30 April 2009

With Obambi, the buck stops...

...at the doe...

Does anyone else find it amazing how when news doesn't reflect kindly on the president, that it's someone else's fault? Recently, the president decided to recreate the panic of 9/11 by flying "Scare Force One" through New York City (perhaps he's jealous that Bushitler enjoyed higher approval ratings than he did) for a "photo op." He took responsibility, after denying he knew anything about the flyover, by blaming a staffer in the White House Military Office for the panic, but not for the $330K in taxpayer waste. For all his Shelleian effect on the English language, former President Bush was at least the "Decider," and realized he was responsible for everything his administration engaged in. Of course, that's not the only thing that he wants absolution of responsibility from...

It should be common knowledge by now that the president does not like hard questions. Throughout the campaign, it was shown that questions that leave the president pining for an answer are efforts at subtle racism, or engaging in "Republican campaign tactics." As Dennis Miller said, "we're living in odd times when Miss California gets tougher questions than the president..." In his 100th Day Celebration, there were no questions about Monday's widespread panic, in fact, the media worked overtime to absolve him of any responsibility (the wisdom of Ann Coulter shines through again...). Either the media realizes, or is just that dumb, that covering for Obama's naïveté will wind up costing this nation dearly in the long run. I'm all about holding our elected officials accountable, and I had no problem with valid (and I stress the word, valid) criticisms of Bush policy. Amurican lives and our interests, as well as the lives of others around the globe, are at stake...it is not the time to coddle a president that the media should have "vetted," instead of letting him grow into the job.

It's one thing to have a confident leader, it's another to have a leader who believes that he does no wrong. Without considering the facts, the president has decided that methods, that proved useful in gathering intel, were not as useful as other methods, whose failure rate has yet to be determined, and deemed them illegal. This is a move, not to keep Amuricans safe, but to cater to people who despise Amurica and its ideals, like European pacifists and the Code Pink crowd. He cannot ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that CIA officials could have extracted useful intel using methods other than waterboarding, the caterpillar, or the ladybug. It amazes me how liberals, who in one breath, claim to love this country more than conservatives do, and in another, bitch and moan when certifiably useful methods are used to keep the nation safe.

Liberals use the canard that they will stand strong in a time bomb ticking scenario. This is odd, when they give pause to a scenario like, a knife-wielding man is approaching your family and your only weapon against him is a handgun. Do you use it? Based on their arguments in the "War on Terrah" "Battle on Man-Made Disasters" debate, liberals will try to reason with the knife-wielding man as he slashes their family to pieces. Liberals cannot name an alternate method they would use to gather intel, but have deemed the proven ones as "torture." Obviously, they believe that legality is relative...like all their other central beliefs.

...so I wonder, when will we get a president, instead of a person continuing to campaign for the office?

Have a great day...

29 April 2009

Specter's switch is not as newsworthy as people think...

...he just made it official...

Ann Coulter writes in Guilty that when a Republican switches to either the Democratic Party or goes Independent, it is treated as a noteworthy event. She recalled the story of former Vermont senator, Jim Jeffords, who switched from the Republican Party to an independent and caucused with the Democrats. That move gave us the privilege of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Jeffords was lauded as a "maverick," "an independent," his move was indeed, "unprecedented," and how his switch would impact former President Bush's trade agenda and other key initiatives. Lost in the shuffle was a certain senator who got all kinds of pissed off because as a result, he lost his senate committee chairmanship, and proposed a ban on future party switches. One guess as to who that was...

When one considers the voting habits of Arlen Specter, one is led to believe that it was only a matter of time before he would make his party switch official. He had been consulting with Democrats on policy matters and took the views that were directly opposed by his party base. This is the guy the RNSC, former US Senator Rick Santorum, and former President Bush felt represented Pennsylvania better than Pat Toomey in 2004, who almost beat Specter in his 2004 Senate primary. Earth should have spoken clearly to Specter then that his views were out of touch with the Pennsylvania Republican base. He was and will always be a social and economic liberal, why he associated with the GOP requires mind-numbing psychoanalysis. h/t: Timothy Carney

There is one in the blue blog world, who isn't so excited about having another liberal in the Democratic Party, for exactly the same reasons the GOP base was kinda iffy about him...he doesn't vote in lockstep with the US Senate leadership. There maybe a more sinister plot afoot to keep in mind with Specter's defection. The latest polling for the GOP Senate primary had his challenger, the guy who almost beat him in 2004, wiping the floor with him. Like Michael Bloomberg, Specter felt that he had a better chance of winning his election by switching parties. Clever, but dishonest nonetheless.

It seems that the new Democrat is fitting in with his party quite nicely. In his first presser after making his party identification official, he blamed the Republican Party for moving to the "far right," which is odd, considering how he and his moderate counterparts, worked their damndest to move the GOP to its current meely-mouthed status. He, along with Snowe, Graham, McCain, and Collins have caused many to be confused about for what the Republican Party stands. He does note that fewer people identify with his former party than ever before, but wants to minimize his influence on people having that belief. I'm of the Ted Nugent-Rush Limbaugh School of Thought on this matter, let's go RINO-hunting.

Have a great day...

28 April 2009

With showers of praise...

...the president has still managed to muck things up...

The much celebrated "100 Days" of a new presidential administration is upon us. Though none have mattered as much as President Obama's. Upon taking his inauguration, he began reversing many of his predecessor's policies, from lifting the ban on federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, closing GITMO , without coming up with a plan to house them, announcing a withdrawal date for our forces in Iraq, and increasing the deficit by signing into law a bill that gambled our future away, instead of trying to shrink it. The deficit was approximately $8.45B before the Democrats took the majority in Congress on 4 Jan 2007, and is expected to increase to $16.17B by the end of 2012, the final year of President Obama's first term. This article, from Yahoo News, seems to forget this, as well as many of Obama's missteps, during his first 100 Days.

Believing this as some event worthy of a national holiday, President Obama has requested the networks to grant him a primetime slot to celebrate. All but one has granted the request, the holdout being Fox, not FNC. I'm not too keen on TV programming, but many shows are coming to an end for the season and I would think the networks would be very reluctant to have him preempt their shows, especially since they've bent over backwards to give him more positive coverage than his two predecessors. Our president obviously believes that the media will continue to cover for him, but like Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, and Richard Clarke, the media will move on, he's not the brand new toy anymore.

Unlike the crappola that the media, and his acolytes, are claiming, President Obama has proven that he is just as divisive, if not more, than former President Bush. As Ann Coulter mentioned in her CPAC speech, the media acts as if every move made by the president is unprecedented and everyone must know about it. There aren't many accomplishments made by President Obama in his first 100 Days, as noted here, but that hasn't prevented the spin doctors from claiming that Obama's achieved more than others at similar points in their presidency. Or, as in Eric Boehlert's case, believing that Bush was treated more favorably by the Obamedia than Oprompter (stop laughing...).

Left out of many descriptions of President Obama's first 100 Days, will be how he's confirmed Osama bin Laden's thoughts about Amurica, in that we are "paper tigers." He has apologized to the world for the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush 43 Years, dismissing it as "arrogant." Unlike former President Bush, Oprompter has at least expressed a desire to jail his political opponents for having an opinion different than his, while shaking the hands of a dictator, who referred to a sitting US president as "the devil." He "dissed" our biggest ally, Britain, by giving both the Prime Minister and the Queen, gifts that didn't reflect the long history between the two nations, and instead made nice with the "petro-dictators" of the Middle East. It seems that those who oppose Obamessiah's dictates are given short-shrift, while he sacrifices our safety by ponying up to people who salivate at a wounded United States.

Of course some are going to compare President Bush to Obama's 100 Days, and you can count me among them. Media Matters has a posting claiming that the media had set a low bar for Bushitler, and praised him for having cleared them. That may be true, but the media made up for their apostasy by hammering the president eight months after he took office. Something makes me doubt they'll do the same for Obama. President Bush was not doggedly trying to change his predecessor's policies, nor did he constantly blame President Clinton for handing him a recession, a dangerous world ruled by terrorism, and former Vice President Al Gore still being a sore loser. Did I mention that Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy, while Obama's tax increase will threaten it? That'll surely be left out of the media salivating over Obama's "successful" 100Days.

I just wonder if history will rate it the same...

Have a great day...

25 April 2009

She has opened up her eyes...

...now she can see clearly...

Imagine it is September 2007 and a certain US Army general sits before the Senate Foreign Relations committee and hears that to believe Iraq is on the road to recovery, one must believe in the "willing suspension of disbelief." Discounted ads were taken in major US newspapers shaving legitimacy from the report given to then Senator Biden's committee, stating that this general was going to betray the truth about Iraq. Several prominent Democrats wanted the US to begin a drawdown of US forces because they felt that our efforts there were fruitless, they even had the audacity to tie funding for the contingency to an announced timeline for withdrawal. Sunsara Taylor, of World Can't Wait, destroyed television sets nationwide with the outrageous claims that the Iraq conflict was akin to the war crimes committed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Liberals across the globe were lauded for their bravery, when they would shout down OIF supporters...even though none of them would dare face down a terrorist they were hell bent on demanding we understand.

Fast forward to April 25, 2009 and we have the same person, in the form of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who couldn't believe that Iraq was recovering, now taking the conservative view, that the reason the terrorists have stepped up their attacks is because they do not want to see a stable Iraq. What a difference a letter behind the commander-in-chief makes, right? Perhaps Obama and the rest of the Iraq naysayers are now realizing how much a danger terrorism poses for the world. Our biggest ally in Afghanistan, Pakistan, is teetering on the brink of collapse as the Taliban advances towards the capital, Islamabad. Then again, if he and his cronies realize this, then they'd back off their pursuits of prosecuting Bush officials for playing mind games with terrorists.

But the UN's not going to allow President Pantywaist off the hook so easily. After Spain mulled about prosecuting US officials for "torture," it caused the Angry Left to wet its pants at the prospect, since a prosecutor felt that since Spanish citizens were held at GITMO, and these detainees claimed to have been tortured, it gave them due process to go after Bush officials (but Spain couldn't find evidence that these detainees were potential terrorists?). Not a word was mentioned by the Angry Left when Spanish lawyers recommended the action not take place. The UN is trying to reestablish its relevance by claiming that Obama's reluctance to prosecute Bush officials for "torture," violates international law, this, while hosting an anti-semitic conference with the likes of Ahmadinejad and other human rights abusers.

The UN doesn't take itself seriously, especially in light of the Oil for Food scandal, Rwanda, and a host of other atrocities. Besides, if the harsh interrogations bestowed upon terrorists by the CIA is almost torture, by the lettering of international law, this witchhunt is a waste of time. Liberals can't agree that any of the methods used by the CIA is torture, they always use other modifiers, like "questionable practices," "suspected," "alleged," or "tantamount." If it's torture, say it...but based on what I've read, liberals would be wise to not allow this to continue to blow up in their faces, then again, they've always been the type to engage in S & M practices.

Has anyone considered the notion that if these people were innocent, and were caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, why their native nations are refusing to integrate them into society? And they call conservatives "stupid..."

Have a great day...

24 April 2009

He promised he'd listen to both sides of the aisle...

...he didn't say he'd heed the advice of his critics...

GayPatriotWest brings up a very interesting point amid all the brouhaha surrounding his decision to delegate possible prosecution of members of his predecessor's administration to his Attorney General. Last week, I am sure the president was aware of several protests to his Porkulus bill, and his severe increase of the federal deficit. To date, he's only acknowledged his perpetually angry left-wing base and ignored those who take issue with his Generational Theft Act and mega-prolifigate spending. People, who aren't suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, are going to see any attempt to jail members of the previous administration as vindictive, and Obama, who proclaimed that the days of old and stale methods of doing politics went the way of the dodo bird, will suffer immensely. As I said in my previous post, BDS sufferers would be wise to stop looking for blood, especially in light of evidence that members of their own party approved of the same practices when they wanted to make people believe they were just as strong on national security as Republicans.

Liberals are dumbfounded at the fact that people respond to allegations made against them. They act as if their words should be accepted as truth and any deviations are treated with shock. Throughout the campaign, then-candidate Obama leveled several baseless charges against the Bushites, claiming matter-of-factly, that their foreign policy has made the nation less safe and ruined our moral standing in the world. When making his inaugural address, he continued to level unsubstantiated charges against his predecessor, between all the booing of his supporters, and he gets bent out of shape at the idea that the people he's accused of destroying the United States are defending themselves. Apparently, when former Vice President Dick Cheney stated that Obama's efforts to make nice with any and everyone in the world, like closing GITMO and ending rendition, were making the nation less safe, it struck more of a nerve than previously thought.

The Washington Post has an article claiming that the motives behind Obama's decision to release the "torture memos" is so that the public will hopefully become BDS sufferers, like many of Obama's disciples. When details emerged that members of the Democratic leadership were also aware of the "torture," Obama, the panty-waist he is, backtracked. Obama, and his supporters, continue to remind us that he won, and that the electorate chose them to get the nation on the right track. In the midst of exacting revenge on his predecessor, we have an economic crisis, which the president claimed we had to act on lest we experience a severe economic downturn...or depression. This isn't a matter of being able to do more than one thing at a time, he's engaging in something that lefties bemoaned about former President Bush...criminalizing dissent, although in the case of President Bush, he did not. h/t: Steve Huntley

Obviously, the president welcomes backlash. He has authorized the release of more photos of the detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, designed to evoke outrage amongst the perpetually outraged crowd (but they feel that showing footage of the Twin Towers falling is "cruel and unusual punishment"). The rest of us have seen the images and realized that while this act was detestable, it does not define the behavior of the US Military, and it only serves to continue the fomenting of anti-US sentiment abroad. Unlike lefties' thoughts about the Right, the Right does not support "torture," it's the defining down of torture by the Left that has caused the problems.

Keith Olbermann's friend, Eugene Robinson, has an article that pretty much sums up the Left's opinion. Even he is reluctant to see a prosecution of the Bushites for having a policy stance different from President Obama and AG Holder. There is no law criminalizing harsh interrogation techniques, and Democrats in Congress realize this, and had ample time to amend the law...they didn't. Like the Clinton impeachment, and the Johnson impeachment before that, these types of show trials and witchhunts will certainly make the US no better than Lenin and Stalin's Russia.

Have a great day...

23 April 2009

So what color flip-flops would go with this outfit?

...as my outfit changes week to week...

Keith Olbermann's gonna cream his pants tonight upon the news that Dr. Condoleezza Rice, in her capacity as former President Bush's former National Security Advisor, signed off on allowing waterboarding. It's not as scandalous as say, forgetting to do one's "patriotic duty" by paying one's taxes, but that will not stop the usual suspects from crying "foul." He recently entertained former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski (ret) on his show to lament why her head rolled in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, while none of her superiors did not (Unfortunately for Mrs. Karpinski, I don't think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, nor Sanchez approved of Lyndie England, nor any of her other counterparts, human pyramids or covering detainees with black sheets...or any of their other crazy antics for that matter).

Liberals will continue to peddle the ridiculous notion that waterboarding, or any other forms of harsh interrogation, produces no valuable intelligence. In fact, liberals will claim that terrorists have been programmed, through training, to say anything to stop the "torture." To prove this point, they'll even cover up information that rebuts their argument. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, recently sent a memo to President Obama claiming that the harsh interrogations used by the CIA during the Reign of Terror the Bush Administration, produced valuable intelligence that protected our domestic and global interests. The New York Times in a surprise move, noted that some very important points made by Blair were redacted in the media statement, but the bloggers at C & L were gleeful at the notion that Bill Orally had finally met his match in Ellis Henican...only Orally was more right than wrong.

President Obama is known, by now, for his shifting political stances. He, unlike former President Bush, values public opinion, even if it makes him look like John "Waffles" Kerry on steroids. In an interview with ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the president claimed that he would not prosecute former Bushites for harsh interrogation against terrorists, something that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, confirmed this past Sunday. Since it's obvious that he didn't consult the Demo-gods (Soros and kos) on the matter, he has left the door open, stating that it will be Attorney General Eric Holder's decision. Now, as with the impeachment trials of former Presidents Andy Johnson (D) and Bill Clinton (D), starting a witchhunt in an attempt to stick it to one's political opponents sets up a very dangerous precedent...one for which we can thank a Democrat later. The Republican party paid a price for going after Presidents Johnson and Clinton and the electorate viewed the potential removal of a president as politically motivated and detrimental to the country...but apparently, liberals can't learn that lesson.

An investigation would prove troublesome for some Democrats, who always revise history for their political benefit, who knew about the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA and approved them anyway. Besides, it's not as if the CIA engaged in the same tactics that terrorists engaged in on Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl, the CIA's interrogations were controlled and designed to inflict little, if any physical damage. The CIA was playing mind games with them, and if the Left wants to criminalize that, then they should lock up every drill sergeant and anyone who's been in a romantic relationship. I think the Left would be wise to just let this one go, and concentrate on keeping the nation safe...since "they won."

For a group of people who wanted us to move on after the Clinton impeachment trial, even in the face of proof that he needed to be impeached, the fact that liberals are still "stuck on stupid" and have forgotten that the president has changed shows that they're more interested in bitching than actual governing. Then again, liberals have always been about criminalizing dissent...just check out Stalin's gulags or the latest posting at Media Matters.

Have a great day...

20 April 2009

Such hate, such contempt...

...seems to be the hallmark of liberals who claim to tolerate dissenting views...

I started rereading Ann Coulter's Guilty, and her descriptions of liberals' desire to play perpetual victim is merely a ruse designed to shut down debate and dismiss other's opinions as either ill-informed or just plain evil. She talks about how if a liberal "opinion" is popular, the electorate will know it, whereas if a conservative opinion is popular, liberals will think the results have been tainted or that the opinion is "not unanimous." As I said in another blogpost, we heard over and over how popular the anti-war sentiment was during the last five years of the Bushites' fascist regime, no matter how small the crowds were, but one blogger refers to a half-million anti-Porkulus protesters as "tepid."

Perhaps there is some reason to doubt the sincerity of the Tea Parties because of the sparse criticism former President Bush and the Republican-led Congress received from the Right. Apparently liberals are unaware of the fact that movements take several years to find cohesion, after all, MoveOn.org wasn't a mega-million Church of Liberalism overnight, after they wanted us to "move on" from the Clinton impeachment. It seems that since the liberal wing of the Republicans in Congress were not on board with the more conservative members, that their criticisms were irrelevant. Or that because a few conservative bloggers were lone voices in the wilderness, that liberals believe no one on the Right opposed Bush's prolifigate spending. If now it is wrong to dissent from the government's Generational Theft Act, then liberals should stop wailing about President Reagan's slow action on AIDS.

There are some lefties that we should dismiss out of hand, since most of what they say are projections of their feelings. Janeane Garafalo, last seen on the planet Bizarro, has decried the Tea Party protests as "racist," because she sees the protests as against a "black man in the White House," and that the GOP had "crystallized into the white power movement." I think Ms. Garafalo should refrain from using a sentence with the words "white" and "crystal," since most of what she says reflects the intellect of those who use white crystals. People who believe in the "white power movement" have little use for any political party, least of all the GOP (need we remind Ms. Garafalo the party that is affiliated with rampant racism against blacks, and is affiliated with a former kleagle of the KKK?).

Much of the animus towards the Tea Parties by liberals stems from their inability, or unwillingness, to understand why a burdensome federal government is problematic for some in the electorate. They cannot, or don't want to comprehend the fact that the more money we give to the government, the less we'll have to care for our families. The government creates nothing, it comes up with an idea and relies on the tax payer to fund it. There are several complaints about anything the government touches as being poorly run, too much red tape, inefficient, etc., but some then call for more government intervention to compound the ineptitude (I also find it intriguing how liberals were shaking in their boots at the thought that the Bushites could find out what books gramma was checking out from the public library, or the thought that the eeevil Bushites could listen in on gramma's calls to her grandchilluns, but have no problem with growing the federal government behemoth?). Instead, they choose to make fun of actual protests, by channeling their inner homophobe, blame former President Bush for this mess, even as they had a hand in helping to create it, and give tax breaks for those who pay no taxes. They don't realize that sticking it to the rich will cause them to find ways to give the government less money, by seeking tax shelters, and shrinking the number of jobs...thereby increasing the already growing unemployment rate.

If you want to see an indication of where this nation is headed...take a look at California, things are so crazy there, even San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, (the guy who said that "gay" marriage is looming on our doorsteps in 2004 and 2008) is planning a run for governor...and it can't get any crazier than that!

Have a great day...

16 April 2009

I show my centre side...

...to show that I still have a heart...

Every now and then a posting by a leftie does make me think, and I often find myself in agreement with most of the things they say on one topic in particular...equality for people of all stripes. I realize that I'll get heat from some of my friends on the Right about this, but this issue hits me personally, because I just so happen to be one of the gays. For me, denying protection for gay couples solely on the basis of religious beliefs is not the way to go and does lead to left-wing activists seeking to alter the law by unconstitutional means. I'm not excusing their behavior, but those who perpetuate the notion that heterosexual couples always have something to fear from teh ghey, also shoulder some of the blame.

It isn't easy for anyone to come to terms with their sexuality, if it's out of what is seen as "normal." I believe it's much harder to come out in the black community, due to its foundation being the church. The church, as a whole, comdemns members who are gay to a life of torment, thereby pushing people away instead of drawing to Christ, as Jesus wants Christians to do. It seems that the church has more tolerance for the pastor cheating on his wife with another female member of the church, even though, according to some peoples' interpretation of Scripture, all sin is equal. I returned home a few weeks ago and attended Wednesday night Bible Study at one of the local churches. In short, I felt I was being set up and I had finally come to realize why so many gays have issues with the church (and some people are now forming their lips to say to me, "See, I told you so..."). h/t: Calamity Janie (thought you'd nevuh, EVUH see that day comin'...)

The pastor told a story about a church, whose choir had openly gay members, where the members got so bent out of shape, that the entire choir had a meeting and purged all the openly gay members out of both the choir and the church. This belief seems to fly directly in opposition to what YHWH commands we Christians do, and that is to witness and bring people to Him. How can that be done, when people who proclaim Christianity seek to use division and misinterpretation of Scriptures to bolster their strawmen arguments? I have yet to see any church push out drunkards, adulterers, and other people they deem sinners with as much fervor as they do with homosexuals.

I have been reading a book for some time now, On the Down Low by J. L. King, who used to live "on the DL." This book, like many of my other experiences, challenged what I had been taught in church as a child. When I was growing up, my brother and I were taught that homosexuality was an abomination, and that was reiterated at home, but we were also taught that women were distractions. I didn't know which one to reject when I grew up. I went with my feelings, and to those who believe this is a choice, let me tell you one thing...it isn't. I don't know of any sane person who would choose to bring hell and damnation upon them, I believe it's biological.

I do not ask anyone who does not condone teh ghey to change their beliefs by any means, but it makes no sense to deny equality to a group of people because of the person(s) they're to which they're attracted. I often tell the story of how I was railroaded while I worked for the Department of Defense, solely because I am gay. There is NO protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in the government. I do applaud President Obama's efforts to rectify that wrong that has existed for far too long.

As I said, I know I'm gonna get heat for this, but I've been debating politics for a while now, and I believe I can hold my own...

Have a great day!

14 April 2009

Fighting for constitutional rights is now a "fringe" movement...

...when only three years ago, it was essential to our democracy...

If you haven't heard by now, several citizens are gathering around the nation to protest Barry-O's never ending spending sprees. They're called "tea parties," much like the colonists' revolution surrounding the Tea Act. Lefties, who thought that hanging effigies of former President Bush and various other members of the Bush Administration, and called it exercising their constitutional rights of dissent, are now showing faux outrage at conservatives who are protesting the Obambi, by calling them "fringe rightwingers" or "members of the far-right." In my view, unlike anti-war protesters, who were rooting for our defeat in the Global War on Terror, conservatives who are gathering to protest Opromptah's growing deficits are more concerned about their, and others' economic well-being. The "tea baggers," as members of the Left call them, are not rooting for the man to fail, but see his policies as disatrous.

Lefties foamed at the mouth when they thought they found proof that Bushitler had politicized the government to only target Democrats and liberals, but are silent when our very own Department of Homeland Security has a page dedicated to the rise of "white militias" as a result of the election of Barry-O, among other things, as if "white militias" ceased to exist during Republican presidential administrations. Lefties would have us believe that the report was timed to coincide with the Tea Parties, but David Neiwert never mentions the sweeping words the DHS report uses to paint conservatives in cahoots with people like Poplawski and Castanaga. The DHS report indicting conservatives for having dissenting views from Obamessiah and his acolytes, uses shoddy research and uses other information that debunks its main points. I also notice how Mr. Neiwert hasn't noticed how fringe lefties are becoming more of a threat than a few Poplawskis. These things appear to be more of the same theme coming out of the Obama Administration...shifting focus away from his never-ending gaffes and other sorts of embarrassments, like bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. h/t: John Hinderaker and McQ

April 15th is Tax Day, and many are marking the occasion by attending several "Tea Parties" around the nation. Try as Obamessiah might, he can not avoid raising taxes on the middle class for long, which hopefully will cause great damage to his reelection campaign. The fact is, Obama's hatred for the "rich" is not a prudent way to cut down the deficit, and the bill is coming on Porkulus and those of us in the middle class will have to foot the bill...I notice none of the rich liberals are willing to pay their fair share, as they'll continue to be protected by the tax shelters they all seek. To be sure, some leftwing criticism of these Tea Parties is valid, in that they don't seem to be too organized...but wait! The Left also had to start somewhere, right?

When they aren't tirelessly using the "tea bagging" pun, lefties are assuming, based on their stereotypes about conservatives, that we have to be led into protesting because either Zombie Reagan, the leader of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, or his deputy, KKKarl Rove told us we must. People like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and a litany of Kossacks have bent over backwards to lessen the legitimacy of actual protest, instead of cheering for the failure of the nation. The fact that many media outlets have chosen to place an embargo on actual protests should invoke outrage amongst us all (sane people that is...).

Maybe we can show the Left what actual protesting for legitimate causes looks like...

Have a great day!

10 April 2009

If you don't want to be associated with them...

...don't hang around them...

Nothing gets Joy Behar's panties twisted more than hearing that her politics align with socialism. If you want to see a left-winger recoil and accuse you of avoiding a debate, accuse them of harboring socialism in their hearts. Of course, after you remind them that is how you feel each time they refer to you as a fascist or a Nazi sympathizer (I, your humble blogger friend, have been accused of being a Nazi sympathizer...). I'm not doing this as a way to get revenge against lefties, by any means, rather to remind them that despite their ignorance about their own ideology, they have more in common with Stalin's two Great Killing Sprees than the most hated right-winger.

A majority of blacks continue to vote Democratic, despite evidence that shows how Democrats have and always exploit the plight of blacks, and other minority groups, for their own political advancement. Democrats revise their racist history by smoke and mirrors, claiming that all the "racists" moved to the Republican Party, except when Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he did so as a Democrat. A former US Senate President pro tempore is still a Democrat and was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, which served as the terror wing of the Democratic Party during Reconstruction and beyond. The reason Democrats have such a lock on the black vote lies in the Great Depression, when former President Franklin Roosevelt appeared more fiscally conservative, and appeared to care more about blacks than Herbert Hoover.

When a person tells the average black person about these facts, they dismiss them out of hand, claiming that the teller has been brainwashed by the white man, or they choose to remain in ignorance. The latter is the most tragic, especially when it appears in our congressional representatives. Recently, a delegation of members of the Congressional Black Caucus made their annual pilgrimage to pay homage to Raul and Fidel Castro's Cuba, which has the most atrocious human rights record this side of the Mississippi. It was like my boyfriend, who would get all schoolgirly while meeting Marilyn Monroe (Or me, at the prospect of meeting Jim Perry, from Card Sharks, or Bill Cullen). h/t: Humberto Fontova and Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin

It's good to oppose civil, human, and animal rights violations whereever and whenever they arise, but it's another thing to see it and act as if it doesn't exist in an effort to prove a point about embargoes not working. Democrats fought tooth and nail to get UN inspectors to investigate rampant human rights abuses at GITMO, when there weren't any, but take pause to kiss the ring of one of the world's most notorious dictators? Then again, they felt the same about Saddam Hussein, especially in the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom...why be surprised?


Have a great day...

08 April 2009

You knew it was going to happen...

...that liberals would blame conservatives for killing cops...

An ongoing theme by liberals, in their ongoing campaign to "prove" how crazy right-wingers are, is to claim that their brainwashed by some "higher" power to commit crimes against humanity. We've heard it all before, how a person, who happened to say "I am..." followed by "Republican" or gives off evidence that they had a Republican thought, and commits a crime, is indicative of conservatives and Republicans nationwide. In more extreme cases, liberals will use a tragedy for political gain...more often than a typical conservative would.

Recently, three Pittsburg policemen were gunned down by a follower of a neo-Nazi group, Alex Jones. I know of no mainstream conservative who embraces Nazism, no matter how many times a liberal wants to tie us to left-wing ideology. Since many believe that national socialism is right-wing, the group Stormfront is being heralded as "far-right." Liberals are now using this familiar play from their playbook to claim that Andrew Poplawski was influenced by Stormfront to kill cops, much like "Freeper" Chad Castanaga was influenced by Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham to send white powder to Keith Olbermann. One of the two Democratic gods, Markos Moulitsas recently tweeted that conservatives applaud the idea of "revolution and killing cops," which is a sharp turn from the prevailing view held by liberals in regards to police pigs.

Liberals often champion cop killers, like Mumia Abu Jamal, the late Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and Lovelle Mixon, who killed a few pigs of her own in Oakland just five days prior to the Pittsburg incident. They often encourage violence against police and in most cases, fight harder for the perp, and ignore actions that provoke police, than the government that must prosecute him (Sean Bell). It's nice to see that liberals are now fighting for cops, but is their support for them akin to their support for the US Military? Methinks so. Just a thought, could we take the same attitude the Left uses against the Right in cases similar to this, like a HuffnPuff, which is hardly a bastion of conservative intellect, blogger that stabbed her roommate 222 times with a screwdriver?

At the same time, prominent personalities on the Right should refrain from engaging in over-the-top rhetoric about President Obama. It feeds into the lies that liberals love to use against conservatives, that they love to whine and use violence when they don't get their way. I can hardly stand ten minutes of Glenn Beck, because his shows always delve into some sort of conspiracy theories about Obama or San Fran Gran Nan's latest bouts with Botox, some of which are unfounded. The Right has enough to be blamed without inviting anymore unnecessary trouble.

We're even being blamed for gay men being killed in Sadr City...how nice!

Have a great day...

07 April 2009

When he talks, it sounds as if it's profound...

...it's what he doesn't say that's problematic...

Dr. Asten firmly believes that not only are there Obama disciples in the United States, but there are people overseas whose eyes glaze over in his presence. Recently, the president took an overseas trip, where he told Muslims that the US is not at war with Islam, which was described as a sharp turn from the horrendous eight year blame game by the Bushites. Except that, for eight years, former President Bush made clear that his intention was not to war with Muslims, but to go after the terrorists who were bastardizing Islam's central tenets.

This weekend was interrupted by North Korea's missile launch, which defied UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama seeks to avoid being seen as "weak on national security" by refusing to talk about how this launch threatens those citizens on the US western coast and, possibly, further inland. By looking the other way, he is exacerbating the problem, which is what both of his predecessors did in regards to terrorism. He believes in this crazy notion that since talking tough didn't cause the North Koreans to cease and desist, that it is the West's fault and they must talk tougher next time (that's working out so well in regards to Iran...ain't it?). Even the weak-assed UN Security Council couldn't shake their irrelevance, since they refused to issue a condemnation of the attacks (had this been Israel or the US, you better believe they'd have stayed assembled til they did).

Some members of the Obamedia are willing to go to any length to "protect" him, which is another sharp turn from the rhetoric we heard from them for the past eight years. On Mess-NBC's [Softball] with Chris Matthews, guest-host David Shuster compared conservatives who oppose Obama's policies to the walking corpse and leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il. It's as if Obamessiah can make no mistakes, no matter how much hand-wringing he does with every crisis he faces. He's hand-wringing the economic situation and threats to our security, but he can sure create a mean NCAA Road to the Final Four bracket.

I know its tiring to continue to compare former President Bush to President Obama, but the comparison must be made and filed away to remind left-wingers that for all the hell directed at Bush, by them, their loverboy is truly a sharp turn from him...but in the wrong direction. Other nations are seeing Obama as an empty suit and a weak-minded individual, that fact hasn't dawned on Obama's many adoring and misguided fans. His foreign policy scorecard thus far represents an epic fail.

Ladies and gents...John Bolton!

Have a great day...