Obama doublespeak dictionary..."eager" means "afraid".

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Guess that internal review was wrong...

It is now being reported by the Chicago Sun-Times that Rahm Emanuel had multiple interactions with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, as was widely speculated -- or at least by those not in the Obama camp who were trying to deny it.

The ramifications are obvious for Emanuel if the report is true. What is less obvious, and will likely be downplayed by the MSM, is the fact that Obama's credibility from here on out should rightfully be called into question any time he claims in the future whenever he claims that he has initiated any internal reviews and/or that these make-believe reviews have cleared him or his peeps of any wrongdoing.

The American people not under the spell of Obamessiah will certainly see him for the fraud that he is, but the question is how long the MSM bothers to keep up the charade, insulting the intelligence of those who believe their garbage (but maybe they're justified to believe that most people are stupid so long as there are people who can't realize or want to believe that they're being lied to).

Letterman: Hate crimes are HILARIOUS!

VIDEO: On Monday night David Letterman made a joke about Sarah Palin's church getting burned. A joke! Remove Sarah Palin from the equation, and it would have been avoided from being made fun of, as well as more extensively covered by the MSM, for it is -- as the liberals have themselves labeled it -- a HATE crime (Truthbomber personally doesn't believe in this special designation as ALL crimes are hate crimes). But since it was Sarah Palin's church, David Letterman sat down yesterday and apparently thought this was a great source for some ha ha's.

Here's where you can write and let CBS know how you feel: Click on 'CBS Television' when you reach this page.

Imagine the outrage if someone had torched Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama's old church formerly led by Rev. Wright)...and if Letterman would have the stupidity/courage to mock it, he would have been canned like Imus.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

If you can't beat 'em, shut them down

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has announced that she fully supports the fairness doctrine and its extension to include cable and satellite as reported...but only Truthbomber cares to speculate as to why.

Could it be because just over a week ago, Eshoo tried to espouse the idea that harsh interrogation methods should be forever banned on The O'Reilly Factor back on December 3 and was given a good thrashing by O'Reilly and his other guest, Congressman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)? Truthbomber saw the episode and her argument was -- to put it nicely -- a dangerous mix of utopian and naivety. We're talking puppies-and-unicorns-level clueless...and she was appropriately and calmly taken to the woodshed.

So I guess for Congresswoman Eshoo, getting embarrassed in front of the largest cable news audience was enough for her to not look internally for any flawed ideologies or conclusions about how the world works, but instead blow the train whistle for Fairness Doctrine so further holes cannot be blown into the fatally-designed ship known as the U.S.S. Democrat.

Al Gore's 12 Days of Global Warming


Famous Republicans/conservatives

While reading another story, I stumbled across this and found it quite interesting. It is a slide show of famous Republicans/conservatives and in some cases I found it surprising. However I will caution that some of the reasons why some of these are deemed Republicans are quite lame, but I think the list is pretty accurate with a few exceptions, so here's a breakdown:

WOW!/Say WHAT?!?!?:
Dennis Hopper (had him pegged as a full-blown hippie)
Kid Rock
LL Cool J

Huh...I did NOT know that!:
Kathy Ireland
Johnny Ramone
Shannon Doherty
Scott Baio
Ricky Schroeder
Nick Lachey
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Gloria Estefan
Heather Locklear
Don King
Rachel Hunter
Drew Carey
Adam Sandler

Not that surprised/I sorta figured/makes all kinds of sense...:
Danny Aiello
Curt Schilling
Dr. Phil
Jack Nicklaus
Cheryl Ladd
Brittany Spears
John Elway
Mel Gibson
Jackie Mason
Stephen Baldwin
Jessica Simpson
Robert Duvall
James Earl Jones (is having Darth Vader on our side a good or bad thing?)
Mary Lou Retton
Dean Cain
Meat Loaf
Tony Danza
Chris Evert
Bill Belichick (that's just GREAT...don't share that "Mr. Grumpypants in a Hoodie" is a Repub please)
Jamie Farr
Wayne Newton
Robert Conrad

No duh/knew that already:
Kelsey Grammer
Chuck Norris (endorsed Mike Huckabee)
Tom Clancy (wrote books about how America kicks international butt)
Naomi Judd (um, why can't you convert your "less-informed" daughter?)
Sara Evans
Lee Ann Womack
Richard Petty
Marie Osmond
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Trace Adkins
Jon Voight (criticized heavily by MSM after he criticized Obama during the campaign)
Bruce Willis
Bo Derek
Angie Harmon and husband Jason Sehorn
Karl Malone
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Susan Lucci
Kirk Cameron
Martina McBride
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Ben Stein
Dennis Franz
Tom Selleck
Clint Eastwood (too big for Hollywood witch hunters to touch)
Loretta Lynn
James Woods
Dennis Miller
Mike Ditka
Pat Sajak
Patricia Heaton
Sylvester Stallone
Dixie Carter
Ted Nugent (is it me or does he look more and more like a woodsy Jack Nicholson as he ages?)
Shirley Jones
Robert Davi
LeAnn Rimes
Ron Silver
Janine Turner
Andy Garcia
Alice Cooper
Sammy Hagar

Labeled incorrectly/I somehow doubt that/You've been punked:
50 Cent
Vincent Gallo (I need more proof than one quote that I interpret as disingenuous)

Tuesday, December 16, 2008


To my faithful readers,

I apologize for the light coverage the last couple of weeks. I'm finding it hard these days to deep-dive for interesting stuff about the President-Elect without buzz killing my Christmas. To be honest, as you've probably seen yourself, there's not a whole lot going on with Obamessiah lately because he's not official yet. So I just wanted to send a quick note of acknowledgment that I've been slacking off and ask you to just bear with me through the holidays, and after the tinsel settles, things will be in full swing again.



Is that so?

As you probably have already heard, Obama and his office have conducted a full "review" and have determined that no one in his administration had discussions with Governor Blagojevich about filling his Senate seat. How...convenient. Not to mention impartial. Wow. Your own people have determined that they have done nothing wrong. Amazing. I'm looking forward to the next four years...I hope there is a manual on decoding all of the doublespeak.

According to INDEPENDENT sources, like the media, Rahm Emanuel is starting to surface as the Obama representative that Blago WASN'T talking to.

Obama thinks he can get himself off the hook by saying that he's withholding the release of his internal review out of respect for the investigation, but we all know that what he's hoping is that everybody forgets ALL about it come Christmas. Or better yet, maybe your local paper will have the story on page A32 on Christmas morning and he's banking on you being sleepy eyed from watching your kids open their gifts at o-dark-thirty in the morning when you happen upon the article. It will be curious what happens (or DOESN'T happen) to Rahm Emanuel despite the fact that if it WAS him on the tapes and he wasn't the one who turned Blago in to the authorities, then he was in effect a participant in a felony.

Hats off to Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe" roasting members of the mainstream media for their lack of knowledge regarding Obama's involvement with Blagojevich. Too bad nobody watches MSNBC or his show, according to Nielsen for December 15:

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –1,097,000 viewers (309,000) (606,000)
American Morning-471,000 viewers (223,000) (298,000)
Morning Joe-488,000 viewers (213,000) (287,000)
Squawk Box-214,000 viewers (92,000) (130,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 317,000 viewers (164,000) (206,000)

If a member of the MSM criticizes the Obamessiah on television, and virtually no one is there to hear it, will it still get him tarred and feathered by Keith Olbermann on the same network? If the tar and feathering happens and again, no one is there to see it because of abysmal ratings (1.4 million viewers to O'Reilly's 3.4 million), does it matter?

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Obama o-busted -- Chicago politics rears ugly head

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested this morning by the FBI on federal corruption charges, apparently caught on tape trying to dangle Obama's vacant Senate seat up as a piece of hot real estate to Obama in exchange for money and/or an appointment to his cabinet. A somewhat less important charge involved Blagojevich allegedly trying to get editorial writers at the Chicago Tribune who have been critical of him fired in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field and the Chicago Cubs (if you're from the Chicago area like me, you're likely not surprised by any of this).

It is clear that this is more about Blagojevich than it is about Obama, as it seems that Blagojevich was looking for a way out of an untenable situation as governor of Illinois for he had a mere 13% job approval rating and appeared on the verge of impeachment. However, with that said, it is an insult to the intelligence of every American when Obama claims that he "had no contact with Mr. Blagojevich about his former Senate seat, and wasn't aware that the governor was allegedly trying to sell the position."

Really. So Blagojevich made overtures that he was looking for a position in Obama's cabinet to who exactly? And we're also supposed to believe that who Blagojevich named to fill Obama's Senate seat was important to someone other than Obama? Give me a break. How then do you explain comments by David Axelrod on November 23?
Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

As expected, there was later a retraction from David Axelrod about what was and wasn't said.
If you read the transcripts of the affidavit (h/t The Smoking Gun), it is clear that Axelrod's original statement is probably true.

And what about this news story? Were they "mistaken" also?

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Louisiana Representative casualty of post-Obama stupor

In case you missed it, Louisiana Representative "Dollar Bill" Jefferson lost his House seat during an election that had been delayed because of Hurricane Gustav. In case you don't remember, William Jefferson was the House member who was caught in a corruption investigation of having $90K in cash in his freezer.

Undoubtedly, if the election had occurred as planned, Jefferson would have benefited from a historic turn out of black voters on Election Day, especially since his district was specifically drawn to give black constituents an advantage. But unfortunately for him, voters did not feel the same enthusiasm and vigor to get him re-elected, perhaps just content that Obama had already won.

Fortunately for all of us, justice was served in this case, despite an unwillingness in Congress to do anything about his wrongdoings, which no doubt would have continued to go unaddressed had he been re-elected. This is based on the fact that while she was House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi was on Jefferson like a cheap suit (see photo),
but after the Democrats won a seat majority after the November 2006 election, she became "reluctant" to do anything, to put it nicely. This incident is exemplary of the fact that the Democrats had campaigned in 2006 about improving ethics and responsible spending, then quickly went back to the way they've always been...just like Barry Soetoro saying that it's silly to ask how Hillary can be his Secretary of State after trashing her during the campaign, because campaigns are what they are...words during a campaign are only said to get elected.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

The biggest story NOT being reported in US media

I know you've heard of this one. Obama's birth certificate has been an issue for months and now it seems that the Supreme Court may get involved (don't hold your breath). Regardless of where you stand on this issue, every citizen should be outraged at the idea that even though the Constitution has a requirement that anyone elected President must be a natural born citizen, there does seem to be one single governmental institution willing to compel Obama to verify this. Have we gotten so lazy as a society that the government no longer feels obligated to carry out such a basic function? Have we become so lazy to not DEMAND that this be done?

I won't get into the theories...many of you are probably all too familiar with them. In fact, in researching some of them, there are reason to doubt some of them. For example, you can Google "Kenya seals Obama records" all day long...all you will find are BLOG sources...not one actual media report of such an event. If I'm wrong, post it in the comments and the link.

Anyway, the more important issue is that thanks to the mainstream media, most Americans do not even know that this controversy is going on right now. Some have a false understanding that Obama was required to respond to an inquiry by Supreme Court Justice David Souter on December 1. First of all, failure or refusal to respond to Writs of Certiorari are common, so there will not be any consequence for missing this deadline. Second of all, everyone must remember that Souter votes more often with the liberal side of arguments than the conservative ones, despite being appointed by Bush I (much to the dismay of conservatives afterward), so he knows all about being given office under false pretenses. Plus let's not forget that Souter was embittered by the 2000 recount challenge, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor or Bush II (below courtesy of Wikipedia)...

Bush v. Gore

In 2000, Souter voted and dissented along with the three other liberals in Bush vs. Gore to allow the presidential election recount to continue while the conservatives voted to end the recount, making Bush the president.

Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his 2007 book The Nine of Souter's reaction following Bush v. Gore:

"Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."[12] it's safe to say that Souter may be doing a whole lot of nothing about the situation as payback for the 2000 election. Actually a better indicator is that Souter has rejected the applications of both Peter Berg and Leo Donofrio in their quest for Supreme Court action. The only reason why Donofrio was successful in getting today's conference heard is because while Souter said no, Donofrio reapplied to Justice Clarence Thomas, who said yes.

So for this reason, I'm not holding my breath for a majority of justices on the Supreme Court to compel Obama to prove anything later today...though it should be a standard practice for ALL candidates. I think the reason why this one has slipped so far through the cracks is because it is more common that the media makes this request during the campaigns and the candidates merely comply, as did John McCain without hesitation this last go around. But never before has any candidate NOT done this, so the importance of verification at this stage, and its NECESSITY in this case, appears lost by most. Yes, the liberals who happen to be black will complain that Obama is being "picked on" but they ignore the facts of the situation as I just described.

All I have to say is that the democrats would be wise to encourage Obama to put this to rest now by producing proof...because if it is found to be true later that he is in fact NOT a citizen eligible to be president, then all hell will break loose for everything he signed or performed in his duties as president become NULL and VOID. Maybe the Republicans are just sitting back and waiting because they know that if this web unravels a couple of years down the road, the democrats would probably not sniff the presidency or a Congressional majority for decades as it would be the most embarassing event in U.S. history that we would all unfortunately have to bear (and perhaps some Republicans think its worth it).

The big question that remains however is that if Obama has nothing to hide then why not produce the document? To not do so will continue to divide the country and is therefore irresponsible, making any claims to want to unite all as disingenuous.

Here is perhaps the best way to stay informed in light of the lack of coverage in the MSM: Peter Berg's Yes, the web address is a bit "conspiracy theorish" but you'll see when reading the content that the man is just truly passionate about Obama doing what he and many others feel is a requirement to officially become President...he even asks readers to not perform counter-productive activities such as call and harass the Supreme Court.

Oh, and one final note about the birth certificate above...the one that is being touted by Obama as proof of his U.S. citizenship...the document is merely a Certificate of Live Birth, which any foreign citizen can obtain by showing the original Birth Certificate, regardless of what country the child was born in. The reason why I have it going back and forth between his and a real one is because there are countless sites on the web that prove that Obama's is actually a forgery (again the question must be asked -- why?). My link takes you to one of the best ones.

Now here is a document that does not appear to be a forgery -- Obama's school registration record from Indonesia. First, here's the untranslated original:

Now here's the translated version:

What is established with this document:

1. That Barack had an alias, which he denied when he filled out his registration form to practice law in Illinois:

2. That he was considered Muslim, which in my view is inconsequential since he was a child and was spoken for by his father and his personal preference at the time can never be truly known except for Barry himself.

3. Most important -- this document claims that he is an Indonesian citizen.

Here's where I think the smoking gun lies (see my bold emphasis below):


§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Why is Section 1 above relevant you ask? Obama has said that he traveled to Pakistan while in college in 1981, which puts him at 20 years old at the time. It is widely speculated that in order to travel into Pakistan, he had to have had an Indonesian passport because it would have been extremely difficult as an American, which would be perfectly fine except for the fact that Indonesian passports are only issued to citizens. Since Barry reached adult age, the only way for him to have a valid Indonesian passport would be if he had re-applied for citizenship upon becoming an adult...and he had to formally claim Indonesian citizenship to do so because while he was a child, he was considered a resident alien. This is known because in 2006 Indonesia changed this provision (curiously I might add). Notice also that in the second decree that was passed in 2006 that Indonesian citizens who did not reclaim their citizenship status to the Indonesian government after five years as was previously required, which presumably applies to Obama, now have a three-year window until 2009 to get reinstated. I'd be curious to see if Obama has or plans to have a valid Indonesian citizenship while being president...

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Hollywood just cant get over Prop 8

Some in California just can't accept that a majority of their fellow citizens do not agree with their desire to recognize gay marriage. The latest installment comes in the form of "Prop 8: The Musical", on Will Ferrell's "funny" video site

If you don't think you can stomach watching it, it goes a little something like this...a bunch of Hollywood actors put on a spoof play about the two sides of Prop 8. Invariably it seems, Christians get mentioned and that always leads to a misquote from the Bible, and this time it comes from Jack Black who plays Jesus, who cites Leviticus 11 regarding what can and can't be eaten in the Old Testament, trying lamely to make the point that there are a lot of things not followed any more, and to condemn gays is "picking and choosing" what to obey from God's Word. The Christians then "come around" to their view when they are reminded that recognizing gay marriage will save the economy (I'm not joking) because of all of the new boom to various businesses, like tattoo removal.

There are many problems with this of course and I'm sure that for many of my regular readers this will not be anything new:

1. Leviticus is one of the books of the Torah -- the first five books of the Old Testament that gave the Jews the Law for them to follow...which they still do to this day, so to say downplay the Bible as "old, silly rhetoric" is actually a slam against Jews AND Christians here.

2. The Law of the Torah is no longer valid from a Christian view because God sent His Son to die for us as promised and prophesied thereby establishing a new covenant that transcended the ones described in the Old Testament.

3. It is clear that the video creators are not knowledgeable enough of item #2 above, but that doesn't keep them from wanting you to then conclude that since there are old "wacky" laws in the Old Testament, then being gay is no longer a sin.

4. HOWEVER, homosexuality is still clearly defined as sin in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ, thereby being an act defined as a sin under this new, everlasting, and most importantly, FINAL covenant.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Disrespect under the guise of political correctness

The Governor of Washington state has allowed an anti-religious sign to be placed inside the Washington state capital building along side a nativity scene. This is all being done of course under the auspice of political correctness, but the reality of it is that it is blatant disrespect towards anyone who has religious beliefs of any kind. I say this because it infringes upon those of us who choose to recognize and celebrate Christmas pure and simple. This is a case in which there is a fine line between freedom of speech and blatantly doing something to incite and annoy those who choose to recognize Christmas.

See the news story.

The organization responsible is the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and if you visit their web site, you will see that they have it completely backwards by depicting the religious right as being the aggressor in the public square:
First Amendment violations are accelerating. The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.

Oh so by choosing to keep our kids OUT OF schools and home school them for example, because we religious types are either sick of the abysmal quality of public schools and/or want to prevent our children from being indoctrinated with beliefs we don't share, we're the aggressors? When the school boards send the police to harrass home schooling parents, we are the ones imposing OUR beliefs? Visit the site of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) through this link to see the various cases of harassment by state across the country that the secularists are imposing on the believers, or as the "Winter Solstice" celebraters would call, the "aggressors."

As of this writing, MSNBC and CNN won't touch this story with a ten-foot pole. But AOL News did, and did a pretty good job...I also enjoy reading the comments section in any news bit...this is no exception.

The good news is that we're winning this war. Some retailers this year have heard the outcry in recent years about replacing "Merry Christmas" with the more general term "Holiday" or a derivative. Even MSNBC web site visitors express a majority preference for "Merry Christmas".

Monday, December 1, 2008

Oh no he di’int!

Something made me smile today, and hopefully you will too after watching this video. One of the first posts here from your humble correspondent questioned aloud how Obama could pick Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State after shredding her foreign policy “experience” during the campaign. Oh how I wished at the time that someone would ask that very question to the Obamessiah, and today that prayer was answered in the form of Peter Baker, from The New York Times (aka Obama HQ). I’m not gay, but I (heart) Peter Baker today!

First see the full video without Q&A.

Fast forward to minute four to see a close up of Hillary during the press conference, who looks as excited as someone being read a guilty verdict and announcement that they will be put to death with 5,000 paper cuts.

Now see the quick snippet with Peter Baker’s question (h/t Hot Air).

His words:
OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think -- this is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign. No, I understand. And you're having fun.
But the -- and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not -- I'm not faulting it. But, look, I think if you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure. And in order to do that...

Ah how the Obamessiah is quick to negate legitimate questions by turning the focus back on the questioner. Yes, Peter Baker IS having “fun” as you say with your clear-as-day hypocrisy but the question is a legitimate one. The reality is that he has no explanation, and gosh darn it, Peter did his best to remind the voting public that a statement made in the past is not an indication of future behavior since Obama said whatever needed to be said to be president. What better way to deflect this than to not only not answer the question, but let the world know up front that any other legitimate question sent Obama’s way will be countered with one or more of the following:

1) A few moments of self-effacing humor but ultimately never answer the question
2) saying aloud what the person is probably really thinking as if pretending to share that view as well, but ultimately never answer the question
3) do the best possible to not answer the question then make it a personal mission to destroy to question asker (see Joe the Plumber).

What they DIDN’T show was poor Peter having his press pass stripped from his suit jacket, then secret service escorting him quickly away (to Guantanamo most likely) for a good re-education flogging. This was probably especially embarrassing since he likely assumed that he was going to get a nice, slow-pitch softball from a correspondent from The New York Times, and instead was caught looking at a wicked breaking ball for strike three.

So I encourage everyone to keep up with Peter’s progress to see if he’s still employed much longer or what sort of havoc his employer may wreak upon him.

UPDATE: Time's Joe Klein lobs first missile at Peter Baker...comments equally missive for challenging Obamessiah This should come as no surprise as Klein was perhaps the journalist most in the tank for Obama during the campaign, even to the point that he was kicked of McCain's plane. Apparently Klein has appointed himself as the Critic Gestapo. Funny how Klein (I can't even bring myself to describe him as a journalist) finds offense to asking a legitimate question about what exactly changed since the democratic primary race to make Obama confident in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, while Klein's ridiculous string of baseless accusations are well documented.

On the flip side, who knew that Campbell Brown on CNN and Truthbomber would agree on something.

Mumbai: a post-tragedy rant

I begin by having to admit that I wasn’t in a big hurry to get the details regarding this terrorist attack over the Thanksgiving weekend. After weeks of a failing economy and the improbable election of a president with little experience and lots of question marks, I wasn’t about to let a terrorist attack abroad ruin the refuge from the world that I was hoping to get from Turkey Day. I’m sure some French dude in a beret is scoffing while reading this revelation thinking, “uncultured American swine!”

To enforce the fact that I am not alone in my ignorance, allow me to give everyone a quick geography lesson (the same one I got a few hours ago). Mumbai used to be called Bombay. If you’re like me and countless others, you’re probably saying to yourself, “Oh! I know where THAT is!” (Unless you went or are going to public school and can’t find the United States on a map). I don’t know why the media don’t include that little tidbit…don’t they know their audience? I don’t know about you, but I don’t exactly keep up with changes of this nature. Bombay was changed to Mumbai back in 1996…I don’t even remember what I was doing back then NOT to notice this life-changing event.

To my credit it is now Monday and I’m reading the aftermath (better late than never). Besides, with a media like ours, how can I 1) trust what I’m being told and 2) sort out the truth anytime a media outlet attempts to report anything while it is still going on? So it goes…

165 innocent deaths and nine terrorists dead…for some reason my Wall Street Journal insists on lumping these together into 174, as if the despicable have any right to be counted among the innocent. Why do they do this? Is it a subliminal attempt at sounding like the loss of the 9 is as tragic as the 165? As far as I’m concerned, 165 is the death toll…the 9 got what they got.

It was tragic to read about how this small band of terrorists was able to infiltrate this busy city and unleash such terror…however the media is scant on explaining HOW this was able to happen. It’s quite simple actually…the reason why Mumbai was terrorized by so few for so long is because gun ownership is illegal in India (are you listening President Obama?). Even the police are not armed…they are only allowed to carry around lathis (bamboo sticks) which is well and good if your offender is unarmed, but is no match for a semi-automatic rifle and grenades. When the bullets started to fly during this latest tragedy, the police could do nothing more than run away among the throngs of fleeing civilians. Only the Indian commandos had armed weapons, but had to wait hours before being able to get a flight to Mumbai, then a ride to the hotels under siege. (Would this be an acceptable means of protection in Obamerica?) I’m curious to see if any of the left-wing media will ever tackle that “how was it able to happen?” question.

As of right now, it is feared that there are still five terrorists at large, who could still unleash further attacks. But equally interesting is the fact that they have one terrorist in custody, who is reported to be “providing details of the plot.” That wouldn’t happen in Obamerica. Remember that Obama considers shutting down Guantanamo Bay as a top priority, and has remarked that America will no longer torture to get information. I suppose this lone terrorist would have preferred to pull off a Mumbai-scale operation in America anytime after February 2009 since his interrogation may entail tea, crumpets, and conversation with the Obamessiah himself (depending on whether or not he was a large donor towards his campaign via one of George Soros’ 527 groups).

Lighter Fare: Men, don't get sent to the doghouse this Christmas!

Here's a funny video about the consequences of getting sent to the Doghouse! Men, pay attention.