Friday, January 30, 2009


Despite a clear partisan vote on the House version of the Stimulus bill, in which NO Republican voted for the bill, along with 11 democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thought that she'd use the liberal-friendly media to try to spin the circumstances of the voting and her incorrigible attitude towards conservatism. Any time you can achieve a big fat zero on the number of votes on a bill from the other party, it's usually a bigger sign that there is an absence of the majority party working with the minority...and this time the shutout is just doggone impressive. Conditions behind the scenes must be especially toxic to not gain ONE SINGLE Republican vote.

Yet, Speaker Pelosi tried to sprinkle some Obama fairy dust on herself to make herself seem like the good guy during a press conference yesterday to desperately explain the vote results:
“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan..."

Okay, Nancy...let me explain this s-l-o-w-l-y...there are two options:

1. Work with other members of the Congress that belong to the other party (bipartisan)

2. Don't work with other members of the Congress that belong to the other party (partisan).

There is no such thing as "nonpartisan" can't "transcend party lines" by shutting people out of the process. For the liberal press and the dembots who listen and accept Pelosi's explanations whole-heartedly, the introduction of this non-word was the equivalent of distracting them with something shiny.

Let's look at the holes in the rest of her statement, to look for clues why Republicans, NOT ONE, voted for this bill:

"The president’s agenda is reflected in this legislation. It’s — I mentioned, some of the priorities that were there about creating jobs, cutting taxes, helping states through this difficult economic time, and to do so in a fiscally sound way."

Hmmm...this bill did NOT create jobs...cut taxes...or help states. I can't imagine why the Republicans would not support this bill. If anything, by drafting this bill in the first place, Obama showed his naivety regarding the appropriations process. Much of the content put forth in this stimulus bill was nothing more than augmentations to already-existing entities, namely Federal agencies and departments. All that needed to be done was to have these projects inserted into the spending bills for these entities. But the reason why this was NOT done was not so much because of the "need for swift action" but rather that the ideas for a lot of these projects would be debated, AS SPENDING BILLS SHOULD BE, COMRADE PELOSI. Since a lot of these ideas were half-baked, they would not have escaped scrutiny, and with enough attention to them, would certainly be defeated one by one. So giving money to Federal agencies and departments to spend would NOT create more jobs.

This bill does not cut taxes for obvious reasons. It does no good to have tax cuts be a portion of the bill when the size of the spending itself is so large that there is no way you can cut taxes going forward...the Federal deficit is essentially being doubled with this bill and not only will we pay for it, but so will our children, and their children, and their children...

This bill also fails to help states because 1) it's not going to get released fast enough to do any good and 2) a lot of this spending doesn't happen for 1-2 more years.

So let's review...Obama's agenda set out to 1) create jobs, 2) cut taxes, and 3) help states, and this bill does none of these...and that's why the Republicans voted en masse against this bill.

"People vote for what they believe in. Clearly, the Republicans did not believe in the agenda that I just described for you, and that’s probably one of the reasons they voted that way. I think they probably voted their conscience and they couldn’t support that."

It's hard to believe in something when you're not involved in the process, largely because the demoncrats didn't send you an invitation and changed all the locks.

We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. They were part of the original bill, with the — some of the tax provisions were their suggestions. They had what they asked for in terms of committee mark-up. They had the rule on the floor that gave them plenty of opportunity to make changes. They just didn’t have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress. ”

Reached out? If you include stiff-arms, then yes, the demoncrats "reached out." And let's call out the double-speak in the italicized line above. They didn't have the ideas that the LIBERAL MAJORITY liked so they were told to put up or shut up. This is called PARTISAN politics, Nance! Not bipartisan or "nonpartisan".

The bottom line is that Pelosi is trying to lay the ground work early to get it into the minds of the gullible left that WHEN this stinkbomb of a bill does NADA for the economy, we are to believe it was because the Republicans wouldn't play and not because this bill is going to prove to be ineffective due to being ill-conceived by a woefully inexperienced president who should quite frankly have more understanding of the appropriation process having been in Congress the last couple of years.

Maybe if he would have spent less time campaigning for president and more time learning how the Federal government operates, he wouldn't look like such a political novice now that he's reached the phase in which actual work must start being done.

Mr. Disingenuous...regarding the Fairness Doctrine

Apparently the instructions to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when asked about any plans by Obama to re-impose the "Fairness Doctrine" is: Duck and Dodge. Note how he tries to act confused about the current topic, even though at this 01/29/2009 White House Press Conference, it was full of random questions, some important while others not so much, such as who Obama thought would win the Super Bowl.

Despite this, check out the "liberal code" written (in bold) on under the "Technology" portion of his agenda:
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

* Protect the Openness of the Internet: Support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
* Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
* Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment: Give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment. Support tough penalties, increase enforcement resources and forensic tools for law enforcement, and encourage collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector to identify and prosecute people who try to exploit children online.
* Safeguard our Right to Privacy: Strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.

Sounds like some Fairness Doctrine double-speak to me...oh I'm sorry...I thought this section would talk about DTV...

Monday, January 26, 2009

The weekend is must be Goofy Gaffe Championship Monday!

It's almost as if there is a trophy or championship title at stake out there for stupidest comment by a democrat. And it always makes it good for the sport when there are two or more competitors who are constantly trying to prove that they want it more than the others. So I decided it shall be so.

I expect this to be a regular segment so long as Biden and Pelosi have that three-letter word known as J-O-B-S in the US Government, so I'm calling this the Goofy Gaffe Championship.

This week we have in this corner, Vice-President Joe Biden, who said on Sunday that the Obamessiah is increasing troops in Afghanistan and that we Americans should expect an "uptick" in soldier deaths.

This is beyond stupid on multiple levels:

1. I'm sure all of the US soldiers in Afghanistan are thinking, "Thanks for the confidence, jerk!"

2. Troop deployments are not interest rates or the stock market...using economic terminology to describe the potential loss of American life and treasure is beyond insensitive...don't let your disdain for the military show...much.

3. Hope your own deployed son isn't affected by "volatile movements of the market."

Imagine the outrage if it was President Bush who had referred to this sort of thing so insensitively. To his credit, which he doesn't get enough of, Bush NEVER referred to our troops in these terms, and he always delivered news of this sort in a way that let it be known that he took the responsibility of deploying American sons and daughters extremely personal and serious.

Is it too late for a re-do? Can we get a guy who can stand up in front of the cameras and say something like, "just when the Taliban thought they saw the last of us, we're going to send 30,000 MORE troops and remove them from Afghanistan either dead or alive...I personally prefer the former." You know, get the troops EXCITED and CONFIDENT...not "we don't know what we're's Bush's fault anyway (WAH WAH WAH!) we're probably all gonna die!"


Now in the other corner we have the cagey Nancy Pelosi, who has NEVER, EVER had an misguided thought cross her mind before letting it fly from her mouth.

Not to be outdone by Less-Than-Average Joe, Pelosi tried to draw a link between "family planning" (decoded: abortions) and helping the economy.

Wow, I'm sure her children thank their lucky stars that their mom doesn't practice what she preaches. I don't know about you, but she is so heart-felt when she speaks of killing the unborn and "protecting children's health" in the same sentence I know that I get a warm fuzzy. I guess she'll help protect a child if he or she manages to make it to the delivery table...before that you're on your own, kids!

She might as well have said, "we'd be SO much better off as a nation if we could just find a way to state sanction the killing of MORE unborn children."

For this round I have to score it:

Sweet Loving Nancy 1, Clueless Joe 0

LA Times: Gay film successful among target audience is proof that tolerance is growing for gay rights

Betsy Sharkey of the L.A. Times has really stretched reality with her latest hypothesis that because of the eight Oscar nominations for the movie "Milk," about California's first openly gay elected official, this is evidence that the gay rights movement is being more accepted in American society. I know, I know...wait for it...


Okay...let's look at the facts. Out of the top 150 films that were released in 2008, "Milk" ranks 109th, based on total box office receipts. It plays in only 350+ plus theaters across the entire U.S. and pulled in a weak $1.4 million in only 36 theaters on opening night.

Is it safe to say that the small number of theaters that run this film are limited to urban theaters, and most definitely all those within a stone's throw of a gay neighborhood?

I'm not making a statement about homosexuality here...I'm challenging the hypothesis made by Ms. Sharkey that this is evidence of growing acceptance of the gay lifestyle, for this is so myopic that this article has to be nothing more than a weak attempt to push the gay agenda.

Betsy, the film only pulled in $21 million to date! Do you know what box office gems from 2008 beat this film in receipts?

- Box office bomb "W"...$25.5 million
- "Superhero Movie" (never heard of it? EXACTLY!)...$25.8 million
- "Space Chimps"...$30.1 million
- "The Love Guru" (nominated for a Razzie for Worst Picture)...$32.2 million
- "Drillbit Taylor"...$32.8 million
- "Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay"...$38.1 million
- "Step Up 2 The Streets"...$58 million

Truth: Forget who saw it -- I'm willing to bet that if you took a poll, you wouldn't be able to find many straight people who even know it exists.

Truth: This movie did not advance acceptance of the gay movement so stop pretending.

Truth: This film doesn't even sniff the success of "Brokeback Mountain" which took in $83 million on over 2,000 screens, despite the casting of Academy Award Winner/left-wing cuckoo Sean Penn AND James Franco!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

What happened to Obama's desire for bipartisanship?

You've heard the speeches...before, during, and after the election, Obama claimed to want to have "bipartisan" support in his administration. The first clue that it wouldn't last was in Obama's inauguration speech when he suggested that Repubicans put aside "petty grievances" for the next four years. What petty grievances you ask? Well that would be questions about Obama's associations, lack of experience, and oh yes, citizenship...none of which were ever addressed or pursued by left-wing media ideologues.

In case there was any doubt, on Thursday, January 22, 2009, the desire for bipartisanship officially ended (in case it wasn't officially the case before this). This has been determined because someone who is supposed to be smart with a Harvard education ("what other qualifications are needed?" said America on election day), did something not-so-smart in the form of following the lead of Nancy Pelosi. On that fateful day, just TWO days after the inauguration, Ms. Nancy said something typical, aka arrogant and stupid...when asked about GOP resistance to the stimulus bill, which she had done all in her power to keep Republicans out of the planning process, she merely replied, "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." Apparently, in Nancyland, Republicans are the serfs in the New Dark Ages (no racial pun intended), and they are to sign off on anything demoncrats desire lest be flogged and tortured (since if she had her way, Republicans would not protected by the Geneva Convention). This was typical Nancy, puffing her chest out, much like a Redskins fan who starts talking about going to the Super Bowl after winning two pre-season games in a row.

But Barry shouldn't have bitten from that apple...but he did. Later THAT SAME DAY(!) while sitting in a press conference with, yes, Puppetmaster Pelosi by his side, sent an arrogant message to the Republicans during the deliberations, when some objections arose regarding some of his ideas in the stimulus plan, to which he stated matter-of-factly, "I won."

So apparently, as many other leaders before him, Barry is already starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur, as he apparently believes that so long as he puts forth his ideas, no matter how left, crazy, unwise, or all the above, those who voted for him will back him 100%...oh how quickly they rise and fall, eh? Based on his popularity, the free fall after the media honeymoon is over should be historic.

Things that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy, Part I

Your humble correspondent has been a bit quiet (sorry), because while trying to maintain my usual business (work, family, etc.) I've been trying to read Obama's Stimulus Plan to expose the devil in the details. Reading Congressional language is SO much fun. If you're ever interested, you can go to to look for any bill or resolution that either the House or Senate creates. The ones you should be interested in during the near term are:

1. The text of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" which is the bill I will be discussing below. You can't find this in Thomas as of right now though (curiously) have to Google it...but this should soon be published as #2 below...

2. H.R. 598, sponsored by one Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York (of "oops I forgot to properly claim my rental property to the IRS" fame - problems with the IRS seem to be a common theme among demoncrats these days BTW). This too does not have the text available for viewing in Thomas either as of this moment. Probably because this bill will be the marked-up version of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" with all those juicy earmarks hidden throughout. I promise to help decipher that garbage once it's made available for public consumption, but for now let's focus on a few things that are already out there in the original text from Obamessiah himself...or should I say "inspired by" Obamessiah and transcribed by David Obey, Wisconsin demoncrat.

I am only on page 61 (of 258) and there are some things to take note of:

1. If you want to supposedly see how the stimulus spending is going under this bill, you will be able to check it out at You will probably find it as forthright and insightful as absolutely zero.

2. Page 47 raised a brow. I had to flip back to the cover page to make sure I was reading the Chosen One's economic stimulus plan, because on that page he wants to make available $650 MILLION more available for the stupid Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program. Here's a silly side question...shouldn't it be called "Analog-to-Digital"?

I digress...

I'm stuck on why spending more money on this dumb coupon program is going to stimulate the economy...wouldn't making people pay full price stimulate the economy instead of giving them a discount at taxpayer expense? After all, when I think of people who haven't yet made the jump to cable or satellite television, I think of people like my great-great aunt and uncle down in Florida. Wouldn't a BRAND-NEW television be enticing because it would make it easier to see the screen if you're elderly (especially if it is just snow on February 18) AND it would stimulate the economy? Isn't keeping around that old TV this long just asking for a house fire? Yeah, having to rebuild your entire house after it burnt down WOULD stimulate the economy, but wouldn't buying a new television be the cheaper option? I know, I know -- you're screaming, "STOP MAKING SENSE, TRUTHBOMBER!" Let us proceed...

3. Page 48...I know, I know...only ONE PAGE LATER(!) I find another problem. On this page Obama proposes spending $600M on near-earth satellite development, establishing data records, and data modeling to help him prove climate change. Ambitious, yes...misguided, yes...stimulating the economy, This is just an agenda stuffer. Who is going to say no to wasting money proving climate change if its included in a stimulus bill? Actually, for the record, I do want them to study climate we can shut Al Gore up when they come back and say..."nothing has changed for thousands of years."

4. Staying with the "climate change" theme, since Obama apparently can't let it go, on Page 60 we see another attempt to push Al Gore's...uh, I mean, OBAMA's agenda. This time it's NASA. Barry wants to give NASA $250M to put together a climate change research mission. Here's the problem with both NASA and NOAA...these two agencies have been studying earth's atmosphere and climate with many missions...why more? I can tell you why...because none have been able to prove without a doubt that Al Gore is not a charlatan. Getting back to the bigger premise, how does this stimulate the economy? In both cases of NOAA and NASA, the money will just go into the pockets of long-time contractors who will NOT go hire more people to do the mission, but will instead just add them to their manifest for their current employees to tackle when the time comes.

That is all for now...can't wait to get to the chapter on government-sanctioned/taxpayer-funded birth control programs under the "stimulus" package...

Friday, January 23, 2009

George Lucas predicts Obama win

I have to give props to Newsbusters for finding this first, but I felt it worth repeating here.

But if Obama is Palpatine, does that make Biden "Darth Vader"? Nah...probably more like "Dark Helmet":

"Change"...the remix from DJ Barack

Guess...that...change...ISN'T...coming...? Or...that...change...was...already...HERE? I'm confused...but certainly not as confused as Obamessiah worshipers must be right about now.

Hats off to L.M. for scooping me on this video.

Monday, January 12, 2009

What is Obama's environmental pick hiding? That she is a Soros/Gore climate change operative

Carol Browner, Obama's choice to coordinate his climate and energy policies, doesn't want you to know that she's a hard-core socialist. Until last week, Ms. Browner was identified as a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a socialist organization that believes that rich, first-world nations need to shrink their economies to lessen their "environmental footprint"...that is, until she apparently orchestrated a removal of all references to her from that web site. To get an idea of what is involved and at stake, read my earlier article.

The bottom line is that we will NOT have an advocate in the Obama White House when it comes to rejecting efforts by the United Nations to punish developed countries through taxes and emissions cap penalties all in the name of "global warming," which has yet to be accepted and verified as existing and preventable. The global warming hoax is more about tricking developed countries into redistributing their wealth (sound familiar?) to poorer countries all in the name of emissions taxes and penalties. Whenever the UN comes up with a flawed report on global warming, Ms. Browner is going to endorse it wholeheartedly, and any hard commitments needed to impose emissions taxes and penalties on hard working Americans will be coordinated between Ms. Browner and Ms. Susan Rice, Obama's choice for UN Ambassador, and shoved down our throats.

The worst part of it is that Ms. Browner is not eligible for questioning about her past before a Senate confirmation hearing, as her post and appointment do not require it. You can't have a warm fuzzy about anything who is affiliated with such extremely left organizations and has gone to extraordinary lengths to rewrite/deny her tracks by having all references to herself erased. If you Google "Commission for a Sustainable World Society and Carol Browner" you will see the pages that make reference to her, but alas, when you click them, they will no longer refer to her.

Fortunately I found a link that shows the web site the way it USED to look.

She also refused to use her computer for e-mail while she was the EPA Administrator under President Clinton, and illegally ordered that her hard drive be wiped clean when she left office, so her credibility and motives could always be questioned as we proceed as a nation down this track. Unfortunately, despite her illegal act, she was never prosecuted. Instead the EPA was punished in future funding appropriations for not having the proper controls and policies in place to prevent anyone in the agency to unilaterally decide to erase any and all records that were government property. What excuse did she have for doing this? She basically claimed that the impacts of digital information storage had an unknown impact on the environment at that time, so she was conscious of her "footprint"...but the truth is that whatever she was doing in her role as EPA Administrator, she never wanted known to the public.

Her other affiliations include: The National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress (an organization started and funded by socialist wannabe George Soros), former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, and The Albright Group, LLC.

Interestingly, with the exception of the National Audubon Society, and the Center For American Progress web sites, she has been wiped from the cyberspace memory of ALL these organizations.

If you click on the Albright Group's Wikipedia link above, the 8th footnote mentions that Browner's name was identified as one of its founders as of December 28, 2008, after which it was wiped clean. But here's another link that mentions Browner's role in the Albright Group from a speech she gave back in March 2007 about greenhouse gas emissions.

Here's a link to the Albright Group bio that used to mentions that she is on the Board of Directors for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, but if you visit that group's site, she (surprise!) no longer exists.

The League of Conservation Voters also fail to now list her as a board member, but this press release back in July 2008 has her identified as just that.

Could it be that she and those in the inner cabal of climate change are fully aware that when the time comes to peel back the Al Gore Climate Change onion that all will be revealed to be not backed by science but instead Al Gore's true expertise -- politics? That is the only way to explain Browner's attempts to fly under the radar screen by removing her affiliations with all of these known left-wing kooks.

Here's a helpful interactive map regarding her affiliations that I found at Muckety.

Now that you know what I do about Ms. Browner, check out the fluff piece on her done by The New York Times. Not one mention about how many of her affiliations have one man in common: George Soros.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Another Democrat scandal...MSM again leaves off the D word

Democrats embroiled in scandal seem to be on the rise, and each case gives the left-wing media opportunities to be fair and unbiased, but fail to do so time and time again. This time it is Democratic Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, who has been indicted on 12 charges of perjury, theft, and various forms of fraud.

Looking around the media landscape one can't help but notice that the d-word (democrat) is curiously missing from the headline, and often emerges further down the article. For instance, on MSNBC, the d-word is not in the headline...but it makes an appearance at the beginning of the sixth paragraph.

Washington Post: Not in headline, d-word's first appearance? Not until the 12th line break!

CNN? Ignored it.

CBS News regurgitated the MSNBC version, which was courtesy of the AP (Absent Press -- aka Associated Press) so no headline mention of the d-word.

ABC News regurgitated the Washington Post version, so again, no mention of the d-word until the 12th line break (you have to actually go to page 2 in this case to see it).

If it had been a Republican mayor it would be in the headline. Need proof? Let's look at Louisiana Congressman David Vitter, Republican, when his phone number was found in the black book of the DC Madam:

Washington Post, July 10, 2007 -- Not in headline, but in FIRST sentence!

CNN (they decided to cover it -- surprise!) -- not in headline but in third line break.

CBS News -- Headliner...AND first sentence...courtesy of Politico.

MSNBC -- First sentence mention of the R-word.

MSNBC focuses on America's priorities

For most Americans, it's hard to keep one's eye on the ball...the ball being what is truly important for America as we head into the Obama era. Usually we would rely on the media to help keep the most important items front and center, but this past election proved not only that the media cannot be relied upon, but also that it cannot be trusted at all.

Our future national security under a democratic president should be a primary focus for all Americans, and we should be making sure we are paying attention when the slightest clues exist that we will NOT be as vigilant to defend the homeland as had been done under President Bush.

The first piece of evidence that this is occurring is Obama's announcement that we will not engage in torture to save American lives (because terrorists have rights too...sniff sniff), and his appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Obama picked a big-time civil rights person to keep an eye on those who do what sometimes has to get done to keep America safe (interrogation, and yes --cover your ears if you're a bleeding heart -- torture, if necessary). Mr. Panetta has been brought in to wag his finger and shake his head in response to any attempt by our greatest intelligence asset to acquire plans of future terrorist acts.

By appointing Panetta, Obama is letting our terrorist enemies know that we have Mr. Softy in the Oval Office and not only will we not be as vigilant, but we will likely be open to pay protection money to put off an attack for a set period of time. That's how Clinton did it -- "peace through incentives" and since Obama has pretty much re-hired most of Clinton's former appointees, including his WIFE, he's sending a crystal clear message that for the next four years, America will be run by Wimpy, who will gladly pay you Tuesday for not attacking America today. Panetta is expected to sail through his Senate confirmation, despite a clear experience gap. I find it disturbing that the claws came out against Palin to be the #2 in the country due to her perceived inexperience, but not only did an inexperienced Senator from Illinois become POTUS, but the man who will be leading the charge to keep America safe has no intelligence experience and appears weak-kneed when it comes to harsh interrogation.

The second piece of evidence is Obama's slack job thus far handling Hamas. Back on December 29, after Israel finally had enough of the attacks from Hamas and began its offensive, Obama whined about how the offense "dealt a significant blow to his hopes of forging a Middle East peace deal early in his presidency." No, Israel, don't defend yourself...that would be meddling in Obama's plan to save the world, starting with the Middle DARE you! Despite the attempts of the media and Obama to assume the presidency before his swearing in on topics like the economy, he's interestingly decided to sit on the sidelines when it comes to the Hamas violence, citing that "there is only one president at a time."

I digressed a bit from my lead-in statement, but rather than focus on these clear concerns about our future security and safety the left-wing media is clearly trying to keep less-important topics on the front burner so as to avoid talking about issues and problems that matter. One example is MSLSD's apparent desire to keep character assassinating Sarah Palin at every opportunity. The embedded video is yet another installment from MSLSD.

In typical MSLSD style, Shuster cites an alleged statistical point that 65% of Americans at some point in time felt that Palin was unqualified to be vice-president. It is irresponsible to cite any poll regarding a question such as that given that the media was successful in completely fabricating the public's view of Palin (see my earlier post). Arguably the most reputable polling organizations put her unqualified percentage closer to 60%, and this may seem like a splitting of hairs, but when you're in the propaganda game, a 65/35 split is more dramatic than a 60/40 split in the eyes of Obama loyalists like Shuster.

To give you an idea of how much MSNBC is paying attention to Palin due to their fear that she will be a viable challenger in 2012, there have been 53 stories about or mentioning Sarah Palin on MSNBC alone since CHRISTMAS! As of today, January 9, that is over 3 stories a day!

Opportunists exploit Obama followers

It is being reported that DC-area hotels are taking full advantage of those who long to attend the Obama inauguration. The Washington Marriott at Metro Center, for example, is offering rooms for $1,000 a night. That same reservation a week later goes for just $119. Some hotels are only renting rooms in multi-day weekend packages to get even more money. I don't really feel sorry for these fact I find it ironic but sad that more than likely there are a good number of followers who have no business dropping that kind of coin to attend this event will yet do whatever it takes to be there...but hey, maybe they have zero tax liability and only stand to get tax refund/welfare checks under the Obama administration, so what's not to like, right?

After all, Obama's whopping tax cut proposal to exempt us from $20 of payroll taxes from our paychecks should help them cover about two years. But I doubt these hotels have payment installment plans.

When I run a query to stay at a Hilton brand hotel on the night before the inauguration, I got rates of up to $ stay in the Hilton in Springfield.

One week later, same hotel...$256/night.

I don't understand what good staying in Springfield would do anyone as all of the bridges from Virginia into DC will be restricted to authorized personnel only, forcing everyone to take the Metro or VRE into the city, which have also inflated their price to take advantage of Obama's supporters. VRE is charging $25 for a round-trip ticket the day of the inauguration, but due to recent rate hikes, this isn't much more than the outrageous price they usually charge (a one-way ticket from Fredericksburg to DC is now $9.75).

If I said I felt sorry for these people, I'd be lying.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

"Poor" Roland Burris

Yesterday Roland Burris responded, "there was certainly no pay-to-play involved, because I don't have no money," when asked if he engaged in a pay-to-play scheme with Blagojevich for Obama's Senate seat.

Roland, please. You're just embarrassing yourself with that excuse. Congrats to you and Blago for skillfully using race to embarrass Congressional democrats (again), but the poor card? Puh-leeze!

See that picture at the top of this post? That's Roland's future resting place. It has his life story etched in stone...that's not cheap. So you're going to have to do better than claiming that you have no money when asked if paid to play or if you were a pawn in Blago's masterful game of politics. One thing is for sure, I doubt Blago did it for free, regardless if he thought that nominating Burris would be the funniest thing out of Chicago since Chris Farley.

No money, eh? Check out how many contributions Burris has made through his law group and consulting firm to Blago, as well as state contracts Burris & Lebed Consulting, LLC acquired since 2003 (Hats to ArchPundit).

For more clarity about the data provided, read this.

Hmmm...looks like classic pay to play...Burris made contributions and was awarded state contracts. Blago's decision to pick Burris for Senate looks more and more like a stick in the eye to Illinois voters and the general public.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Variation of Prince classic: "Everyone's behavin' likes its 1993..."

Ahh...the fairness doctrine. If only it could be applied to everyone. Apparently Madam Speaker Pelosi is no student of history, particularly her own. Back in the nineties, much like today, the demoncrats took majority power in the House and Senate back in 1993...and wasted no time abusing it. It got so bad that by the time the 1994 election came around, the donkeys were whipped back into submission as both houses of Congress went back to the Republicans, and would not regain a clear majority until the 110th Congress in 2007.

You'd think that with a twelve-year banishment to the woodshed, there would be time for reflection, self-analysis to examine one's own faults, and foster change in oneself. No...that apparently didn't happen to one Nancy Pelosi.

Now that the libs have a majority again, Pelosi is once again trying to strong arm the democratic "vision" by undoing fairness rules established by the 1994 Republicans in response to the will of the people when the donkeys were banished, who by the way didn't have to do that since they were in the majority then.

She is proposing to do away with the following:

- allowing minority members (Republicans) to propose alternative bills
- allowing minority members to attach amendments to democratic bills
- term limits for committee chairpersons
- guarantee of open debate

It is times and acts like these that I find ironic that they are called the "Democratic Party"...for it is hardly democratic...unless it is suddenly a synonym of fascism.

Now it's time for the Not-So-Obvious News

It was reported today that President-Elect Obama is proposing a $300 BILLION tax cut. Now what the media hopes that you and I glom onto is the taxpayer portion of this deal, which you shouldn't get too excited about, if it mirrors his "Making Work Pay" proposal during the campaign, as it only results in $500 per individual or $1000 per family in the form of an offset to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Whoop...Dee...Do.

This is peanuts compared to what Obama is proposing to do for know...those evil entities that the far left despise so much. For businesses, Obama wants to allow companies to write off their losses from 2008, as well as losses from previous years as far back as 2004. Companies in this situation would actually get a check from Uncle Sam, thereby passing the burden of bad performance off of the companies and onto the taxpayers.

But that's not even the best part. Think hard about what industry falls into this category of "fiscal abyss" that will get essentially bailed out? ANSWER: THE FAILING MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS! This is Obama's way of doing the slanted, liberal media a solid in exchange for helping him get elected. And the best part is that since it is part of a tax relief plan, and not part of the economic bailout as recently proposed, there would be no need for paying it back, and no performance standards to maintain. It's just a big fat "Thank You!" from Obamessiah in the form of a nice check signed by you and me.

Forget the bailout the media "bailout" via this tax cut plan.

Happy New where were we? Oh yes...

The first major setback to Obama's campaign came today when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced his withdrawal from consideration for Commerce secretary. The official reason for Obama accepting Richardson's withdrawal is because the investigation will not be done soon enough before Richardson goes before he is put to the fire in Senate confirmation hearings.

The unofficial version is that despite his claims of innocence, Richardson likely has some unwanted skeleton in the closet that Obama would rather not have to deal with. After all, if everything that you were doing was above reproach, certainly you could convince anyone to just stick it out and wait for the results of the investigation to officially clear you. Barring that, it seems Obama is wise to not get into anything that could mar his facade of holiness and perfection.