Chronicles of the Obamanation

Back in the saddle again

2010-09-24T01:39:00.004-04:00

UPDATE: Truthbomber is now a contributor at redwhitebluenews!

Come check it out! Also available on Facebook!

He's ALIVE!

2010-05-21T15:35:00.002-04:00

Truthbomber is back...just forewarning you all...

Truthbomber is throwing in the towel...

2009-04-02T07:31:00.003-04:00

I announce with great regret that I have found it simply too hard to keep up with all of the nonsense since Obama's election to keep this blog humming. If I had more time on my hands, I could get into all kinds of topics and share all kinds of viewpoints, but alas there is only so much time in a day.

So for the sake of my own sanity to keep my more important priorities in order, I have decided to shut down the Chronicles of the Obamanation blog, because if I find that if I don't keep up with everything, it's hard to dedicate time to write what needs to be said.

I am confident that Americans are watching and growing more skeptical by the day of Obama's agenda, and will reach a point where they will demand to be heard. Until then, keep reading and listening to media sources not heavily influenced by, or have severe man-crushes on, the current administration.

If you read comments on other news feeds, you'll see my name once in a while I'm sure, as that is where I will direct my angst when I need to.

Thanks for your support these last five months!

Truthbomber

Nearing the end for Dodd? An update...

2009-03-20T13:07:00.003-04:00

As an update to my last post, it has now been learned that Senator Dodd is doing more back peddling. He now admits that he is the one that put the language into the Stimulus bill to allow AIG executives to take bonuses, but claims that it was Treasury officials who desired this, and that he was just accommodating them, allegedly because the word "veto" was being thrown around if he didn't put it in.

Um...sorry but Senator Dodd is challenging the intelligence of Americans with this claim. Administration officials, cabinet members, appointees, whatever you want to call them CANNOT TELL CONGRESS WHAT TO DO. Not only is it illegal (as it violates the concept of separation of powers) but it just doesn't happen for common sense reasons as well. If anything, government agencies are at the whim and mercy of CONGRESS...they are the ones that threaten to not pass legislation if something isn't done, and they certainly don't communicate threats like these to agency heads...this back and forth only occurs between Congress and the White House.

Let's not forget that prior to this reversal his story was:

"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he said then. "I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did."

To me that's a pretty stark change of face, since he was so specific. So basically, nothing that ever comes out of Senator Dodd's mouth at this point can be believed because:

A) He's your prototypical, career politician who lies like a rug.
B) It is clear that with all this controversy swirling around him he's in "CYA" mode.

If that doesn't qualify for a Senate investigation I don't know what does.

In attempt to try to make the public feel better about this snafu, Dodd offered that he was confident that the bill was written in a way that should make it easy for Treasury to recoup the bonuses, but Treasury Secretary Geithner said the opposite, stating that he thought it would be legally difficult to do so.

Will Senator Dodd's house of cards finally fall?

2009-03-17T12:43:00.003-04:00

Today, FOX Business revealed that Senator Chris Dodd had inserted bonus protections for AIG execs when the democrats unilaterally assembled the stimulus bill, and is now working to undo them now that they have come under fire by many, including Obama.

FOX goes further to point out that among the AIG donor list in 2008, Dodd is at the very top, with Obama not far behind at #2. McCain is in a distant third, with an amount that almost seems merely conciliatory as the dems raked in far more than Repubs on the donor list:

May God in heaven above perhaps finally see to it that Senator Dodd's corruption be finally exposed and dealt with by the LSM or Obama himself? Remember it was Dodd who also hit a snafu around election time regarding his mortgage, and eventually kinda sorta revealed the details of his sweet-heart deal arranged with Countrywide. Where are the documents? Well if you weren't a member of the media who he hand picked to show the docs to (no copies allowed), then you'll never see them.

He has since conveniently refinanced his mortgages in attempt to escape scrutiny, except for the fact that he did so when it was advantageous for him to do so, as previously reported by yours truly.

Mainstream media trying to slip in comments about how "popular" Obama is when he isn't

2009-03-16T12:21:00.007-04:00

I'm starting to notice stories in the mainstream media that mention the growing ranks of the woefully disappointed (in Obama) but are quick to slide in a subliminal mention of the "fact" (debatable) that Obama's popularity is still intact.

Example A: kypost.com reported on the thousands of citizens who gathered in Cincinnati to protest Obama's irresponsible spending. But they also inserted the following (emphasis in bold is mine):

But not everyone agrees with the Cincinnati Tea Party.
"Clearly the American public is strongly behind President Obama right now. These are scary times and they require some very desperate measures," said Tim Burke with the Hamilton County Democrats.

Hmmm...really? I concede that the reporter could claim that they were just printing a quote from someone interviewed on the scene, but how about some (oh gosh...here it comes!) journalistic integrity by doing a little fact check to see if what Mr. Burke had to say was actually factual, because it ISN'T.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, as of Sunday March 15 (beware the ides of March, Barry?), Obama has started to lose a few points in the "firmly support" ranks, while the "definitely do NOT support" crowd is starting to rise sharply, as the graphic below shows:

Exhibit B: Bloomberg.com reports about the fact that despite the state of the economy, and the uncertainty regarding his ability to lead America with his set of policies, Obama was busy doing what he does best...FUNDRAISE(Un-BELIEVE-able!!)

In one quick sentence, the article adds:

While the president’s approval rating remains above 60 percent in most polls, the U.S. is mired in the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression...

There is a link, fortunately, in case you wanted to know what "most polls" they were talking about, and that is where it gets more interesting. If you go to the link, and scroll down to see the various polling groups who were cited longer ago, say in January, you'll see that the most recent data over the past month has been limited to a select few polling groups.

Two of the groups who are predominant in pollster.com's poll sources are The Daily Kos and Democracy Corps. I'm sure you know who the former is, but do you know who is behind Democracy Corps? Yes, that's right, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, two of the five members of the White House cabal that has been trying to convince everyone that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party.

It seems that the media is trying to counter what is being discovered with more detailed research regarding the public's diapproval for Obama's economic policies, budget, and the idea of a second stimulus.

Check out this link to Newsbusters for more tea parties that were ignored by the media.

NBC's Jim Cramer is starting to smell the coffee

2009-03-10T12:58:00.006-04:00

Money guru Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and frequent financial guest on various NBC and MSNBC shows, is starting to feel the consequences first-hand of questioning The Obamessiah.

The link above takes you to a thing of beauty to read that I couldn't do any more justice to by adding comment. Just read and enjoy. More like Cramer are sure to surface as this "ridiculosity" also known as "the Obama presidency" continues.

Smiling baby-killing scientists and Congress members witness lift on stem cell research ban

2009-03-10T12:34:00.007-04:00

On Monday, president Obama continued his war on the innocent unborn by lifting the ban on embryo stem cell research. He claimed that the decision was "about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

As it came from the lips from one who claims to be a Christian, all there is to say to that is "WOW" as he has clearly dismissed the MORAL element of the debate. To read through his creative use of language, you need to re-read that quote above and this time substitute the word 'ideology' with 'morals'.

I suspect that if he were offered by the devil world power in exchange for his soul, he'd take it-- oh wait--it's clear that he already did.

This change in policy officially puts America in a position in which we are mortgaging our future to finance the present. Not only has Obama saddled our children and grandchildren with an insurmountable debt burden, but he has sold our collective souls by giving the green light to harvest our future generations in a foolish pursuit to heal the living.

There is actually a global aspect of this that should not be overlooked. Remember that Obama has also restored funding at the State Department to restore programs that will fund international abortions. Could this be a vital supply chain for these soulless scientists? All citizens of the world should be concerned what this pair of policies means for the unborn.

Then there is the ever-growing library of hypocrisy coming from Obama's own lips, who said that promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient."

Will you feel the same way when a health care worker refuses to perform or take part in an abortion? Will they be free from manipulation and coercion, president Obama?

Preview for America: Sweden begins "cap and trade" emissions tax system

2009-03-10T12:02:00.005-04:00

It was announced today that Sweden will begin taxing motorists, companies, and certain industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2011, taxes at the pump will go up the equivalent of four cents per liter, while also imposing taxes on the energy, forestry, and agriculture sectors.

This is a good preview of what is to come in America if Obama successfully imposes a cap-and-trade tax on all of us via our cars and our electricity bills...especially since he's seems to be so very fond of the European way of governing (tax, tax, and tax some more).

Keep in mind that they use diesel fuel in Sweden, which is cleaner than unleaded gas, so expect our charge per gallon to be bigger than four cents a gallon. If you read the link above, also note how "eco-friendly" cars will be given a five-year tax exemption. I suppose what that means for us is that when you go buy a hybrid, you'll be issued a card to swipe at the pump so that it takes off the tax when you go to pump gas. Since Obama wants us all to get away from cars that use gas, expect a similar scheme to give us an incentive to buy a hybrid.

And what is up with taxing farmers? I'm curious as to how they plan to monitor cow flatulence. How would you like a job with the title of "Bovine Fart Monitor?" And before you ask, yes, there is a device awaiting patent for just that:

For me, the eyes say it all.

Readers: Thank you for your patience

2009-03-09T22:11:00.002-04:00

I've been blogless for over a week and it is because I had been on a work-cation down in Florida. I thank you for your patience. The blog will resume immediately. Hopefully you haven't been following the curve ball the democrats threw us last week, trying to get us to focus on the baloney about Rush Limbaugh leading the Republican Party. It is simply a ruse to keep us from focusing on the fact that Obama is leading us down the road to socialism and the fact that Wall Street has not been reacting well to this.

I'll take this opportunity of candor to express my difficulty in keeping up with all the incredible level of incompetence mixed with arrogance (dangerous combo) that this administration has put forth on a daily basis. Thank you for your readership and thank you for the leads that some of you send me.

First order of business is to look at the 9,000 earmarks in the FY09 Federal Omnibus bill that I've been hearing about...that Obama was supposedly against. So much for change.

Don't spend that $13 per week yet...Obama has a plan -- to spend it

2009-02-27T22:54:00.004-05:00

In case you haven't been able to read (or stomach the idea of reading) Obama's 2010 Federal budget, it's important for you to know that America as you knew it is now officially over. For people not making over $200K or married jointly making $250K, you pretty much get a pass this round...until it is determined that this group of folks can't foot Obama's spending habit. If you're just under this threshold, you'll be identified as the sucker -- err...I mean SOURCE of tax revenues in the 2011 Federal budget.

But for anyone wondering what to do with that $13 per week you were going to get, you can stop wondering. It's been decided for you. You see, in this budget Obama plans to aggressively pursue the overhaul of America's electric and gas producers by forcing them to pay penalties under a cap-and-trade system (like I warned you about!). I now realize that when he talks about "green" energy...he's not talking about leafy trees...he's talking greenbacks, because what these companies are going to turn around and pass the cost onto US...the little guys. And Obama knows this, and that is why in his budget he plans to use a lot of the money generated penalizing the emission producers, and supposedly give it back to everyday Joes through their paychecks like the $13 thing.

Except that what is likely to happen is that the "concept" or the "promise" or the "hope" -- whatever you want to call it -- is going to get lost in translation as the years go by and people forget how we got into this mess in the first place. Money that is supposed to go back to everyday people because of this inevitable increase, will likely be diverted by Congress to pay for other things, not unlike the way state lotteries were supposed to go towards improving schools (school budgets are now based solely on those lottery revenues and so if people stop playing, Johnny's school has to lay off teachers, etc.).

The fact that he's setting up a complex scheme to actually dedicate very little to actual green energy development, and using most of the planned revenues to reimburse consumers is illustrative of how dumb this idea is...not to mention disingenuous:

The sale of those permits, beginning in 2012, would reap $646 billion through 2019. Of those revenues, $525.7 billion would be devoted to extending Mr. Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" $800 tax credit for working couples. Another $120 billion would go to clean energy technology.

So while we all get a "whopping" $13 per week back in payroll taxes, the electric company and the gas stations are going to take us for much more than that each and every week. The $13 will be a mere pittance for what we're going to get hosed for. So don't start your automatic debit to Starbucks just yet (since you can't do much else with $13).

Of course this all has yet to be debated and passed in Congress. While some may hope that a lot changes between now and then, history tells us that a president and majority Congress from the same party affords such a president little opposition. This will once again be the case. The only ones who have a chance to save the country are those Blue Dog Democrats, they hold a unique, favorable position in all of this.

I don't even recognize our country anymore...does anyone know any countries with an open immigration policy? I only half-jest...

Associated Press attempts to character assassinate another viable 2012 GOP candidate

2009-02-26T12:13:00.005-05:00

Today the Associated Press released a story claiming that both Republicans and democrats panned Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's Republican response to Obama's address to Congress.

First off, the article is dripping with character-assassinating language:

Insane. Childish. Disaster. And those were some of the kinder comments from political pundits about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and his response to President Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Tuesday night...

The author must have been sitting next to Keith Olbermann.

Jindal's speech has drawn flak from Republicans and Democrats alike...

Hmmm...let's see. Who are the "Republicans" mentioned in the article panning Jindal? New York Times columnist David Brooks, Juan Williams (BTW cited in the article as a "Fox News Commentator"...not as a Senior Correspondent of National Public Radio...and not as a regular Washington Post contributor), and Dr. Penni Pier of Wartburg College.

These are your "Republicans" AP? Are you serious? I'd be impressed if you got a Republican member of Congress or a Republican Governor to say something on the record against Governor Jindal...but you didn't.

David Brooks is a RINO (I'm actually being kind here with that label because I actually think he's just a pretender working for one of the worst propaganda machines in America) who believes that it is a MISTAKE for Republicans to adhere to conservative principles.

I'll give Juan Williams a pass because his viewpoint is usually okay and was critical of Obama for his democratic principles during the campaign, but he's hardly a spokesman for all Republicans.

Dr. Penni Pier...who is this? Exactly. She's a professor at Wartburg College in Iowa. Not much about her on the Internet but the college has Lutheran roots, which means that it's not exactly firmly rooted in conservatism, and she's the coordinator there for Women's Studies, so her overall political bend is uncertain at best.

No, all that this article hoped to achieve was to take a cheap shot at Jindal, hoping that readers are merely satisfied with the headline, subversively slipping into our subconscious that Governor Jindal is not a threat to democrats in 2012, but rather just another silly, out-of-touch, failed Republican. That's why they used words like "childish" and "disaster" in the first few words of the article. But their personal attack on him is unacceptable:

And Jindal's voice and earnest, awkward delivery have drawn comparisons to Kenneth Parcell, the geeky page on the NBC comedy "30 Rock."

So let me get this straight, the ASSOCIATED PRESS is MAKING FUN OF A MINORITY BECAUSE HE HAS A SOUTHERN ACCENT?!? And what's this crap about comparing him to some goofy character on "30 Rock"?

First of all, only Kool-Aid drinking liberals watch NBC let alone "30 Rock"...because "stupid funny" works with people who don't care what their socialist president does with their future. Talk about pandering to the stupid. I personally refuse to watch NBC shows because of the unrelenting, mean-spirited propaganda that the network considers "news."

And even worse, the "comparison" cited was because some liberal goofball set up a hateful Facebook group called "Bobby Jindal is Kenneth the Page"? Are you serious, AP? You had no credibility before this article, but to mention a stupid Facebook group and declare it newsworthy is a new low when it was thought that AP and other uber-liberal propaganda outlets had bottomed out.

I personally watched Bobby Jindal's response and found it more than adequate. In fact, I thought it was a great response because it wasn't overly critical and it even included an admission that Republicans really hosed it when they had a majority in Congress and held the White House. He was perfectly neutral, and I thought he passed his audition for a viable GOP contender in 2012...of course this is what the LSM thought too, so they set out to kill him now before he gains momentum.

It's official: President Obama is bi-polar

2009-02-24T22:40:00.003-05:00

It was reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that Obama wants to use "pay-as-you-go" budget rules for all Federal budget spending. This means that if a new program is created or an old program is increased, then there must be either a tax increase or a cut made somewhere else in government to accommodate the increase.

But apparently Obama didn't get his own memo when the Stimulus Bill slammed its way through Congress and plopped on his desk for signature, hot and steaming. The stimulus bill is a huge spending bill and now all of the sudden he's concerned about balancing the budget?

On top of that, Obama declared that the "age of budget gimmicks is over" but someone needs to tell him that rosy assumptions are one of those purported tricks he supposedly doesn't like, since that is what he is relying on to claim that he can reduce the deficit to half a trillion by 2013.

Open thread of Obama's Address to Congress

2009-02-24T21:17:00.009-05:00

Here are the highlights, or "takeaways" if you will, of Obama's National Address tonight:

Nancy Pelosi is a lot more excited to sit behind this president than the last one...she isn't being rude by reading or having a sour look on her face. If she smiled any wider, I think she'd pop a staple.

The "tax cut for 95% of Americans" will be the whopping $13 per week...too bad they'll be off-set by new taxes.

The Stimulus Bill will create a whopping 3.5 million jobs...wow! Guess what? There are about 400 million Americans, about half of which are working age. So he created an employment increase of 2% (and even that is overstated) at the cost of doubling our national debt. Epic failure...yet the dems are clapping their butts off.

Credit is not available. Bad loans have made banks skittish. So we will make banks give new loans and increase individual debt so the economy can hum again at the expense of America's future. Makes all kinds of sense.

Oh...I was apparently mistaken. The housing recovery act will help RESPONSIBLE home owners. I was under the impression that it was going to help IRRESPONSIBLE home owners since no one I know qualifies. What a joke.

CEOs will no longer get paid for leading large corporations. Those days are over according to Obama. That's not inaccurate, since that happens in a socialist society.

Obama: "Slowly but surely confidence will return" (only to be wiped out by new taxes).

Pelosi's smile is wearing...she can't hold it much more...she looks like she's in agony like someone might while holding their breath.

Obama claims that government helped America emerge in times of previous economic turmoil but he's wrong. We emerged from the Great Depression not because of the New Deal but rather our entering into World War II.

Nationalized health care...Obama is bragging about SCHIP being a model...too bad that model costs four times it should per person compared to the open market.

Preventive medicine is the cornerstone of nationalized health care. So if you don't want to immunize your kids because pharmaceutical companies have amnesty when they fail to ensure the safety of shots before they're given, then too bad for you. If your child dies or is debilitated because of it, they did it for the good of the country. Besides, if you don't put your kids at risk they won't be able to attend public school.

Schools need more reform. They're just not leftist enough. We'll build on current successes like holding back children over and over again so your first grader can go to school with classmates old enough to drive.

By 2020, Obama hopes America has the greatest number of college graduates in the world...after all, with the taxes they'll be paying they all better be doctors.

Alternative energy...nationalized health care...education...who's paying for this again? Oh yes, the magic unicorn. I forgot.

Obama is now talking about cutting earmarks out of the budget. Pelosi suddenly not smiling anymore. She has a blank stare...must have spotted the magic unicorn.

Supposedly, if any family makes less than $250K per year, then taxes will not go up one dime. So what about your planned cap-and-trade energy policy, Mr. President? When you tax the oil refinery for their emissions, the cost will be passed down to the pump. Readers: Don't forget what I said about Carol Browner! It appears that we will hear something very soon from Obama's climate czar.

I don't remember Pelosi clapping so enthusiastically when Bush spoke.

The fake applause for the military lost its magic when some democrats had to be elbowed to stand up and clap.

Obama brags on about closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing the guilty "to justice." Are you going to execute them, because you haven't said where they're going to be put...

I wonder if Obama would be able to speak at all without the teleprompters.

The girl sitting next to the First Lady doesn't seem very into the fake gushing. I'm sorry but I'm not buying that this girl was helped so quickly by anything Obama has supposedly done...can you say, "disingenuous photo op?"

Obama is talking about how great our nation is when we can share ideas and debate. Too bad he has a democratic majority Congress not interested in debate...and want to shut down freedom of speech i.e. fairness doctrine.

It must be confusing to be a socialist in pre-socialist America

2009-02-24T20:47:00.004-05:00

On Monday in Baltimore, ACORN activist Louis Beverly was arrested for breaking in to a woman who lost her home to foreclosure by cutting the lock and declaring, ""This is our house now." This sort of attitude can be found throughout history when nations fell to socialism/communism, such as 1917 Russia or 1999 Venezuela. You see, in a socialist state, you can just take from someone else because it doesn't belong to anybody. But although we're well on our way, we're not a full-blown socialist nation yet, as Louis Beverly discovered.

But don't think that this will be an isolated incident. Here is ACORN's web site, asking for volunteers to be "homesteaders" just like Louis Beverly. Here's the best part...when interviewed about the incident, Joe Cox, a Baltimore ACORN "Community Organizer" stated, "People say we're breaking the law, but we don't see how putting a person back in an abandoned property is harming anyone."

Well, Mr. Cox, it wouldn't be an abandoned property if the homeowner had paid their mortgage. And just because the homeowner lost the home, doesn't mean it doesn't belong to someone. That someone would be a bank, and I'm sure that banks are evil, corporate entities in your world, but those banks actually represent your neighbors who put money in, and invest in, that bank. So when you try to steal back a home for the homeowner, you're actually committing theft against that person's neighbors.

While I have your attention regarding ACORN, I thought you'd be interested to know that now that the election is over and all the ineligible votes have been counted that ACORN helped register, ACORN has now moved into the business of filing FREE tax returns. Would anyone like to make a wager as to how many of those tax filers were assisted with claiming Earned Income Credits for children who probably do not exist? After all, ACORN isn't exactly known for accurate fact checking. This is one way for the left to redistribute the wealth, people! WAKE UP! I'm sure the IRS has been unofficially told to keep an eye out for ACORN-assisted tax returns and instructed to do nothing about them.

Speaker Pelosi gets a papal smackdown!

2009-02-18T20:01:00.004-05:00

It was reported in Reuters that Pelosi met with the Pope during her tour of Italy and got the words right from the horses mouth: "Thou shalt not support abortion...pinhead."

Let's see what she does in future speeches about the topic, since if she's a true catholic, then she is to regard the Pope's words as being from God's lips.

truthbomber scores that one: Pope 1,000...Pelosi...zippo.

I would have paid cash money to have been in the room to watch that!

Roland Burris is the worst liar ever

2009-02-18T19:39:00.004-05:00

I already covered this territory, but it bears repeating since Roland Burris was caught lying about playing in the "pay-to-play" game for his Senate seat from Governor Blago.

I'll just invite you to follow the links in my original post that shows his payments to Blago that he still insists he didn't make. Does this guy not know about the Internet?

Texas Congresswoman wants us to leave illegals alone

2009-02-18T15:50:00.006-05:00

While researching a tip that democrats were renewing efforts to quietly introduce legislation that would give illegal aliens amnesty, I stumbled upon this little bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. It's known as "H.R. 73: Traffic Stops Along the Border Statistics Study Act of 2009," and it's sponsor is liberal Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas.

At first I thought that this was just an effort to put forth a nationwide version of a racial profiling bill like Obama did back when he was an Illinois legislator. But the problem was that I searched thomas.loc.gov using the key word "immigration"...so I clicked the text to learn more. It's worse than a racial profiling bill...it's an attempt to discourage law enforcement from making traffic stops that involve suspected illegal aliens (pay particular attention to the bold part):

(3) DATA COLLECTION- After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in the initial analysis:

(A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop.

(B) Identifying characteristics of the driver stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and approximate age of the driver.

(C) Whether immigration status was questioned, immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with regard to any individual in the vehicle and whether any individual in the vehicle was turned over to immigration officials.

(D) The number of stops conducted within 25 miles of the United States border with Mexico compared with the number of stops conducted within 25 miles of the United States border with Canada.

(E) The number of individuals in the stopped vehicle.

(F) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop and whether consent was requested for the search.

(G) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search.

(H) Any items seized, including contraband or money.

(I) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop.

(J) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search and the justification for the arrest.

(K) The duration of the stop.

Did you catch that back in subsection D? She wants to collect data to compare the number of stops along the Mexican border and compare it to the stops near the Canadian border. This is so that she can claim prejudice when it is revealed that there's simply more "action" down at the southern border. It wouldn't be because of it being a popular spot to cross because Mexicans have more poor than Canadians. No no...it MUST be because we are racists.

Some people may not see a problem with the language as written on the surface, but you have to think about what it will be like in practice. Keeping track of this sort of data may give law enforcement reason to pause during a legitimate traffic stop because they may live in an area that is predominantly hispanic, therefore causing the officer to foolishly attempt to follow some sort of racial quota per month to not appear like he is targeting a specific group of individuals. It is this sort of second guessing that officers do not need to be burdened with.

So in the end, what is likely to happen, if passed, is that officers around the country may end up letting go a group of illegal aliens, or perhaps the next group of terrorists, all because of this stupid quota proposal that was written under the presupposition that police officers are racists.

What I also find interesting about Congresswoman Jackson Lee is that she's an unapologetic democrat who LOVES pork...and no not the kind you eat, but the kind that find their way into spending bills. If you visit her web site, there is a link right under her signature to print and fill out a form for your own earmark project.

It's safe to say that this is one Congresswoman who will not embarrassed to pull up a chair to the trough when the stimulus money starts raining from the sky, with not a care in the world about where it comes from because she is certain to be a big believer in the redistribution of wealth!

Want to know Obama's end game for America? Pay attention to Venezuela

2009-02-17T20:22:00.007-05:00

I found an interesting story today regarding the United States State Department congratulating Venezuela for its most recent support of "democracy" by granting Hugo Chavez "president for life" status via a lifting of term limits. I found this support rather excessively warm since 'Hugo Chavez' and 'democracy' are known antonyms, and it started to occur to me that there are parallels to the early years of Chavez's reign that ring familiar when compared to Obama's.

This in turn caused me to realize that there is perhaps an answer of where we are going as a nation in researching the last ten-year history of Venezuela. Right now Obama has America on its heels because it's in reactionary mode, responding with the speed of concrete shoes while he makes lightning fast decisions, not to mention the fact that America has been politically passive for the most part since the 1960s. Things are flying through because he's taking advantage of our defenses being down, especially among the institutions available to pose any challenges. The court of public opinion, run by the media, worships him. The legislative branch (Congress) is from the same party, so he gets, and will continue to get, a free pass. Who is protecting the regular joes? No one.

Yes, there have been rumblings and jokes about the similarity to Obama's politics and that of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. But no one's seriously looking into the matter...and that's where this article comes in. I'd like to draw your attention to some concrete and eerie similarities that these two power-seekers have. My theory is that if you understand what Venezuela has been through since Chavez took over in 1999, we have a better chance to read the tea leaves and see where Obama is trying to take America. With this knowledge, it is hoped that we can be better informed and shed light on this agenda before it is irreversibly put into place.

Let's look at Chavez's rise to power and insert any Obama similarities in bold italics:

Hugo Chavez became president of Venezuela in February 1999. One of his first acts was the launch of "Plan Bolivar 2000" which focused on infrastructural improvements such as roads, housing, and health care. Um...hello stimulus bill? He campaigned on the demonizing of greedy corporations and landowners and subsequently overhauled Venezuela's tax system to hit these two groups harder. Another obvious similarity to Obama...I'll admit that this is standard socialist fare, but that's sort of the larger point as well.

Only six months into his presidency, Chavez staged a "legislative emergency" in which he appointed a seven-member committee to conduct the affairs of the National Assembly (the equivalent of our Congress), and prohibited the actual elected members of the National Assembly from meeting, essentially doing away with Venezuela's Congress, as well as its judges under allegations of corruption. This committee then drafted a new Venezuelan constitution, which extended Chavez's term one additional year, introduced a presidential two-term limit (which incidentally was window dressing to appease critics...he would later run for "election" about every year in order to "re-start the clock" on his six-year terms),extended his presidential powers, and most importantly diluted Congress from a two-chamber body (like our House and Senate) to one body. Elections were held the following year and unsurprisingly, Chavez's Socialist Party won most of the seats and judges were appointed to replace the old ones on a "merit-based" system. Here's what it looks like today. All this have eerie similarities to how Obama enjoys his Democratic House and Senate.

But here's another curious thing about Chavez's newly-"elected" National Assembly, according to Wikipedia:

The Legislature under the 1999 Constitution
Under the new "Bolivarian" 1999 Constitution, the legislative branch of Government in Venezuela is represented by a unicameral National Assembly. The Assembly is made up of 165 deputies (diputados), who are elected by "universal, direct, personal, and secret" vote on a national party-list proportional representation system.

An Obama variation of the tactic described above would be to redraw the Congressional districts to put Republicans at a disadvantage with the help of Census 2010 data, thereby helping to pre-determine the outcome of the 2012 elections for House and Senate seats up for re-election or vacant.

Later in 2000, Chavez backed and won a referendum that forced labor unions to hold state-monitored elections. Hello...heard of "Card Check"?

After his first three years, Chavez had implemented land reform (i.e. wealth redistribution), nationalized health care (in the works!!), and free education through college (on the horizon? Don't forget that he wanted to fund college in exchange for public service a few months back). More importantly, by the time the Venezuelan people got fed up with Chavez, they attempted a coup and a recall vote and they could not get rid of him. An example of the fact that you cannot trust even our own democratic organizations to be forth-right and truthful about honesty and fairness, comes in the form of the Carter Center, who claimed that Venezuela's recall election was fair and open, though it was later proven to be anything but (below quote via Wikipedia)...

European Union observers did not attend, saying the government had placed too many restrictions on their participation. While the international observers, and a reluctant Bush administration, endorsed the results, a few critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT, alleged that certain procedures in the election may have allowed the government to cheat. The Carter Center admitted Taylor had "found a mistake in one of the models of his analysis which lowered the predicted number of tied machines, but which still found the actual result to lie within statistical possibility."

For your reading pleasure, here is the final report from the Carter Center regarding the way the Venezuelan Recall Election of 2004 was handled.

Upon his survival from a rigged recall election, Chavez went back to work on his socialist agenda, pushing forward with policies that worked towards wealth redistribution, while finding time to silence his critics through media regulations. Chavez's version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Fast forward to now. Venezuela is in crisis, and the people of Venezuela are about to feel it. They have vested all of their trust and future into this dictator, Hugo Chavez, who has taken the country's resources and distributed them to all citizens...his system provides food, jobs, health care and education. It all sounds well and good in theory, but the Venezuelan people are now completely dependent on this man...and the good times are potentially coming to an abrupt end due to falling oil revenues. He's about to have to make what is likely to be an unpopular decision to cut back on services. Unless of course something unexpected happens, and I think that that unexpected something will come in the form of US aid via the purchase of oil from Chavez.

It all makes sense if you think about it...Obama likely sees a strategic alliance here. What better way to repay the man whose socialist playbook Obama has been plagiarizing from than to help him prevent economic ruin in his country by making some large oil purchases? I regard this recent letter from the US State Department (mentioned at the beginning) actually PRAISING his continued dictatorship as evidence of an attempt by Obama to curry favor with Chavez. Especially in light of the fact that this lifting of term limits is being done because Chavez finds them an obstacle to ruling until he dies (hardly a democratic principle).

This isn't a new relationship by the way. I direct your memory to last year's election season. Anyone else notice how many Hollywood-types visited Hugo Chavez, no doubt in the name of Obama, who most directly identifies with his extreme left ideology? Let's see there was Danny Glover...

Kevin Spacey...

and Sean Penn...whose second visit to Chavez was so well-timed prior to the 2008 American election that you can't help but wonder if he went in the capacity of an unofficial envoy for Obama.

And would-have-been Obama cabinet member Bill Richardson...

Judging by the other company that Chavez keeps...
...it may not be so preposterous for America to unfortunately soon find itself on the same side of global issues with Venezuela and Iran, perhaps (gasp!) even in a strategic partnership if Obama obtains Chavez-size control of the U.S.

I submit to you that it isn't outside the realm of possibility. If we have two politicians who both subscribe to the same socialist ideology, how can we expect two different outcomes?

Cramer (STILL the man!) rips on LSM, democratic Congress, and limpulus bill...all in one glorious clip!

2009-02-13T11:49:00.006-05:00

This probably gives unapologetic MSNBC Obamessiah worshippers Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews brain hemmorhages when they think about the fact that he's on an NBC affiliate...and he rips on the New York Times and the democratic Congress as a bonus.

Hats off to Newsbusters for posting it.

Random lines of interest within the "new and improved", 1588-page "stimulus" bill going to vote today

2009-02-13T09:07:00.010-05:00

Before we get into the details of this mega-page bill, the most important thing to note and remember four years from now is that the democrats have reneged on a REQUIREMENT as VOTED ON when the stimulus bill made it through the House the first time to make the bill available for viewing and reading 48-hours before it would be voted on.

$100M for the school lunch program the only portion actually with an accurate label -- FREE LUNCHES and we all know that there is no such thing...NOT a stimulus

>$500M for WIC if you don't expand the number of people eligible for this program, how can more be spent? You can only buy so many diapers, milk, and cheese...NOT a stimulus

$650M STILL in there for Analog-to-Digital Conversion boxes NOT a stimulus

NOAA ($377M) and NASA ($450M) are still going forward with "global warming"-seeking satellites (I'm presuming that if there are no details provided, then one is to refer back to the original draft of the bill...)

Is it just me or is the plan to spend only $200M on finishing the border fence while spending $1B on baggage screening equipment telling about Obamessiah's stance on illegal immigration?

$1.5 BILLION for a NEW "Homelessness Prevention Fund" If you are homeless now, or will be because of your bad mortgage, you can be given temporary assistance...but it comes at a price...your personal info will be stored in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) so that you can be reminded how much Obamessiah helped you when 2012 rolls around...or else be blackmailed perhaps? Why a database for this?

Very curiously, there is a LOT of new language related to making medical records electronic. It is clear that there is an elaborate plan outlined and the desire to deploy it immediately...much more time would be required to read through all of it. THERE IS NO WAY someone just put this together in the past few days...this is stuff that Obamessiah and the democrats have had brewing for some time.

It goes without saying that nothing cited above stimulates the economy.

Keep this in your back pocket as these projects are performed to see if they adhere to it:

Sec. 1609. Limit on Funds.

None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.

That's all I can find for now just by skimming this document as the House debates before the vote...

Oh, by the way, today is Friday the 13th...

Good for you, Senator Gregg

2009-02-13T07:02:00.015-05:00

It's great to see someone taking a stand against Obamessiah's draconian style of running the country. No, Senator Gregg didn't step down from consideration for Commerce Secretary because of unpaid taxes, like so many other nominees lately. Instead he stepped down because he took a stand for his principles. Unlike the RINOs who are enabling the democrats to put America one step closer to ruin with the "super duper triple-dog top secret" stimulus bill by aligning their votes with the clueless left, he withdrew his nomination over Obama's plan to have the Census chief report directly to the president.

Since the Census would normally fall under Gregg's territory, he decided that he wasn't going to just stand there and let this happen. So he made it a matter of public record that he was stepping down for that reason, and rode off into the sunset. Good for you, Senator Gregg. Hopefully more will follow you instead of selling themselves out for the temporary power they wield because their vote is key to a particular bill that Obama wants passed really, really, really, really badly.

Incidentally, the rest of the Republicans in Congress are not sitting on their laurels about this Census issue either. House leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) put Obamessiah on notice via press conference that they will challenge in Federal court any attempt to have Census controlled or directed by anyone in the White House. See the video. Take a moment (yes now!) and send these two a "You ROCK!" message through their web sites:

House Minority Leader John Boehner

Congressman Darrell Issa

Meanwhile, in typical lapdog fashion, whenever Obamessiah doesn't want to stand in front of a microphone and confirm that what is being alleged is true, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

volunteered to refute Boehner and Issa's claims by trying to merely deny it, apparently thinking that words speak louder than actions (in line with the theory that if a democrat says something is true or false, then it must just be the case). Maloney would be wise to come to terms with the fact that Gregg cited this to be the case and was his reason for withdrawing his name from consideration, so trying to lie to save face for Obamessiah doesn't always work.

I'm sure that the left-wing media will also try to put their spin on it. Perhaps Gregg will be called "Worse Person in the World" by uber-whiner and Obamessiah left-wing bishop Keith Olbermann...but really, who cares? MSNBC is in the ratings gutter...last time I checked, he was flailing behind Larry King...

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE, FEB 10, 2009
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

So the real question is: if Keith Olbermann is ranting like a cuckoo out in woodsy "Low Ratings Land", does anybody here it?

Wow...$13 a paycheck...what a stimulus

2009-02-12T07:50:00.003-05:00

I wonder what this woman is thinking right about now, since the stimulus bill that will be voted on as early as today is going to give taxpayers a whopping $13 a paycheck in the form of a payroll tax cut...

If she's anything like the ladies who ride in my car pool, who also gushed and voted for Obama, she is probably a renewed optimist by thinking that the $13 is more than she would have without the stimulus. One of my carpoolers quipped how it would buy a few extra gallons a milk...the other commented on how it will top off her gas tank. Riiiigghhhtttt...you mean you're not just a little bit disappointed that it's not enough to pay your mortgage or your car note? Are you telling me that you're okay with the fact that the national debt has essentially doubled, and will be passed on to your children and your children's children, for those extra gallons of milk and fuel?

I find it nauseating that some folks are still chugging the kool-aid by the gallon despite the fact that this stimulus bill is a nothing more than a stink-bomb spending bill. I believe that there could have been about 1,000 different ways to provide better stimuli to the economy than what is in the current bill, and to give $13 doesn't do squat for anyone. Anyone who can't see that isn't being honest with themselves that Obamessiah woefully failed to deliver on a meaningful economic stimulus...instead he has sought and obtained a very small gain at a very steep price.

By the way, that $13 isn't per week for those of you who get paid weekly...that figure is based on a bi-weekly paycheck...so you'll get $6.50 a week. Don't spend it all in one place.

Senate Republicans who were conference designates shut out of midnight deal making

2009-02-11T16:05:00.002-05:00

In another shady, middle-of-the-night move, staffers for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid met with democratic conference members to ink the final details of the "limp-ulus" bill WITHOUT Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and John Thune (R-SD). Who was there in their stead? You guessed it: Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Apparently they couldn't get the deal completely worked out and went into Wednesday. Again the official memo to the Republicans was to meet in Conference at 3pm...but it was clear to Representative/People's Hero Tom Price (R-GA) that deals were going on in Pelosi's office and held a press conference there:

I normally don't cite blogs but this is breaking news.

Since NBC refused...

2009-02-11T14:54:00.004-05:00

I feel it my duty to post this video since NBC singled out this ad as one not worthy to show during the Super Bowl because it doesn't fit their leftist ideology or their manufactured narrative that is Barack Obama.

It speaks volumes how low this network has stooped since it has an issue with a pro-life message being shown during the Super Bowl, but not bat an eyelash about the commercials with excessive violence and/or explicit sexual references and/or visuals.

You won't read this in the U.S. -- Aussie fire tragedy

2009-02-11T11:40:00.007-05:00

Angry survivors of the horrific wildfire tragedy in Australia blame "green" policies for attributing to the spread of the fire.

Angry residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season.

more...

Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.

There was widespread applause when Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen said changes were likely to be made about the council's policy surrounding native vegetation.

But his response was not good enough for Mr Spooner: "It's too late now mate. We've lost families, we've lost people."

In this new age where left is right and dumb is smart, and oh yes, the world is supposedly melting according to a POLITICIAN , I doubt any of us will see that story on CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN.

Media makes concerted effort to suppress evidence of public disagreement with Obama policies

2009-02-11T09:01:00.006-05:00

On February 2, 2009, Gallup released the results of a poll that indicated the level of support Obama had on various issues. The results are below:

As you can see, Obama's most unpopular decisions to date are the decisions to close Guantanamo Bay and the allowing of U.S. funding to provide abortions overseas.

Here's a rundown of the major media outlets coverage of this poll:

CBS: Zilch

ABC: Nada

NBC: Are you kiddin' me?

CNN: No can do!

Even Fox News missed it apparently.

But this is a significant poll to note, given the ongoing narrative that Obama likes to remind everyone that he won whenever someone poses opposition, under the false assumption that everyone is on board with all that he decides, hook line and sinker.

For the networks, this poll does not fit that story, so it's better off ignored...because we wouldn't want to upset the Obamessiah, since he won and all...

Unacceptable Hypocrisy

2009-02-10T23:12:00.002-05:00

Remember all the pre-election garbage about how Republicans had it out for Obama because he was black, and how Obama himself claimed that Republicans would try to scare voters away from him based on his skin color? Remember the media assertions that not voting for Obama could be due to racism? Remember all of the hullabaloo about the song "Barack the Magic Negro?" And let's not forget that it was proven in unscientific ways that blacks weren't exactly voting for Obama for his stance on issues...

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot and the left is being even more disgusting about it. This time it involves RNC Chairman Michael Steele being depicted in black face by far-left bloggers on perceptionmanagers.org, who label him as an Uncle Tom. Where's the outrage from the black community? This is offensive and ironic that it is being done by people who belong to a political party that is about diversity and inclusiveness...maybe they were right...maybe the true racists ARE the liberals who wouldn't vote for Obama for his skin color after all.

Fascism we can believe in

2009-02-10T20:30:00.007-05:00

So much for democracy. In case you haven't heard because Obamessiah has us all spun around the axle about bailouts and stimuli bills, he's making an unprecedented move to make the head of the Census Bureau, which is under the Commerce Department, report directly to him. Even worse, the person apparently in mind to run this covert op in none other than Rahm Emanuel.

The reason for this is to make sure that Republicans remain the minority party by changing the composition of Congressional districts and the Electoral College after the 2010 Census is completed. Once he finds out where all those pesky Republicans are hiding, he will cordon off the district lines across the nation so that they are marginalized among concentrations of liberal supporters.

Of course, America has a long history of this, called "gerrymandering," but making this agency report directly to the White House is bothersome since the redrawing of districts was a negotiated process. Letting Obama be the architect will ensure that there is as much bipartisanship as the stimulus bill. And the disgrace of it is that he has the precedent of law on his side because recent limitations on the redrawing of districts were concerned about minorities having their voting voices reduced, so he will certainly use this as justification for whatever unfairness he has planned in one or two years.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford helps bring truth and logic to the debate

2009-02-09T10:15:00.001-05:00

Key goal line stand needed today for Senate Republicans

2009-02-09T08:50:00.006-05:00

What little media attention that has been given to the topic of the stimulus bill has a common theme: those pesky Republicans are ruining everything! But the truth of the matter here is that not only is this a not-well-thought-out sack of garbage being sold to the American people (who will be paying for it), but it is being delivered with a smug arrogance that everyday people can't think for themselves and Mama Government is here to save the day. Never you mind the details! Would Mama G. let you down by doing something not in your best interest?...this seems to be the common theme among the LSM news coverage.

But this couldn't be further from the truth. Today the Senate democrats have the ball on the proverbial one yard line and plan to just stuff it up the gut, expecting to overpower what they perceive to be a very weak Republican defense. This is coming to life in the form of a plan to make a motion for cloture on the bill, meaning that debate will be limited/non-existent. After all, don't you know that the Government must act QUICKLY (not realistically possible based on history) so we must not waste any time actually reviewing or debating the details...at least that's what the democrats are saying and will continue to say.

Today has the potential for glory or disaster for Republicans and America. If the Republicans can muster a filibuster to block the cloture vote, it would be a huge "goal line stop" that would make the democrats realize that they'll actually have to use bipartisanship for once to get this and other bills passed. The bottom line is that this stand today is a tone-setter for the next four years...and that can be either good or bad.

What everyone should find strikingly funny and ironic is that our fearless leader Obamessiah is doing the one and only thing he knows how to do in this hour of need for leadership for our nation...he's out CAMPAIGNING for this stinkbomb of a bill! He's been to Ohio and Florida, and it is reported today that he'll be in Elkhart, Indiana. He doesn't realize it that he might call it "spinning" the details, but in the end it will be perceived as willful, intentional lying while President when everyone gets the facts. Running and hiding by speaking to audiences full of your supporters so you can hear yourself speak and feel good about your positions is not wise and it's not bipartisan. It's foolish and displays your fear of, and inexperience in, playing in the "big boys" sandbox.

The question for today is whether or not the three RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are supporting the bill will also be voting for cloture to suppress debate. The three RINOs would be: Senator Susan Collins from Maine...

Senator Olympia Snowe, also from Maine...

Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania...
Some may scoff at the fact that truthbomber is calling these three out by name but these three are a shining example of how true conservatism in the Republican party has been watered down, and RINOs such as these have helped stoked the argument for creating another conservative political party.

The best thing to do now is to contact these three to let them know where you stand on the issue of debate suppression via cloture, and feel free to share your opinion about the stimulus bill overall. Please remain respectful in your correspondence however...remember that we're not the loony left who just shout people down if they disagree with us. Please keep it calm and respectful...you attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

Contact Senator Collins.

Contact Senator Snowe.

Contact Senator Specter.

Finally: GOOD drama in Minnesota

2009-02-03T21:55:00.006-05:00

Finally there is good news coming out of Minnesota...it appears that Franken's attempt to do an "Al Gore in Florida" has backfired. A judge has ruled that 4,800 more ballots that were previously rejected can now be counted. This is good news for Coleman, as this represents the first time that votes will be counted outside of Franken's hand-picked districts where he knew he would make gains, and is the exact reason why he now leads.

The deck was stacked when Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (who is tied to ACORN and George Soros), was in the perfect place to make this nightmare a reality. Hopefully this batch of 4,800 votes will put Coleman back on top, but you can bet that when that happens Franken's lawyers will be going into overtime filing challenges.

How about they just agree right now to just have the state re-vote? The citizens of Minnesota are undoubtedly tired of all the games, and have made up their minds about who they would and wouldn't want representing them in Congress based on the behavior of the candidates during all of this mess. They would have to also agree that the first election is null and void and that whoever wins the re-vote wins with a promise not to delay the results via litigation. Let Minnesota decide...not the courts...not lawyers...and NOT Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Senator Chris Dodd steps in it again

2009-02-03T21:16:00.007-05:00

It all began when Senator Chris Dodd appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last year and promised to produce his sweetheart mortgage loans that he received from Countrywide Mortgage, presumably to ensure inaction by Dodd in his role as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Well, it seems that Dodd has made a deal with himself to refinance his questionable mortgages in lieu of producing those papers that he promised. The problem is that despite his best intentions, what he desires to do should not sit well with anyone, since he is one of a small population of Americans who have the luxury of refinancing.

It is hard to say if Dodd suffers from incurable arrogance or is simply so out of touch with regular people to make this sort of insensitive mistake. He's probably so caught up in covering his tracks that he's lost all sight of what his own constituents, and the rest of America, are going through. He could make it all better by showing both the old papers and the new papers to prove that his properties didn't get inflated appraisals in order to qualify for the new loans. The question becomes whether or not Dodd will pay out of pocket to refinance properties that have presumably depreciated a little, or will he be the first unofficial beneficiary of a lender "write down" under the bailout.

Is there a tax filing epidemic among democrats?

2009-02-03T12:26:00.009-05:00

When Timothy Geithner admitted to it, it seemed like an isolated incident. It also seemed like under any other circumstances, it would be a deal-breaker. But the dems in Congress argue that he's "the best man for the job" despite the liabilities of making him Treasury Secretary (how could the IRS DARE to shake down everyday citizens for tax "mistakes" that will be uncovered from here on out?). There are going to be so many lawsuits the minute that a filer feels unfairly treated in the pursuit of unpaid taxes, and IRS types are not known for being kind. I personally don't think anybody is SO qualified that they must be selected with this sort of cloud over his head...after all, why are they saying he's the best because of the way he helped manage the first half of the bailout when there are SO MANY QUESTIONS about that? How can they say the bailout isn't going well, then turn around and christen this guy THE expert who will get us out of this mess? May I ask aloud where the shame is from this man? If it were any of us regular folks, I'm sure this whole situation would be too embarrassing to continue, but yet Geithner is banking on landing this gig because it's safe to say that he won't get a job anywhere else...and leave it to the government to open it's arms to him and act like he's a #1 draft choice.

Then there's Tom Daschle...who has apparently decided that Geithner's faux pas must be outdone, by admitting that he owes over $128K in taxes, which he has now repaid in order to proceed on his nomination, plus penalties. UPDATE: Daschle withdraws nomination...apparently owed more than the $140K previously reported. Again, where's the shame? Where's the Lame Stream Media who would be attacking like rabid pit bulls if these were Republicans?

Apparently these two failed to honestly answer questions 38 and 39 on Obama's seven-page questionnaire that all appointees are required to fill out.

Conspiracy alert: Does anyone else find the wording of question 38 a little odd?

Have you ever not paid U.S. and/or state income taxes because you were not resident in the United States, or for any other reason?

You want to know what this is really about? The lack of scrutiny being placed on these individuals are all just a larger, continued effort to lower expectations from this administration. If the bailouts and the stimuli that Obamessiah tries to engineer don't work out, the LSM will draw our attention to all these dunderheads who didn't have the competency or honesty to file their own taxes...but that is not for now...the LSM is just holding it like an ace card in their pocket. They don't want to win the hand, they want to win the GAME. What's the game? 2012...when the year leading up to the election you will see all kinds of appointees thrown under the bus by the media as a way to get Obama a pass so that they can try to convince you and me that it wasn't Obama's fault...it was these "Washington-as-usual" idiots that Obama had no choice but to select from. And why Daschle? Don't forget that he put ALL his chips in the middle on the Obama track bet back in February 2007, so this nomination is just pay-to-play, er, I mean reward, er, I mean...uh...next question!

NO ONE is talking about this being a pay-to-play nomination...NO ONE.

Now let's get to the latest embarrassment...Nancy Killefer.

I love this pic...you can see the deer in her headlights. We were unaware at the time, but it looks like her tax issues might have been running through her mind just as this picture was taken.

This was a curious withdrawal however. She only owed a little over $1,000 to DC Government for a tax lien for not paying unemployment taxes. In comparison to the other two jokers, she stole a Dum Dum sucker from my kitchen cabinet. Something tells me that this is hardly the real reason for the withdrawal. Only time will tell I guess. On that note, truthbomber's inside sources are saying that more "thanks but no thanks" letters may be coming for other tax "mistakes" from other nominees...stay tuned.

Seriously?

2009-01-30T23:07:00.006-05:00

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"...you 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

2009-01-30T12:26:00.004-05:00

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 whitehouse.gov 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...

The Earned Income Credit Scam --er, I mean, STIMULUS cornerstone

2009-01-28T14:06:00.002-05:00

Hats to Naked Emperor for the video.

The weekend is over...it must be Goofy Gaffe Championship Monday!

2009-01-26T12:37:00.007-05:00

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 doing...it's Bush's fault anyway (WAH WAH WAH!) we're probably all gonna die!"

What...a...wuss.

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

2009-01-26T11:42:00.009-05:00

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...

WHAT?!?!?!?

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!

What happened to Obama's desire for bipartisanship?

2009-01-25T23:26:00.006-05:00

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

2009-01-25T22:24:00.006-05:00

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 http://thomas.loc.gov 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)...you 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 www.recovery.gov. You will probably find it as forthright and insightful as www.change.gov...meaning 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, um...no. 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 change...so 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...

George Lucas predicts Obama win

2009-01-23T14:06:00.006-05:00

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

2009-01-23T10:22:00.005-05:00

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.

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

2009-01-12T21:21:00.009-05:00

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 exist...it 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.

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

2009-01-09T23:14:00.005-05:00

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

2009-01-09T22:01:00.010-05:00

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 East...how 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

2009-01-09T10:44:00.004-05:00

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 people...in 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 it...in 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 $499...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.

"Poor" Roland Burris

2009-01-08T10:25:00.006-05:00

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.

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

2009-01-05T21:05:00.007-05:00

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

2009-01-05T20:25:00.003-05:00

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 businesses...you 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 diversion...watch the media "bailout" via this tax cut plan.

Happy New Year...so where were we? Oh yes...

2009-01-05T20:06:00.005-05:00

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.

Media Double Standard: Kennedy v. Palin

2008-12-29T22:36:00.005-05:00

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.

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

2008-12-19T08:39:00.005-05:00

There was an article the other day on Newsbusters.org 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:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28277400#28277400

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".

Guess that internal review was wrong...

2008-12-18T22:39:00.008-05:00

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!

2008-12-18T10:31:00.010-05:00

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.

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

2008-12-17T11:49:00.004-05:00

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

2008-12-17T09:27:00.002-05:00

Enjoy.

Famous Republicans/conservatives

2008-12-17T07:41:00.012-05:00

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)

Apologies

2008-12-16T21:34:00.002-05:00

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.

Cheers,

Truthbomber

Is that so?

2008-12-16T21:09:00.005-05:00

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?

Obama o-busted -- Chicago politics rears ugly head

2008-12-09T20:44:00.005-05:00

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?

Louisiana Representative casualty of post-Obama stupor

2008-12-07T23:41:00.006-05:00

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.

The biggest story NOT being reported in US media

2008-12-04T21:48:00.022-05:00

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]

...so 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 Obamacrimes.com. 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):

TITLE 8. CHAPTER 12. SUBCHAPTER III. Part III. § 1481

§ 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
(4)
(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...

Hollywood just cant get over Prop 8

2008-12-03T13:34:00.005-05:00

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 www.funnyordie.com.

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.

Disrespect under the guise of political correctness

2008-12-02T23:09:00.009-05:00

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".

Oh no he di’int!

2008-12-01T15:14:00.011-05:00

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

2008-12-01T14:00:00.003-05:00

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!

2008-12-01T07:47:00.002-05:00

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

The Minority View Back at the Wheel

2008-11-30T23:39:00.005-05:00

According to a new international poll, only 27% of citizens in 11 countries polled supported the idea of imposing Kyoto Treaty-style reforms upon themselves in an effort to battle climate change. So what you should expect to see in the coming months is an effort by world leaders, including Obama, via the United Nations to cram down our throats climate change standards that only the truly clueless would support. Nothing gives me a warmer feeling than imposing the will of the minority upon the majority. And to think that the four years hasn't even started yet.

Notes from the Culture War

2008-11-30T22:38:00.004-05:00

I must not watch enough television (probably a good thing)...I'm about to risk exposing this fact by making the following observation: since when did "God d#@%" become acceptable on television?

This evening I decided to do a little channel surfing after watching the Bears give up another score to the Vikings on Sunday Night Football (for the record, neither are favorites of mine -- go Giants!). My first stop was D.L. Hughley's new "news" show on CNN. This has nothing to do with my main point, but I find it worth mentioning that Hughley is still celebrating Obama's victory as if it happened yesterday. I smell cancellation if he can't get any more story ideas.

Anyhoo, I then ventured to Comedy Central to see who Katt Williams was, who was doing stand-up. I thought I had heard his name before, but I must have been thinking about The Greatest American Hero, William Katt.

Needless to say, for those of you who are already familiar with Mr. Williams, I was horribly wrong. The only words not bleeped during this "comedy" bit were key articles and propositions like "the" and "when." But what truly shocked me was when he let fly a "G.D." and nothing happened. No bleep. They just let that sucker fly without interference. Dismayed, I changed the channel again. This time to catch one of my favorite cheese films "Hudson Hawk," twenty minutes in at this point. Then it happened again from Bruce Willis' own lips -- TWICE! G.D. this and G.D. that. Wow, I thought, my V-chip must be flat busted. Nope. I realized that apparently the rest of the world does not find offensive what I find to be the MOST offensive cuss word out there.

So either I'm way behind the times as to what is allowed and not allowed on television these days, or this is a new trend in the ongoing effort to diminish the importance of God.

Franken recount rep last week..."impartial" vote counter this week

2008-11-24T16:00:00.002-05:00

Apparently Al Franken still thinks everyone in Minnesota is stupid...as in stupid enough to believe that a person who represented him last week in the recount, can turn around and be considered an "impartial" vote counter this week. Worse still is the statement by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, also known to be helping Franken: "It’s not my job to second-guess county election officials." YES IT IS! He needs to check out his own web site: "Other election activities include certifying voting systems, conducting administrative recounts, accepting filings by candidates for multi-county offices, and training of local election officials. The secretary of state chairs the state canvassing board, which certifies the results of state elections."

"And I'm Proud to be an American...

2008-11-21T10:14:00.004-05:00

...where all the dopes run free."

I know you've all see this but I had to post it for posterity. I've had it on the right column under videos all week but what actually pops up is a bit too random for my liking. So here's a direct link.

Franken's Believe It or Not!

2008-11-20T10:44:00.004-05:00

This ballot is being challenged by Al Franken...I'm not kidding.

To stay on top of all the shenanigans and hijinx, click here.

Obamanites Curbing Their Enthusiasm

2008-11-20T08:17:00.004-05:00

If you are in desperate need of some good news these days, the luster is apparently wearing off the gold-painted plastic trophy that is Obama for some of his supporters. Matthew Rothschild openly laments in his latest article for The Progressive that in his view, Obama has yet to appoint any real bringers of "change" as he had campaigned. Instead, of course he has been filling his cabinet with former Clintonistas and it is starting to look a lot like 1992 all over again. I don't know about you, but I already feel some states going from blue to red as I type...which has me quite giddy today! But it is December, and the glow of "I told you so" radiates only so far as Obama has yet to formally begin his four years. It's just good to know that a counter-movement from the left may well be underway that may translate into no more free passes from the media soon.

Promoting "tolerance" through tyranny

2008-11-20T07:19:00.006-05:00

The gay/lesbian agenda is in full swing and if you disagree in any way, prepare to be attacked. First it was the success of Proposition 8 in California, in which a majority of residents there (you know...that pesky thing called majority rule, aka democracy) collectively agreed that marriage is only defined as being between one man and one woman.

Then the blacklists started...and the church protests (in MICHIGAN of all places). But today's latest takes the cake. eHarmony LOST a discrimination suit in New Jersey because it didn't provide its service to gays and lesbians. I'm sorry but that is tyranny. Since when are businesses REQUIRED to provide something that it never intended to? It's called a FREE MARKET. Just because eHarmony doesn't provide this service doesn't mean that they don't exist elsewhere. Based on this outcome, I invite everyone to begin litigation on the following:

1. If you're white, apply for the United Negro College Fund or apply to be a member of the NAACP. When you're rejected for obvious reasons, sue.

2. Go to McDonald's and try to order Chinese food. When they tell you that they don't sell that, sue.

3. This one will really turn the tables...visit a gay club of the opposite sex and when you can't find a restroom because both are designated for the same sex, sue.

4. Go to the post office and ask for commemorative stamps of Comrade Pelosi. When they tell you that they don't have those, sue.

The point is that this lawsuit is ridiculous. No, this wasn't about what eHarmony did or didn't provide...it was about advancing the gay agenda, and New Jersey handed them a big, fat, unwarranted win.

Tyranny is something that is supposed to only happen in communist countries...oh wait..I think this may be part of that "change" we're supposed to believe in.

Obamessiah upstarts new industry: climate change fear

2008-11-19T14:28:00.013-05:00

In a four-minute video message to Governor Schwarzenegger's Global Climate Summit yesterday, Obama made some stark claims about the state of the environment, and his apparent ability to direct the country and its resources to overpower God regarding the climate.

Here are some of the excerpts:

"My presidency...will create millions of new jobs in the process."

Hmmm...millions, eh? You mean there will be more people presumably worldwide tacking climate change than there are lawyers in the U.S.? (There are 1.1M lawyers in the U.S. as of last year). That's almost hard to fathom.

"That will start with a federal cap-and-trade system. We'll establish strong annual targets..."

Did you catch that? That means TAX INCREASE. I know...you're saying, "What?!? I didn't hear that!" Let me explain. In order to be in compliance with what is essentially the Kyoto Protocol, which is what this is really all about, we would have to open a market to buy and sell emissions cap allowances, hence the name "cap-and-trade"...this will have an impact on both businesses who output high levels of greenhouse gases AND consumers (raise your hand if you drive an SUV). Check out the latest bill in Congress to get a sense of what I'm talking about. It was killed back in June of this year because of fear it would cripple the economy. The economy IS crippled, and Obamessiah wants to press forward at this juncture? Buyers remorse will soon set in for the voters who put him in office when their fuel taxes go up just to drive as we do today. Curious still is the fact that under "Opposition" in the wiki page for the Kyoto Protocol it is mentioned that opponents of Kyoto argue that this is merely a mechanism to redistribute wealth under a global socialism initiative. Where have I heard that before?

Will Obama try to send God a tax bill when it is discovered that movement of the earth's tectonic plates releases far more oil into the ocean than any man-made disaster and that this happens regularly? Oh wait, the truth may interfere with the agenda, so we'll leave it to the media to ignore these sorts of annoying things others refer to as "facts."

"It will also help us transform our industries...by generating 5 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."

Wow...now we're up to 5 million new jobs. Again, there are only 1.1M lawyers in the U.S. (or 1.2M plumbers if you prefer). Sounds great...of course they can't be outsourced because obviously this is a WORLDWIDE number, not a U.S.-only number. You'd think he made this announcement sitting side-straddle on a unicorn!

I think it's safe to assume that Obama will be supporting reinstating the drilling ban...enjoy the low gas prices as they won't last.

Doodle analysis: Obama and Palin

2008-11-19T13:59:00.002-05:00

Apparently CNN isn't letting up in the election aftermath by continuing to elevate the Obamessiah and committing character assassination of Sarah Palin by having doodle "experts" analyze one sample of doodling from each. Caution: Both the extraneous effort to praise Obamessiah will make you want to vomit and the cheeky jabs at Palin will give you urges to choke your monitor.

Leadership via polling...again

2008-11-17T08:44:00.004-05:00

People may not remember the Clinton administration, but Bill was big on polls. He couldn't hardly make a decision without first assembling a focus group. Well, for those of you who missed those days, it seems that Obama is bringing the concept back. Check out Obama's "WhiteHouse2" website...and click on "priorities" to see what his most avid supporters are advocating. You too can help influence policy by voting on your issue of choice.

Note the exactness of the real White House web site in regards to the site appearance. It's almost as if there are two White Houses right now, as Obama's web site suggests...

If you click on Obama's list of priorities, I guess you can see what bright ideas are gaining steam or waning in the mind of The One. Just heard a speech? Go to his list of priorities to see if he meant it by its position on the charts (where's Kasey Kasem?). Haven't heard the latest view of an important issue? Check his priority list to see if you're still in the Top 10, 50, or 100...

"Only McCain supporters capable of racism"

2008-11-17T07:11:00.005-05:00

...or at least that is what you're supposed to believe after reading AP writer Jesse Washington's latest masterpiece entitled, "Election Spurs 'hundreds' of race threats, crimes." Every single example cited in the article was an anti-Obama incident. He must not have Googled the correct terms during his research, since doing so would have revealed anti-McCain vandalism in York County, South Carolina...Prince George's County, Maryland...Missouri City, Texas...Franklin County, Pennsylvania...and the incident in Prince William County, Virginia...just to name a few.

Or how about the threats of boycott against a Prince George's County hotel? You start going down a dangerous road of censorship when you call together a boycott of a business merely because of their political preference. I'm sorry but threatening someone's livelihood over the election has far more weight than even the worst reported anti-Obama act. I'm sure if it were a pro-Obama hotel being boycotted, it would have been a hate crime (what ISN'T a hate crime, by the way? Is there a LOVE crime? I digress...)

I guess Jesse Washington simply forgot to cite ANY ONE of these. Dare I speculate that it could be that Jesse Washington may have a slight bias because he himself is black?

Secretary of State Clinton?

2008-11-14T20:17:00.003-05:00

It seems as though only Barack Obama found something special in the foreign policy experience (or lack thereof) of Hillary Clinton during the democratic primaries. That's the only way to explain the fact that she is now under consideration for Secretary of State.

Maybe it was the whizzing bullets in Bosnia that never happened. Maybe it was for the time she brokered peace in Northern Ireland.

One must wonder which of Obama's own words have now convinced him that she is a good choice for Secretary of State:

She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

No, after this, one must realize that Obama perhaps has something else in mind. If Clinton were to remain a senator, she could potentially become one of the biggest thorns in his side as the also-ran during the presidential race that he would then have to kowtow to in order to secure her vote for anything he wanted to do. By getting her to join his campaign, he can call the shots, not to mention put her in harm's way as the "lead patrol" in any murky relations with countries that might deem it victory for them to send a message to the U.S. with violence.

To look at it from her perspective you have to wonder if representing New York is wearing on her as a "been there, done that" situation after running for president. She wields considerable power in Congress, not to mention her voice having been the runner up this past election. It causes a scratching of the head when thinking about why she would walk away from that situation to work for her former (and arguably current) nemesis. One can only conclude that she felt particularly vulnerable on the topic of foreign policy during her campaign, and is looking at the bigger picture for a potential run in four or eight years. Maybe she feels that if she succeeds in diplomacy with some of our greatest international challenges, then she'd be a lock later on. However, I don't think that she has thought long and hard about the potential damage that can be done for her political career should she fail.

I think that her choosing correctly in this situation would require being correct about her nemesis' reasons for choosing her. She's more hawkish than he regarding foreign affairs, so perhaps she sees it as an opportunity to pick him apart from within if things go south between them after he makes some bad choices...only time will tell.

Here we go again...

2008-11-12T07:59:00.007-05:00

Well you've got to commend them for their good timing. Only a week has gone by since the election and already the American Humanist Association has rolled out a new anti-God ad campaign that will be displayed on DC Metro during the holidays.

I usually try not to get worked up over this sort of nonsense, but the article rightfully suggests to follow the money for this organization, and you'll get a greater insight into the hostility behind this ad campaign.

Louis Appignani recently gave the AHA a $1 million gift, and incidentally founded the U.N. office for the AHA that is named after him. In his 2005 rant entitled "Roadmap to 2050 and a Humanist World," Appignani states very extreme views against religious beliefs (emphases in bold are my own):

Obsolete, literally medieval religious mythology continues to delay progress in ethics, culture, and the sciences. It must be replaced wherever possible by the humanist outlook.

Religious institutions should be viewed as historical and ceremonial artifacts only-as ancient legacies on a par with European royalty and breathtaking old cathedrals: charming, perhaps, but ultimately without purpose except as tourist attractions. Already, very few citizens of developed countries take their religion seriously-with the glaring exception of the United States. An argument can therefore be made that the United States represents a backward intellectual culture.

As the human race evolves, individuals must develop a heightened ethical consciousness based not on the Ten Commandments or other supposed commands of God but on the consequences of human actions in this world.

Interesting world view to say the least. In other words, Appignani is advocating that we do whatever we feel is right for ourselves until it reaches a point that it has consequences and causes "ethical re-evaluation." There's another word for this and it's called being unaccountable for our actions. It's also called the easy road. It's hard to believe and follow God because we are constantly in conflict with His righteousness and our natural design/inclination to do what is WRONG, and that is the heart of the problem with this ad that is going to run as it purports that all we have to be is "more good than bad" and everything will be okay. What I would LOVE to ask these people is: "according to what or who's standard?" Ridiculous!

On a related note, to illustrate the AHA's cluelessness even more, Appignani's Institute for Humanist Studies has come to believe that voting in churches must be stopped because (I will paraphrase) "people who vote in churches tend to vote more consistently with Biblical beliefs than in other voting venues so if they didn't vote in a church they would vote differently." Uh, NEWSFLASH, genius: it's called voting consistently with your beliefs. I guess that's a confusing concept since you have to have moral convictions and beliefs in order to vote in accordance with them. Try not to laugh out loud when I tell you that the "research" cited was a Stanford study led by S. Christian Wheeler, associate professor of marketing, who said of his study:

"Environmental cues, such as objects or places, can activate related constructs within individuals and influence the way they behave," says Berger. now an assistant professor of marketing at the Wharton school. "Voting in a school, for example, could activate the part of a person's identity that cares about kids, or norms about taking care of the community. Similarly, voting in a church could activate norms of following church doctrine. Such effects may even occur outside an individual's awareness."

Again, ridiculous. I DO vote in a school and if the school system wanted to take out a bond to borrow money, and I happened to disagree with it, I'm not going to be influenced to change my vote to "yes" just because my polling place happens to be a school...that is essentially what this study is saying.

Remember though that it is this flawed logic that the Institute of Humanist Studies is holding up as validation of their "beliefs" (do atheists have those?) Oh, did I mention that Dr. Wheeler is all of about 35 years old? Being 37 myself, I'm not knocking him for his physical youth, but I am expressing a bit of skepticism towards the idea of attaching the word "expert" to an associate professor that has spent his entire life inside the bubble of academia.

I digress...back to the ad. Am I the only one who finds it interesting that they chose to depict a guy in a Santa suit, since, after all, that ISN'T what Christmas is about? But I guess to an atheist Christmas IS all about buying STUFF. Seriously, don't be complacent -- it's part of their subtle subversion of their real premise, and that is to remove the core and original belief that the holiday is all about celebrating the ultimate gift from God -- His Son...who died for all of us and our sins...including the godless.

My recommendation: Go to Zazzle and (WARNING!: shameless self-promotion) order my new sticker and stick them all over these ads (if you ride Metro).

Makes all kinds of sense in an upside-down world...

2008-11-11T23:06:00.005-05:00

I think I hurt my neck doing a double-take when I read today that not only would Barack Obama likely avoid audit for his campaign fundraising, and to rub salt in the wound, that John McCain would definitely be audited. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

This is a terrible precedent being set by the Federal Election Commission, and is yet another example of how the American people are being woefully unrepresented in government operations. In case you didn't know, the FEC is comprised of six Commissioners and are all appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. No more than three can be from one political party, and since no one except democrats and republicans have ever been president, it's safe to assume that at any given time in history, three have been democrats and three have been republicans. Since there is no mechanism to break any dead lock, not a whole lot gets done. I imagine it would be a lot like playing rock, paper, scissors without the paper and scissors. I'm sorry but that is completely inept.

To get any action to be performed voluntarily the offense would apparently have to be SO bad that one of the three in the offending party would have to stand up and say, "Whoa...I'm sorry but I can't defend that." Given that, are you telling me that not one of the three current democratic commissioners aren't NOW SAYING THIS? Oh that's right...when it's their guy, the rules change. I'm sure they're secretly loving the irony that they are required to audit McCain because he accepted public campaign funding, while the decision to audit Obamessiah or not rests solely in their hands...which isn't going to happen.

Not to single anybody out, but only one of the FEC commissioners is clearly a democrat based on her professional history having had worked for Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), but Cynthia Bauerly knows full well that if she were to stand up for what is proper and appropriate, she would likely get a dead fish in the mail from Rahm Emanuel.

This is your inept government at work, everyone...getting a warm fuzzy yet?

Who is Sonal Shah?

2008-11-10T22:27:00.005-05:00

I was forwarded an article about one of Obama's Transition Team members, Sonal Shah, and I have to admit that at first I didn't find anything of interest regarding her alleged associations to the Vishwa Hari Parishad (VHP), a group responsible for the massacre of Indian muslims in 2002 and recent violence against Christians.

Sonal Shah's involvement with these groups has yet to be proven, and it appears that her parents are the ones closely involved with the group, but after looking further into her co-founding of Indicorps, other questions emerged for me. Since she is a co-founder of this group, I decided to look at the partners of Indicorps to see what sort of company they keep.

One partner group of interest was the Manav Sadhna...I went to the "Our Projects" section, then clicked "Spiritual." Two projects of interest are entitled, "Spiritual Prayer" and "Love All, Serve All."

The "Spiritual Prayer" project shows a list of prayers, and I found clues to their underlying beliefs from them, which basically promote the idea that all religions are the same. Here are some examples (bold is my emphasis):

od you are the Hindu Gods, Narayan and Purushottama
God you are Buddha, you are you the sun and the fire (Parsis)
God you are from the Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths
God you are in the form of Vasudeva and Vishva. You are in the form of happiness
God, you are only one.

This promotes the idea that no one is wrong and all ideas are valid...these conflict with my Christian beliefs...

Speak the truth, practice non-violence of thoughts, speech, actions, do not steal, do not accumulate more than you need
Control all your senses, perform efforts on your own, do not believe in untouchabilty, all are equal
Do not have fear of anything, use things made in your own country, sacrifice tastes, all religions are equal
Practice these principals, bow down with respect and practice these things in your life.

Again, this negates the Christian belief of Jesus and His death for our sins...

Here is the excerpt from "Love All, Serve All" (again, bold emphasis is mine):

Value education at Manav Sadhna emphasizes spiritual development. All daily activities commence with an “All Religions” prayer. Beliefs, symbols and texts of all religions are discussed, so that children develop a respect for all faiths. Children are also encouraged to practice meditation for inner spiritual strength. Manav Sadhna sees every religious festival as an occasion of joy to celebrate with vigor and enthusiasm. Festivals like Christmas, Eid, and Diwali are observed with equal zeal, and are used to encourage children from all castes and all religions to celebrate, in unison. By inculcating children with the concept of communal harmony at an early age, we hope to prevent communal violence in the future generations.

By celebrating all religious observances, it dilutes their importance and significance, in my view. Again, it promotes an "everyone's right, nobody's wrong" philosophy...the corner stone of a socialist society. I think it is reasonable to suspect that Sonal Shah shares these values, and that Barack Obama in turn shares these values. What Barack Obama seems to lack in Christian convictions, he makes up for with aspirations for a socialist society, and it is very possible that Sonal Shah is providing him a road map of a way to unite people under a national cause.

Annie, go get a gun?

2008-11-10T12:01:00.010-05:00

There have been several news reports about a sharp increase in guns sales out of fear that Obama and the Democratic-led Congress will make it difficult to either get guns or buy ammunition. Heavy speculation is that the likely method would be to assess a hefty tax on the price of ammunition.

Here is a sampling of some recent articles:

NY TIMES

ABC's Nightline

Oregon's Statesman Journal

Business Day

The National Rifle Association web site references a gun ban agenda that was listed on Obama's Transition web site, but has since been removed. Now the most you will see is a very vanilla statement about his general plan for the country under "The Agenda" section. Clearly, there is reason for concern as it is clear that Obama's staff is finding it harder and harder to be transparent about future plans and intentions. One needs to ask why are campaign statements floating around in cyberspace not being left alone? Why is there a constant effort to revise previous statements?

Keep this handy from Hot Air back in September in case he reneges on his promise.

See today's poll on this topic along the right column.

So of course the topic to procure our first home defense weapon is being discussed in our home. My better half wants a good old handgun...but I want something that makes more of a statement --

Meet the Mossberg 500 aka "Zombie Stopper"...as I've said to my wife, I want to send a gentle but firm warning as to what is about to come next for a would-be intruder with the deep, distinct sound of my first round being chambered with the pump action.

However, if I want such a weapon, I need to hurry as it is clear that Obama's definition of an "assault weapon" includes any weapon procured for the use of the military or law enforcement...and Mossberg is one of the preferred shotguns by law enforcement. Granted that the ones for law enforcement use have an "A1" designation, do you think Obama and the democrats will split hairs on that? I think that if he adopts Joe Biden's expanded definition of an assault weapon, Obama will outlaw ALL types of Mossberg 500 shotguns. Of course, we can't trust FactCheck.org's claim that Obama would not expand the list of weapons on the assault weapons ban, since FactCheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, a key funder of ACORN.

ACORN Alert!

2008-11-07T22:32:00.008-05:00

According to The American Spectator, the official presiding over the recount of ballots in Minnesota between Al Franken and Norm Coleman is closely tied to ACORN.

This fact has yet to be noticed or mentioned by the mainstream media. At the time of this article (early Friday morning on November 7,2008), the gap was 341 votes...twelve hours later, the gap is now only 221.

UPDATE: GAP IS NOW 204!

UPDATE: The Liberal Power Struggle Begins

2008-11-07T15:00:00.003-05:00

Take THAT, Senator Reid! Today it was reported that Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), is in talks with the GOP to join its caucus.

Apparently Joe is sending a clear message that he's not waiting around for the Senate Supreme Leader to rule on his "case."

UPDATE: Related to the original story below (see "The Liberal Power Struggle Begins"), the Henry Waxman power play on John Dingell's chairman seat was apparently orchestrated by the Obama camp.

Ohio official responsible for looking into Joe the Plumber confronted

2008-11-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

Fox News' Jesse Waters (for The O'Reilly Factor) confronts Helen E. Jones-Kelley, Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, who illegally looked into the background of Joe The Plumber.

Caption this pic contest

2008-11-07T13:51:00.001-05:00

Make your own caption for this picture in "comments". Winner gets posted.

Teacher berates students with military parents for supporting McCain

2008-11-07T12:56:00.004-05:00

UPDATE: It appears that the Superintendent of the Cumberland County Schools system has no intention of letting this incident go. Hopefully we'll see that tenure doesn't make you iron-clad.

Check THIS out!

Fayetteville, NC teacher Diantha Harris browbeats soldier's daughter for parent's choice to vote for McCain. Looks like teacher may face disciplinary action...but here's the kicker (Kool Aid alert)...

...she claims that her comments were "doctored." Watch the video yourself and judge for yourself...by the way...the subtitles are in Swedish.

Info on how to let her school board know how you feel

FCC Czar selection pending

2008-11-07T10:20:00.000-05:00

The man who has been tapped to play hatchet man for conservative talk radio is rumored to be none other than democrat DC lawyer Henry Rivera. Who is this guy you ask? He's a former FCC Commissioner under Reagan who resigned in frustration over the inability to obtain greater regulation of television programming for children. Here's an excerpt summary of his view on the matter found in a record of his testimony at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance:

At a meeting of the Albuquerque, New Mexico Bar
Association last November, Commissioner Rivera said that
"Broadcasters haven't been paying enough attention to the needs
of children. .. .the sad shape children's television is in today
serves to remind me that although reliance on market forces is
normally preferable to regulation, blind, unthinking or
rhetorical reliance on the marketplace is an abdication of our
duty to the public under the Communications Act."

If you read the testimony, you may agree that he was onto something. Look at the paltry offerings on Saturday morning television for children these days. A lot of offerings involve fantasy violence, which I argue is hardly appropriate for children of any age. While I may admire the stance of Mr. Rivera in this 1983 hearing, you can draw the conclusion that he has an over-arching interest in using government regulation to create a supposed balance as called for in the "Fairness Doctrine." Our only hope would be that Mr. Rivera realizes the fine line being walked with the First Amendment and that any subsequent action to pursue the Fairness Doctrine would subject both radio and television to the same standards so that cable news outlets like ONN (Obama News Network) and MSLSD enjoy the same wrath by Charles Schumer who somehow attempted to draw a common link between conservative talk radio and pornography.

I personally would like to see the Fairness Doctrine, if implemented, applied to public-funded PBS Commentator Bill Moyers.

Chris Matthews: "My job is to make this new presidency work."

2008-11-07T08:44:00.000-05:00

A funny thing happened on the way to the election. MSBHO commentator Chris Matthews claimed on "Morning Joe" the day after the election that it was his job to "make this new presidency work."

Really? So what does that encompass? Making sure that legitimate but negative news stories about the Obamessiah never see the light of day? Spinning Obama White House policies and statements that conflict with logic and common sense to the point that you get a chill up your leg? Glad to see that this arm of the Ministry of Truth will continue the same operations that made the election coverage a travesty, causing the term "journalistic integrity" to become an oxymoron.

The Liberal Power Struggle Begins

2008-11-06T23:37:00.000-05:00

It was reported yesterday that Henry Waxman (D-CA) is vying for democratic colleague John Dingell's (D-MI) chairman spot on the influential Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently Dingell is too friendly to the auto industry in his state and Waxman therefore deems himself a better stewart of the liberal agenda who will likely push for punishments if Detroit doesn't start pumping out cars that get 80 mpg. Never mind that the difference between the failed American auto industry and the Japanese auto industry is largely the UAW that is more about retaining benefits than putting out quality vehicles that Americans would want to buy. This is the primary pinhead who will be pushing for us to pay in the short term at the pump in favor of green initiatives and stricter emissions controls.

This is just the beginning of much infighting that is likely to occur both within the democratic party and between the Obama White House and Congress. As another Wall Street Journal article pointed out yesterday, there are Congressional players who will undoubtedly challenge Obama with their own agendas:

David Obey (D-WI). A visit to the issues page of his web site makes it clear that Rep. Obey could give a flip about our military operations abroad, as the military isn't even one of the issues listed on his site. He's very much an advocate of spending less money on the military and more on domestic programs. As the WSJ article points out, this conflicts squarely with any Obama plans to recreate the surge in Afghanistan. I might agree with Obey that it would be ideal to spend more money on domestic programs but not before we catch Osama Bin Laden and "bring him to justice"(if I was still in the military I would look soooo forward to a military trial for "accidentally" putting a bullet into OBL upon capture). But unlike Obey, I would require domestic agencies like the Department of Education to prove that they can start turning out quality product before pumping more money into that debacle. Any messiness between Obama and Obey would help the republicans in 2012.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Here is the lead proponent for government take over of other American industries, Hugo Chavez style. The more bailouts this guy can issue in exchange for government control, the happier this leftist is. Next on the bailout agenda: the US auto industry.

George Miller. Have your heard of the crazy idea to nationalize all retirement plans under one linked to Social Security? Yeah, this is the guy pushing that nuttiness. Here's the real deal...the Social Security fund has been raided over and over again and is backed only by paper that says "I.O.U." This plan is nothing more than a scheme to help boomers realize full retirement benefits and punting the problem to the next generations by leaving them a ticking time bomb goose egg. This pyramid scheme is gaining traction with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Watch to see whether Obama gets his middle class tax cuts or if this "plan" goes forward...both cannot succeed.

Want to know who will be leading the way to waste precious time in Congress to pursue the indictment of George W. Bush for war crimes after he's out of office? That would be John Conyers (D-MI). He may establish himself as one of the many poster boys for how democratic partisanship will get in the way of convincing the remaining republicans in Congress to get on board with Obama initiatives.

Pete Stark (D-CA). Like Charles Schumer, Representative Stark will be not only pushing for national health care, he'll be pushing the Canada model of a single-payer system...you know...the one that has Canadians crossing the border into America to get basic care because of the long wait times. Liberals like Stark refuse to understand that there is nothing wrong with American health care except for the access to it.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). He's already throwing down the gauntlet to moderates like Joe Lieberman by taking bi-partisans like him to the woodshed by threatening to unseat them on key committees. Way to go Harry...keep showing the true colors of the new "it's our way or the highway" partisan democratic leadership while claiming a bi-partisan vision.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). This one's a hard nut to crack. According to the WSJ, she's laying down plans for a permanent tax CUT. That's so...George Bush! What the hey? Maybe republican ideas are only bad when their republican ideas? Now that they're out of office, Pelosi's Ministry of Truth is now starting to tout the same ideas from the now outgoing administration. The key thing to look for from Ms. Pelosi is the frequency of her disingenuous missives towards republicans.

Creepy coincidence

2008-11-06T16:13:00.000-05:00

On November 5th the winning lottery number in the Illinois pick 3 was 666.

GAO unveils new transition web site for Obama and Congress

2008-11-06T13:40:00.000-05:00

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) published a new transition web site for President-elect Obama and the new Congress. This is nothing out of the ordinary first of all...it's just that this is the first presidential transition that didn't occur in the analog stone age. I partially jest that back in 2000, computers, let alone the Internet, were still relatively new to the government.

Anyhoo...you may be interested in the list of 13 most urgent issues facing the nation:

1 oversight of financial institutions and markets,
2 U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,
3 protecting the homeland,
4 undisciplined defense spending,
5 improving the U.S. image abroad,
6 finalizing plans for the 2010 Census,
7 caring for service members,
8 preparing for public health emergencies,
9 revamping oversight of food safety,
10 restructuring the approach to surface transportation,
11 retirement of the Space Shuttle,
12 ensuring an effective transition to digital TV, and
13 rebuilding military readiness.

Whoa! Back the truck up...what did number 12 say? Yes that's right...if we dork up the transition to digital TV there will be RIOTS in the streets! Hopefully they're not in list of importance as I don't find it more important than rebuilding military readiness (unless you're a "Gray's Anatomy" junkie I suppose).

For more fun, check out the tab specifically for #12 to read the overstated claims. Some gem examples:

"...should the overall DTV transition not proceed smoothly, it could undermine the public’s confidence in government."

You mean the $700B bailout of Wall Street and the mortgage crisis haven't already done this? It will take a failure to be adequately prepared with television conversion kits to lose public confidence? I can hear it now...

Joe Bob: "What?!? The television stopped working? That's it! Those losers in Washington are sending our country into the crapper! You can take away my foreclosed home, but you CAN'T TAKE AWAY "The Ghost Whisperer!""

Or how about:

"Over one-third of US households are at some risk of losing television service since they have at least one television not connected to cable or satellite."

Really? One-third? One-third of homes have no cable or satellite service? Let's test that...

According to the US Census, there are 111,617,402 households in America as of 2006. Using Department of Energy stats for the percentages of homes with cable or satellite, I calculate that the figure is closer to 20%. And these stats were from 2006 and 2001...leaving out the recent mass purchasing of flat screen televisions the last couple of years as prices have come down. Maybe their own statement later on backs up my claim:

"We found that up to 35 percent of US households could be affected by the transition, however, as of August 31, 2008, only 13 percent of households had requested coupons for converter boxes." It's a stretch but if you assume that I'm right about the numbers being smaller than my 20% calculation because of increased buying of flat screens, then 13% seems plausibly in the ball park...

"Of at risk households who planned to take action, many indicated they would be likely to use the coupon subsidy program, but only a third knew how to actually obtain a coupon." Yeah, let's talk about that coupon. It's good for $40...good luck finding one for that price that won't break in a year or less. But the bigger question that is begging to be asked is: Why is the government subsidizing the purchase of conversion equipment for people who haven't bought a television since the "Golden Girls" were on prime time? Seriously, the question to ask yourself is whether or not you bought a new television since the thespian masterpiece "Karen Sisco" was on the air as the transition to digital tuners in all televisions occurred in 2004.

Unpaid Obama Campaign Workers in Indianapolis

2008-11-06T12:43:00.001-05:00

Apparently some Obama campaign workers in Indianapolis are getting stiffed for their last-minute campaign work leading up to the election. I won’t be disingenuous so as to blame Obama of any wrongdoing here…it is clearly the responsibility of the organization involved entitled “Vote Corps.” I Googled it…I Wiki’ed it. Nothing…nada…zilch. To not have a Web presence means that this organization is seriously grassroots…which means that it is either woefully disorganized or fraudulent. The truth is always somewhere in the middle it seems, but not having been there I won’t speculate. Sike! Yes I will…this seemingly unimportant story begs some other “big picture” questions.

Let’s start with the fact that the volunteers were paid with pre-paid Visa cards. Hmmm…I think that it’s safe to assume that no one at Vote Corps was planning to send out W-2’s to these folks so as to ensure that their payments were properly recorded with the Internal Revenue Service…especially since according to the video report, the group “no longer officially exists”. I guess if you open and close an operation within a tax year you have no obligation to report any monies paid for services to individuals who would have to report that as income. I think it is also safe to assume that none of these volunteers were going to consider this as reportable income to the IRS when they filed their taxes since, after all, payment was in the form of a credit card not actual money (whatever!).

But, as the story continues, the Vote Corps people eventually showed up and started paying people, but didn’t apparently pay all that was due them…and of course the organization said in effect, “the check is in the mail.” Again, I must ask --mismanagement or fraud? Time will tell.

Further evidence of the fact that these volunteers aren’t used to paying taxes came from their own words:

“They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90,” said Charles Martin. Well Charles, if you paid taxes that would be about right…welcome to the real world. But alas you may be part of the 40% of the population that doesn’t pay any taxes so you wouldn’t of course be used to this sort of concept.

“It should have been $480. It’s $230,” said Imani Sankofa. Congratulations Imani you’ve been deemed to have made too much money at once…this would be the “windfall tax” that your president wants to impose on corporations and probably individuals later on.

If you think these folks are mad now, just wait until Obama doesn’t come through with sending them a tax refund for taxes they didn’t pay. Do you think that they’ll come knocking on our doors?

Here's another video story of the event.

Obama White House gets a dog

2008-11-05T13:53:00.001-05:00

Well that didn't take very long. Obama has already asked US Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) to be his Chief of Staff. He's described in the link above as "sharp-tongued" and "sharp elbowed." That's a really nice way to say that if you have someone that needs convincing by sending the goon squad, Rahm is your man. I guess an Obama gesture of "reaching across the aisle" involves a baseball bat.

There are conflicting stories regarding who was involved, but here are some of the resume highlights for "Rahm-bo":

1. His appointment would represent Obama's first import of good, old-fashioned Chicago politics. He's quoted as saying that democrats represent a break from the status quo and cronyism, yet his own roots seem to imply that he's no different.

2. There are legendary stories of psychopathic behavior like sending an ex-girlfriend a dead fish and stabbing a table incessantly during a victory dinner akin to something you'd see in an Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro performance. There are some potential explanations for this. One might be that he was forced to take ballet as a young boy.

Let's look at his record briefly...

Just when you thought that Obama was pro-choice, we may have found a more left democrat...NARAL gives him a 100% voting record rating. Use your imagination for what all that emcompasses.

He's against defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Curiously was in favor of making the Patriot Act permanent.

Rated by the HRC as having a 100% pro-gay stance

The Christian Coalition gave him an 8% grade...which means that he's pretty anti-family (even though he has one).

He's against the requirement to show a photo ID to vote.

Is for the immediate pull out of troops from Iraq.

Is against all anti-immigration measures.

Curiously against ending offshore tax havens.

Just some highlights for you to enjoy. Sounds like a real uniter. So the bottom line is that appointing Emanuel enables Obama to keep his nice-guy image while his junkyard dog does all the dirty work. Most likely, Emanuel will be in charge of the far left wing agenda and will meet with Obama often to determine the what and when of things that will be "safe" to unleash upon the public.

Barry the Voter

2008-11-05T10:40:00.001-05:00

"This is my ACORN membership card...I get to vote like five times, right?"

So now what?

2008-11-05T09:12:00.000-05:00

It is the morning after -- November 5, 2008, and I'm still processing the election results. America's desire to elect its first black president was so great that it overlooked his politics. I'm not that old but I've never seen a presidential candidate get so little vetting by the media. I won't rehash all the old factors that never got traction prior to his election. I will instead focus on where we may go from here.

I will say that I am proud for America that we have elected a black president. Blacks have indeed waited a long time for representation at this level of government so hopefully now there will be a greater sense among them that there is but ONE America. I'm not a big John Wayne fan, but I agree with him that a hyphenated America (i.e. African-American, Asian-American, etc.) is a divided America. What I think will happen though is that blacks will end up feeling lukewarm towards him by the end of his term because he will not solve poverty, though many would like to believe that. What he MAY do however is make that pool of folks BIGGER through taxation (yes, we'll ALL be taxed when he lets those Bush tax cuts expire people!). No, Obamanation won't pay your mortgage or your car loan through the magical taxation of the highest 5%.

So I see two possible models that Obama may govern. One extreme would be that Obama goes to the extreme left to appeal to the loonies. Things that come to mind are: streamlined processes for killing the unborn, stifling our free media via the Fairness Doctrine, and/or discouraging Second Amendment rights using tactics used by the idiots running Washington DC. Government-run health care (now THERE'S an oxymoron!) and overhauls of tax laws to redistribute wealth also fall into this category. Keep an eye on his appointments to see if ACORN loyalists or mutual friends of Bill Ayers get in the door -- you think I'm kidding but I'm fully expecting a disciple of Ayers to be appointed to the Department of Education so their loony "social justice" enterprise can be unleashed full scale.

The other extreme I see is Barack Obama actually being kept at bay by the remaining Republicans in Congress with the help of "Blue Dogs" (but keep an eye out for pork for these guys to vote in the affirmative for Obamanation initiatives) due to Obama's extreme ambitions being too extreme perhaps for even some liberals. If he is effectively neutered from putting into place his most extreme ambitions, his presidency could perhaps go down historically as nothing more than the second coming of JC (as in Jimmy Carter) in that he would go down in the books as a wimp with no moral compass or meaningful convictions to contribute to the American story still being written.

So this blog will be dedicated to revealing and discussing all Executive Orders by President Obama (that hurts to type that) and other shenanigans performed by liberal pinheads like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It will be amazing to see what else the demoncrats try to blame on the minority Republicans over the next four years. This blog will also bring to light stories that the liberal media tries to outright ignore or bury on page 23 in the Travel and Living section.