30 May 2009

Obamessiah: Hard on rhetoric...

...soft on race-based voter intimidation...

I wait with baited breath to see how many liberals, you know the ones that cried about rampant Republican voter intimidation, will note how the Obama Justice Department has recently dropped charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). Many leftie bloggers are stuck on statements made by former Colorado representative, Tom Tancredo (R-CO), that La Raza is the Latino equivalent to the KKK.



The case showed that voters were greeted by at least three uniformed men, who remarked that they [whites] were about to be ruled by the black man. Anyone who is an objective viewer would agree that this is a travesty of justice. No one should be intimidated into voting for someone they choose not to. These uniformed men had a clear objective...to intimidate people into voting for Obama. I said throughout the campaign that some people would vote for Obama because of "white guilt." How could they stand in the way of a black man, with a serious shot at the presidency? Former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro was right when she said that if Obama had been a white man, he would not be in the position he was. We'd either have another President Clinton or President McCain. If you believe that it's only conservatives who are noticing Obama's race problem, in regards to Sotomayor and this breaking story, it isn't. Some prominent black "leaders" are also noticing how Obama's been silent on race, since his speech last year during the Jeremiah Wright incident.

Although it may be overblown, there seems to be some validity to the claims made by Rush Limbaugh that to be promoted in Obama Administration is to "hate whitey." He nominated a woman who believes her race makes her a better jurist than a white contemporary, his Attorney General believes we are "a nation of cowards" on racial issues, and believes it's ok to dismiss a concrete case of voter intimidation because the perps are black. The videos show a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which these uniformed men believe only protects black voters.



There is an argument from Governor Sonny Perdue that the election of President Obama is a reason to repeal the Voting Rights Act in total, especially the provision that forces the courts to oversee elections in Georgia. This nation is a very different one than it was in 1965, and the courts should recognize that fact. A repeal of the Voting Rights Act will not rescind the right to vote for blacks, and as far as I am concerned, it's outdated. Everyone should recognize that the election of Obama to the presidency is a clear indication that we have moved beyond race in this country...but not the Misery Merchants, who would be jobless.

If these three men had been members of a white supremacist group, no one would consider dropping these charges against them. Need we remind Holder about the two white men who were determined to make life difficult for Obama, upon his election and the DHS report which sought to only target right-leaning domestic terrorists. It seems that Limbaugh is right, to make it in the Obama Administration, one needs to hate "whitey" and conservatives...heh, and liberals felt that firing nine US Attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the president, was politicizing the Justice Department.

...the ever-changing goalposts of liberals never ceases to amaze me...

Have a great day...

29 May 2009

This is sorta major...

...that even the White House is starting to pay attention...

Perhaps instead of learning from Bill Clinton's ambitiousness during his first term in regards to gays serving openly in the US Military and HillaryCare, Obamessiah should have paid attention to John F'n Kerry's slow response to the charges the Swift Boat Vets were making towards him. His slow response derailed his campaign, in spite of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' dogged attempts to help him get elected. Sonia Sotomayor's belief that she has more insight than a white male contemporary was at first dismissed as a non-story by the White House and Obama's acolytes, claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. Two Democratic strategists have come forward admonishing the White House for letting this issue fester. Republicans should not rollover in awe of Obamessiah, and continue putting the spotlight on Sotomayor's obvious racial bias. As Charles Krauthammer notes, conservatives abhor the idea that empathy represents good jurisprudence, that's why the statues representing justice always wears a blindfold.

If the Republicans and conservative groups roll over on this issue, it will be a sign that they are more afraid of being painted as racists and Hispani-o-phobes, thus making it difficult to stand against this issue later. People are already of the mind that conservatism equals racism, so what exactly do we have to lose? They should expose the wrong headed views of Sotomayor and then confirm her. The chief argument made against Judge Robert Bork in 1987 was how he would shut the door on people who look to the judiciary to be their last resort for equality. Ted Kennedy, when he made that argument, was drawing on people's feelings. We must make it clear that this is not the job of Supreme Court Justices, nor any other judge. Sure, elections have consequences, but this nomination is not one of Obama's wisest moves.

Sotomayor's defenders, like Michael Kinsley, claim that Republicans' arguments against Sotomayor are inconsistent, but in the end says that the only way Republicans will vote for her, is based on race. Other arguments include lefties' focusing on conservatives, especially talk radio hosts, and not noting that Sotomayor's opinions on some issues they hold dear, may align more with conservatism. As I noted yesterday, liberals would be wise to stop directing their vitriol at the Right (for a change) and contemplate the fallout from Democratic senators in red states who will ultimately confirm Sotomayor.

Don't hold your breath, my fellow conservatives...

Have a great day...

27 May 2009

and speaking about Sotomayor...

...it seems her defenders are getting ready to play their high Joker...

Sorry for those of you who don't get the Spades reference, but it seems that those who are not concerned about arguing on the merits about Sonia Sotomayor's potential confirmation to the US Supreme Court are going to frame their arguments that any opposition is racist. There is a view among the pro-Sotomayor crowd that this puts the Republican party in a predicament where they cannot alienate the Hispanic crowd, but at the same time, placate the conservative base that sees Sonia as not only incompetent, based on her rulings, but another reason why we should oppose judicial activism. Obama made a reference to one of Sotomayor's more profound rulings, one that made the balance of the United States as we know it, uncertain. It surrounded the baseball strike of 1994-1995, her decision, according to George Will, upset the negotiations that had been on going for about 260 days, and forced baseball to be slaves to the union for the next seven years (there you have it...she's pro-union, far from a centrist...).

Similar to the Harriet Miers disaster of 2005, as well as Obama's track record on nominations, this nomination shows that Obama clearly did not vet Sotomayor and only did this to pacify the rabid dogs on the left-wing fringe. This isn't about her being Hispanic, as Democrats made that plainly clear when they opposed Miguel Estrada in 2003 because he had no experience (my how five years changes things...) at the local, state, or federal level. In fact, other liberals dismissed Estrada as Bush's "affirmative action" pick, and they did not want former President Bush to score much needed Hispanic voters by having the first Hispanic on the bench. It seems odd that liberals would use this argument to frame any opposition to Sotomayor, since they used it against Estrada. Liberals and Democrats should be looking at Democratic senators in red states who must choose to either tow the party line, or vote in accordance with their constituency (we'll see if Maddow says anything about that...).



In the interview with Rachel, US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that Sotomayor would bring her life experiences to the court, and the notion that life experiences should not be used in issuing rulings is ridiculous (Earth to Boxer: That's not what judges do...). Political Science professor and Maddow comrade, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, believes that a woman, could bring a perspective that a white man cannot. That is very dangerous. It's true that we all have different life experiences, but as Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, the judge is the umpire in a baseball game. Umpires do not alter the rules of the game, they make their decisions based on it.

Barring something extraordinary, Sotomayor will be Souter's replacement. This should be a rallying cry for conservatives to support more conservative Senators to keep Obama responsible. I know it will be difficult to see what type of justice Sotomayor will be, but at least her past rulings will provide us a window into how she may rule. One problematic ruling involves a case where racial discrimination was the central theme, where she sided with the city's racially discriminatory promotion policies, and tried to sweep her support for it under the rug. She has also been heard claiming that her minority status allows her a special type of insight that is denied to white males. It falls in line with the identity politics mantra of Democrats, but it should not be a criterion for nominating a judge for the US Supreme Court. And if you think her belief in "reverse discrimination" is bad...you ain't seen shit yet!

According to the American Bar Association, Mrs. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, (yes, THAT La Raza) which has lobbied for a relaxation of the laws enforcing illegal immigration and advocates the secession of several southwestern US states to ally with Mexico. I sense that her membership will influence her ruling provided an illegal alien has the ability to appear in front of the US Supreme Court. The problem will be that unlike her past rulings, her future ones will not be subject to reversals. The Republicans should ask Sotomayor the hard questions and bring her ineptitude to light, thus forcing Obamessiah to be more responsible and they should make the case for voting for more conservative Republicans in the US Senate to at least slowdown the Obama juggernaut.

Have a great day...

26 May 2009

Perhaps it was Jack Black...

...that caused the California Supreme Court to see the folly of their ways...

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, which defined the concept of marriage between one man and one woman. Of course it'd be preposterous to assume that this decision would go down smoothly. Almost immediately, the usual crowd is setting their sights on the Mormons, who were just a portion of those who supported Prop 8. None of their vitriol is directed at others who supported Prop 8: blacks, gays, Asians, because it would bring their hypocritical stances to light. How could a liberal, who proclaims to work for the common man, march and target minorities who supported the proposition? Ah, the quandry of being liberal. One of the more odd responses is how Prop 8 is analogous to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which said that Dred Scott was a slave, no matter where his foot tread. With that in mind, shouldn't opponents of Prop 8 applaud the courts decision? Once gay, always gay? The truth of the matter is, the Dred Scott decision was indeed discriminatory because of ethnicity and not gender.

The court ruled that the marriages that were performed between the judicial fiat in June 2008 to the passage of Prop 8 the following November. Although "gay" rights groups are claiming that the passage strips "rights" away from them, the courts found that the proposition not only was constitutional, but that it did not strip anything from "gay" couples. It appears, according to GayPatriotWest, that the state will continue to recognize "same-sex" couples, but will not call them "married." Basically, the argument is a semantical one, in all the states that passed ballot measures banning "gay" marriage, they still allow civil unions. This ruling is no different, but it seems as those who continue to demonize those who oppose it, want to continue to rely on overheated rhetoric. I have always argued that civil union protections should be strengthened in every state to protect the livelihood gay couples have worked so hard to enjoy.

Though the ruling stated that Prop 8 was an amendment and upheld the 18,000 marriages performed between June and November 2008, one commenter at Human Events argued that this poses another potential problem in that it creates a secondary class of gay citizens. What's that I smell? An argument that the recent ruling violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal lawsuit that was filed immediately after the decision sought a preliminary injunction on Prop 8 until the case was settled. Some on the Right are shocked that this lawsuit was filed by former Bushites, Ted Olson, Bush's Solicitor General and David Boies, who has argued several high profile cases, such as United States v. Microsoft and represented former Vice President Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Ed Morrissey says that if the federal courts choose to take the case, it may invalidate the 18,000 marriages that were performed, since that issue is the point of contention. A greater danger for the plantiffs is if the federal courts punt on the matter and let the amendment stand. Something did tell me in a dream last night that Obama's choice to fill Supreme Court Justice David Souter's vacancy with Sonia Sotomayor, clearly not a "centrist," may give the "gay" marriage proponents what they want (though it should be noted that Sotomayor's decisions on the Appeals Court are often overturned).

It should be noted that more in the electorate support equality for gay couples, but not necessarily "marriage." Even President Obama opposes "gay" marriage, but he has taken the conservative view that states should decide the matter for themselves. The "jury's still out" on whether Sotomayor or any other federal jurist agrees with him. At least some in the anti-Prop 8 have finally learned their lesson...take the victories where they come.

Have a great day...

23 May 2009

"This is so innovative..." cries the Obamacolytes...

...but the only thing that makes it 'innovative' is the packaging...

I used to say that Senator Joe Biden was one of those Democrats who occassionally talked some sense, well until he wisecracked about 7-11s and Indian accents and other inanities that were exposed to force people to think twice about it. Upon taking the Vice Presidency, Biden has shown that his thinking is along the lines of former US Senator, Mike Gravel (D-AK). Even the president is rumored to have privately rebuked the Veep for his diarrhea of the mouth. He has recently disclosed the location of former Vice President Richard Cheney's "secret bunker" to the press corps at the Gridiron Dinner and has in effect confirmed exactly what Dick Cheney said about Obamessiah's eagerness to close GITMO without proper planning.

It seems when faced with making tough choices, Democrats would rather take the easy way out...or continue to shift blame to their political opponents. US Congressman Robert Bishop (R-UT) offered a proposal on the floor, which would establish a bipartisan committee to investigate the allegations Speaker Pelosi made against the CIA. One would think that this being the talking point of the Left, it would be supported by both parties. After all, it is a federal crime to lie to Congress. The proposal failed 252-172, with Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC), joining 250 Democrats who voted against it. Seeing that she won this little skirmish, Mimi plans to stand by her story and is no longer willing to discuss it. I suppose she, like the others who voted against this proposal, thought that it was some dirty Republican trick...I see it as putting one's money where their mouth is.

One of the most prevalent strawmen that's used by liberals is the notion that all of us on the Right are now condemning Obama for ideas we supported under President Bush. I call this the ultimate non-sequitur, but I'll only speak for myself. I have pointed out the Left's hypocrisy on national security measures. It is they who opposed every initiative enacted by the Bush Administration to fight terrorism, but found new love for it somewhere around 20 January 2009. I'm sure we all remember when Jose Padilla was arrested in 2002, without being charged, he became the cause célèbre for liberals who thought the Bushites were "shredding the US Constitution." He would be held without charge until 2005 when the Bush Justice Department finally charged him, after pressure from civil liberties groups. The detainees at GITMO, liberals argued, should be afforded rights and privileges granted by the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention...even though they, surprisingly would not afford the same to former Bush Administration officials. Conservatives argued that since these detainees were not members of state-sponsored groups, they should not be given rights and privileges they had not earned, which was consistent with wars that had been fought since the beginning of time.

President Obama, while chiding that GITMO, rendition, and waterboarding, were departures from our Amurican values, is mulling an idea that possibly exceeds anything that the Bushites had considered. He plans to "lock terrorists up forever without trial," which according to Ace, is a semantical difference from the position of the Bushites, but Karl Rove is opining, according to Ace, that it goes over and above the plans of BushCo. Even Rachel Maddow, and a few of her liberal counterparts, is feeling a bit queasy about Obamessiah's new-ish idea.



I watched Minority Report and I felt that the Department of Precrime was unconstitutional, because I believe the difference here is that the Department of Precrime went after US citizens, and is a violation of the Sixth Amendment, while Obamessiah's "preventative detention" is unprecedented in US History, going after people who potentially have no ties to terrorism. Perhaps the president is throwing this "red meat" to his righty critics, who believe that he's just a big ol' softie on national security. There is evidence that Cheney's critiques of Obamessiah's national security policy are having just the opposite effect many liberals once thought. Furthermore, "The One" is also seeing a shift in the electorate in regards to GITMO and it's not one that he anticipated a mere six months ago (I guess if I were in his shoes, I'd watch ESPN also...).

Have a great day...

22 May 2009

Middle ground my...

...carcass...

In the fight against Republican and conservative strawmen, our dear president always comes out on top. So far, he's taken on the conservative strawmen surrounding his Porkulus bill, his decision to close GITMO, and his overall terrorism strategy. Someday, I hope, he'll take on actual opposing arguments with the same vigor. I'm waiting for someone in the Obama White House to tell "that one," that campaign time is over and now is the time to start governing. If "the One" felt that his policies were above reproach, he would not have needed to grace the halls of the National Archives to attempt to defeat another strawman. Contrary to his assertions, the debate on national security and how the Bushites handled it is far from "settled," as his acolytes continue to salivate at the prospect of Bushites being paraded in front of The Hague for pointless show trials.

In my previous post I noted how Obama claimed that Cheney lost his arguments in the latter years of the Bush Administration. Several factors, I believe, may have forced Bushie to diminish Cheney's influence, like the Democratic Party reaching majority status in the Election of 2006, and a shakeup of the Cabinet later that year. It was widely known, at least in righty blogs, that Bushie often channeled his inner John McCain, and alienated the conservative base to appease his critics who would always find something to bitch about. Had Cheney been out as he is now, not only would Bushit! be enjoying better approval ratings, but we wouldn't be dealing with the Age of Obamessiah now. Those things we cannot change now, but we must continue to correct the record each time the president decides to take down another strawman.

At least he [Obama] didn't blame the deaths that occurred on 9/11 on Cheney as his most well-knowncheerleader. It is not the Right who believes, as the man who makes strawmen shake in their boots claimed, it is the Left who are the absolutists on this issue. For them, a misguided belief that transparency trumps national security is their core, and it's a wonder how they can straight-facedly say that if the situation requires, they'll use the same enhanced interrogation techniques they've abhored for the past eight years. You see, it's fine to disagree with the Bushites, as I did quite often, it's another to engage in childish behavior used to demonize and attempt to marginalize one's opponents and at the same time praise a man who still can't properly frame his opponents arguments...and faint at his [lack of] clarity on the issues.

Have a great day...

21 May 2009

"The dog ate my homework..."

...is one of the excuses my teachers never accepted, why should we?

Liberals have an explanation for all their gaffes or other shortcomings. To explain the increase in the deficit, liberals blame former President Bush for forcing Obama to stick it to future generations. In the event that Obama's spending spree does nothing besides increase the deficit, liberals will state that four years wasn't enough time to undo eight years worth of spending...except that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit had decreased sharply in 2004, and was well on its way of being under control until the financial sector collapsed last September. Sure, Obama "inherited" the economic problems that he helped cause by not standing up for fiscal conservatism, but here we are 4 months and a day into his administration and we hear the same theme ad nauseaum...that it's Bush's fault.

The same goes for his ideas on prosecuting the "conflict on man-made disasters." In an interview with Jon Meacham in the May 25th issue of Newsweek, the president expresses his unhappiness with being faced with closing GITMO and what to do with the detainees who reside there. He says that for some of the detainees, the fact that they've been held there in "legal limbo" for almost six years may cause them to channel their inner anti-US sentiment. He, in effect, again blames former President Bush for making him clean up the "mess," when it was he [President Obama] who started the mess in the first place, by signing an executive order without crafting a plan to house the detainees upon the closing of GITMO (need I remind the POTUS that the Senate wasn't too fond of this lapse in intelligence either...). Liberals want me to believe this guy's smarter than Bushitler?

Meacham asked the president about former Vice President Cheney's ongoing criticisms, and without missing a beat, Obama said that the methods proposed by Cheney were common practice in the first part of the Bush Years, but within the last two or three, Cheney's influence in the administration dwindled. He found it kinda odd that Cheney would try to relitigate the last eight years, when the argument has been settled. Either the president thinks the rest of us are stupid or he is just that plain...I won't say it. If Cheney's words had no merit, then why would the president, as DrewM. notes, schedule a major speech in an attempt to rebut Cheney's claims? I wholeheartedly agree with the attempts the Bushites made to keep us safe after 9/11, and the reason Obama can say denigrate the Bush Years so casually is a result of those procedures enacted by his predecessor. It beats scaring the shit out of Manhattan with a reenactment of such a tragic day in US History.

While the president talks about GITMO being a blemish on the record of the US's "conflict on man-made disasters," he, like others on the Left show their ignorance about why GITMO was opened. It was not designed to be a jail for potential criminals. It was designed to house detainees who may have held much needed intel for our forces on the battlefield. The fact that 3 detainees being convicted is not an indicator of its success, after all, look at the US Judicial System, which favors crooks over the innocent. I mentioned earlier about the US Senate's rejection of funds to close GITMO by Obama's self-imposed deadline of January 2010. It seems that many Congress' constituents are none-to-pleased about the idea of housing potential terrorists in their neighborhoods...something that caused Charlie Gibson and Rachel Maddow to feel a rumbly in their tumblies.

Maddow wants the Democrats to spend their "political capital" by betting the farm on voting to fund Obama's closure of GITMO, despite the fact that FBI Director Robert Muller and former State Department officials expressed how difficult it would be for states to house terror suspects. Not to mention, that because these terror suspects are on US soil, they would be afforded US Constitutional protections that they do not deserve. Obama, and his friends, believe that our federal courts are capable of trying and convicting terror suspects, and they point to Ramzi Yousef and Zacarias Moussaoui as proof, without noting that if the other residents of GITMO are housed in the US, it could be a breeding ground for more terrorists. It may be true that GITMO is a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, but I believe that housing detainees at GITMO is better for our national security in the long run. Besides, has anyone of the non-NIMBY crowd considered the recidivism rate among prisoners lately?

Have a great day...

20 May 2009

The man's been in office for 4 months...

...and THIS is what people are talking about?

Every issue of Ebony magazine has to include a story on how transformational the election of the nation's first black president is. From talking about how Michelle Obama is the grooviest first lady, since Jackie-O, to drooling at how he wears sunglasses, it seems a plurality of blacks believe they can do no wrong. Tobias Elmore, a YouTube personality who's been featured with The Young Turks, shows his ignorance of not only why minority conservatives exist. He derides RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, for wanting the GOP to be more palatable for younger voters, who are all to often duped into believing that the Democratic party has their best interests in mind.



I read Bernard Goldberg's Bias not too long ago and I understand why liberals in the media (I know, redundant) believe that conservative opinions are out of the norm. Most of them do not associate with people who don't hold their worldviews. Goldberg talks about the 1972 election, which was a landslide for former President Nixon, that many in the CBS newsroom were appalled at the results of the election because they didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon. The media works overtime to portray conservative opinions as out of the mainstream, and does a great disservice to people who rely on "objective journalists" to give them the news straight. Mr. Elmore is right in one aspect, that when people think "Republican" or "conservative," they see John McCain, Bob Dole, Richard Cheney, and George W. Bush. Michael Steele was talking about changing the face of the GOP, and show how most people, if given the opportunity, would reject most, if not all, of the twisted logic of progressivism and the Democratic Party...not about having House Minority Leader John Boehner sporting the Lil Wayne look (what a dumbass...).

Perusing through a few articles on EbonyJet.com, I found one that made me wonder if there were children running the editorial board at the long-running magazine. In it, the writer talks about how people are referring to President Obama. Leaving aside the difficulty liberals had in pronouncing a simple four letter word like "Bush," is this really the most important thing Del Waters could focus on? I am sure you remember the brouhaha former President Bush caused when he referred to his opposition party as "the Democrat Party." All of a sudden, these same group of people who had great difficulty pronouncing simple four letter words, became apopletic and proclaimed that once and for all, the then-president was not concerned about bi-partisanship. Our national deficit is becoming more burdensome by the second, Russia is attempting to recreate the USSR, and Iran is testing missiles...none of this upsets Ms. Waters, but referring to the president as "dude" or "Obama," instead of Obambi or Neophyte or Pantywaist...more accurate names, if you ask me, is cause for concern.

Methinks she's got her priorities all screwed up...

Have a great day...

19 May 2009

An eerie fascination with Cheney...

...is kinda like Mark Foley and pages...

I wonder if Keith Olbermann will demand the resignation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with as much vigor when he demanded the same for former President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Something tells me that since Obamessiah is standing by her, Olbyloon will attempt to cover for her until Obambi throws her under the bus. It's clear that San Fran Nan felt, like many Democrats, that the Old Media will be able to successfully deflect criticism of their statements, in light of the New Media. It's kinda crazy that Democrats laud the internet and how it turns out more voters for them, but want to regulate it when they're reminded of their lies. Of course, it was a bad week for Speaker Mimi, but like the President, scapegoating your problems on the former president only goes so far and is indicative of bad governing. Hell, with all the groups on Facebook saying how happy they are that Bush is out of office, I'm surprised they they've suddenly found love for the man.

A top story on Meltdown with Keith Olbermann (which is below) surrounded an allegation by reknown storyteller, Sy Hersh, claiming that the Bushites had a secret assassination ring that targetted high level government officials. For some reason, it did not dawn on the conspiracy theorists that the US Government is prohibited, by Executive Order 12333, to engage in assassination. Now, that his feet are on the fire, Hersh is backpedaling faster than Olberdouche at the sighting of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, or Michelle Malkin...three of the hottest women on the Right.



I know we shouldn't lend much credence to Clintonistas, but Paul Begala recently posted on the Huff 'n Puff that Bush/Cheney style foreign policy did not keep us safe, attempting to shut off any criticism of Obama's attempts to get people killed. There's no need to remind people that what occurred on 11 September 2001, was a plot that had been in the works for years, as liberals like to remind us...when we talk about how there was no attack on US soil since 9/11. Begala talks about how enhanced interrogation techinques "torture" made the US less safe, causing moderate Muslims to become terrorists and how, in the case of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, that waterboarding provided Vice President Cheney with a "link between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Begala relies on the testimony of one Lawrence Wilkerson, who said that under torture, al-Libi stated there was a direct link between Iraq and al-Qaeda (wasn't this turned into the liberal belief that the Bushites believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?). Upon a revelation of the facts, al-Libi had declared such a connection before he was "tortured" in Egypt. Though the liberal belief that Saddam planned and executed the attacks on 9/11 is highly questionable, the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda has been proven time and time again. And there was no mention of Clinton's missteps during the litany of attacks that came on his watch...way to cover your ass, Paul!

Liberals want to have this thing both ways. On the one hand, they want to punish the Bushites for having a political view that differs from theirs. They believe splashing water on the face of potential terrorists is torture, so it's torture. They believe that racial profiling at airports is racist, so it's racist. Talking tough to nations who support terror is fearmongering, so it's fearmongering. However, on the other hand, they don't want the targets of their accusations to refute what liberals believe as truth. It's funny how liberals always look for what they view as conservative or Republican missteps, but become quiet as church mice when the sitting US Vice President discloses the whereabouts of "Cheney's underground bunker..." Seems the Obamists need to not only provide cover for President Pantywaist, but for Vice President Gaffe-tastic as well...

Have a great day...

15 May 2009

I see the handwriting on the wall...

...somebody tell San Fran Nan what it says...

San Fran Nan is getting nervous. It seems that when all the Obamedia was applauding her election as the first female, Italian-American Speaker of the House, they ignored her claims that she'd preside over the most ethical Congress in US History. The rest of us who were sober, knew this for the lie it was and didn't pay too much attention to her photo op of children in the Speaker's rostrum. Dems had promised to bring an end to "Bush's War in Iraq," bring down the price of gasoline, and launch a litany of investigations into criminal behavior engaged in by the Bushites. Democrats always claim to be smarter than I, so I shouldn't have to tell them that they must be careful for what they wish for...they just might get it.

Like Obama's campaign promises, Anita Hill's lies about US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and whether Keith Olbermann is still in love with Laura Ingraham, Speaker Mimi's stories about Bush's CIA briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques change like the seasons. I always have a problem with people who claim well after the fact that some egregious behavior had occurred and at the time, they were to chickenshit to acknowledge it. Like Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas, the Speaker is losing credibility. One can argue that she's taking her cues from Obamessiah, who's still parroting the line that he's inherited this mess from former President Bush...when he's been a member of Congress since 2004. When a Democrat's in trouble, blame Bush...the man's been out of office for over 100 days and he still can't get a break from Democrats.

You shouldn't be surprised at the new line from liberals, who are clearly feeling threatened by the news that rebuts Speaker Mimi's selective memory. One, Bob Graham, former Democratic senator from Florida, is now claiming that the CIA is making stuff up from whole cloth. Seems to me the CIA is now becoming Dick Cheney, since they want him to shut up as well. An article from the Washington Post makes the point that Speaker Pelosi would not have held press conferences if she felt that she was losing political altitude. Even her no. 2, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, isn't quick to back up her lies claims. Don't tell that to the Kossacks, who believe that just because former Senator Bob Graham kept a diary of every time he went to the john, his lack of recollection of the briefings should be taken at face value (remember when liberals didn't trust anything government officials, current or former, said?). I notice nothing was said about Obamessiah's denial of Cheney's request to release all of the "torture memos"...hmm, what does that mean?

Even former Olbermann lacky, Dana Milbank, noted how the Speaker reacted when the media sought to ask her questions about her inconsistent statements about the CIA briefings, which was overlooked by the Kossacks, and their friends at Media Matters, who are mostly upset that Pelosi is under more scrutiny than the CIA is...but I'd argue that the CIA's story has been consistent, whereas Pelosi's has not. Then again, shouldn't Democrats be skiddish about tussling with the CIA? Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson had to learn the hard way...you don't even hear from their discredited asses anymore (on a sidenote, one liberal argues that this criticism is being directed at Granny Pelosi because she's a the most powerful woman in the country...how ridiculous!).

The question remains is will this finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back and force yet another incompetent Democratic House Speaker from office? I'm willing to bet that Steny Hoyer is quietly saying "yeah Mimi, you are getting just what you deserve for backing a corrupt politician, like John "Abscam" Murtha over me for Majority leader..."

Think we'll have a "truth commission" now? I think not...

Have a great day!

14 May 2009

A true Not In Our Name cause...

...not one mired in opposition to going after murderous regimes around the world...

This is not another blog about Operation Iraqi Freedom, rather another one on the issue that I blogged about yesterday. I was angry that my hard earned money was being used to sanction blatant human rights abuses. I shouldn't be upset at liberals, who'd gripe and moan about a detainee being told that a caterpillar is a stinging object or having water splashed in a detainee's face, for either turning a blind eye to this or in a rare case, not knowing the full extent of the abuses going on in Iraq or Iran in regards to gays. Selective outrage has always bothered me, especially how liberals behaved when the photos of Abu Ghraib were released and holding forums on whether this type of behavior is inherent or pounded into the minds of those serving in the US Military, but negating or downplaying true human rights abuses such as the tactics used when police patrols "punish" their gay citizens.

Liberals believe the US is always in the aftermath of the US Civil War, when blacks were slowly gaining their freedoms and adjusting to their new lives as freedmen. They want to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that minorities must always sleep with one eye opened, because they never know when Randy Redneck and his ragtag bunch will make an appearance at their doorstep. The US is very cordial to minorities, regardless of what Joe Solmonese or Neil Giuliano, the president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), says. As I said yesterday, former President Reagan is demonized by the gay Left because of his ignorance and theirs, to some extent, of the rise of the AIDS virus, but he sacrificed alienation of social conservatives to oppose the 1978 Briggs Initiative, which was blatant discrimination. He did more for gays than both of his Democratic successors, but Bill Clinton gets the credit, even though he was concerned more about his political future instead of repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the US Military. And as for Obambi, he holds the same position on "gay" marriage that former President Bush, former Vice President Al Gore, Senator John F'n Kerry, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was John McCain who had a gay staffer on his campaign...Barry-O did not. That is why I believe it is better for minority cultures to align themselves with conservatism, since it does not focus on labels.

After I published my blog yesterday, I decided that I had to do something about it. I decided that I needed to make more in government aware of the situation. A spokesman for the US State Department claimed that they were aware of the holocaust enacted against GLB"t" members in Iraq, but couldn't determine whether their murders were solely due to their orientation. This is another problem that I have with liberals, and their attitudes towards Christians, who oppose "gay" marriage and other gay initiatives. It is not Christians, Buddhists, Jews, or New Agers that advocate violence against gays. In Islam, to be gay, or suspected to be homosexual, is a capital offense. The Iraqi Interior Ministry raids parties, hunt them online using fake IP addresses, and take gay suspects off the streets. Though this is Obamessiah's problem now, he doesn't deserve total blame.

In 2006, al-Sistani issued a fatwa calling for the extermination of gays, and though there was an outcry surrounding the fatwa, former President Bush should have done more to stop this pogrom. We broke it, we fix it and we, as US taxpayers have a say in how Iraq conducts its business. Again, former President Reagan taught us a lesson. When the chips were down, he stood up for those who disagreed with him. The Russians felt that he was a pushover, like Carter and many of his predecessors, but when he flat out called the USSR an "Evil Empire," and enacted the Strategic Defense Initiative, to combat the Russian arms buildup, they knew he wasn't one to joke. I doubt one instant that Reagan would have allowed such atrocities to occur had he been at the helm and this shit would have stopped as soon as he learned about it.

I am going to include contact information for Congress, the US State Department, and the White House at the bottom of this blog, because this issue needs to be addressed. The only ones reporting on this are blogs, the BBC, and a few television programs in San Francisco. Kudos to the Los Angeles City Council on passing a resolution condemning this violence against the GLB"t" community in Iraq, but more must be done. Democrats were hellbent, in 2006 and 2007, on tying war funding to arbitrary withdrawal timelines. They should be just as hellbent on tying war funding on the insistence and the cessation of the Iraqi pogrom against its gay community.

Have a great day...

And now as promised, contact info

US Department of State: Click here

Congress: Click here

The White House: Click here

13 May 2009

Here's an example the gay Left should follow...

...instead of focusing on non-existent examples of homophobia...

One of the biggest arguments I had against groups like Amnesty International and the Internation Red Cross, was their ignorance of the rampant human rights atrocities in third world countries, while setting the sights of their biggest guns on the United States. They turned a blind eye to Saddam's rape and torture rooms, the starvation of his people, and the mass graves. They ignored Hugo Chavez's powergrabs in Venezuela and how in Cuba, many of the political dissidents are black. It was top news when a terror suspect claimed that he got cow's milk instead of goat milk at GITMO, or how US soldiers flushed a Koran down a toilet, without noting the difficulty in flushing books down toilets. The same goes for "gay rights groups," who claim to be fighting for equality for the GLB"t" movement, but only parrot Democratic talking points (that's why I always place gay rights groups in quotes, since they don't fight for equality, they fight for relevance).

For the gay Left, the chief issue was Miss California's opposition to "gay" marriage. It was the passing of Proposition 8 on Election Day 2008, and the demonization of its supporters. The gay Left wants people to believe that social conservatives are anti-gay across the board, because the gay Left doesn't take it upon itself to use democratic means to pass their initiatives. They choose to honor flunkies like Keith Olbermann, who issued a Speshul Komint after the passage of Prop 8, and hasn't touched gay issues since. They choose to honor President Hopey McChangerson, oddly, while demonizing Carrie Prejean, because he says he wants to repeal "don't ask, don't tell (don't pursue)," even though they feel the same about "gay marriage." There are bigger issues in the world affecting gays that overshadow whether Jerry Falwell felt "Tinky Winky's" purse made him gay.

Some may argue that the reason national "gay rights" organizations remain mum on the tragedy that affects gays worldwide is because their scope is on what occurs within the US border. Well, I would argue that many of the representatives of these groups have commented on issues outside the realm of "gay rights," like Human Rights Campaign president, Joe Solmonese, who in every interview or article he was involved in, always brought up Iraq, WMD, Bush/Cheney and tied it to some sort of gay mantra of the day. HRC.org has a section on international rights and immigration. So it is a fallacy that "gay rights" groups should remain mum on the plight of GLB"t" members worldwide. Furthermore, especially in Iraq, where our taxes are being used to stabilize their government, all of us should be more vocal in opposing the wanton slaughter of GLB"t" people there, as well as any nation we donate monies to.

People demonize President Reagan for allowing AIDS to spread without government intervention, which is not necessarily a fair call, since no one knew what to make of the AIDS virus other than the fact it was affecting a small number of people. In the movie, Milk, it brings up one of the final fights Harvey Milk was involved in, the Briggs Initiative, which would have fired all gay and lesbian teachers and banned them from teaching in California public schools. Based on the movie, one would think that Milk single-handedly defeated this discriminatory piece of legislation...but it was the man, that lefties thought invented the AIDS virus, who turned public opinion against the proposition. The Briggs Initiative, also known as Prop 6, lost by a million votes. Gays and lesbians, who knew discrimination, remembered the Gipper and I'd say carried him over the top in the Election of 1980. The new "champion" of "gay rights," President Barack Obama did exactly what Bill Clinton did and determined his morality by sticking his finger in the political winds to make his determination.

We all should be outraged that nations are sanctioning the deaths of anyone on our dime. I'm willing to bet that if you were to tell a conservative, or anyone else who voted for Prop 8, that this shit was going on in the world and we're paying for it, I'd believe that Nuri al-Maliki would have much more of a problem on his hands. Instead of listening how conservatives are anti-gay, despite the fact that gays earn much more than a comparable straight couple and we are very liberal in how gays are treated, members of the gay Left should focus their outrage on true occurrences of homophobia instead of dreaming them up.

Have a great day...

12 May 2009

The most detrimental is always under the radar...

...and before you know it, it's too late to stop it...

I haven't heard too much about immigration lately. I believe the Democratic controlled Congress is attempting to secure its majority by staying away from this radioactive issue at least until the second session of the 111th Congress. The open borders crowd, who are self-described "citizens of the world," to explain their love for insisting on open borders, will kick into high gear now that the president has promised another round of shamnesty for illegal immigrants. I believe the electorate is prepared to jam the phone lines, I believe the "loud folks" will express their outrage at the idea of lawbreakers possibly earning a right that is cherished throughout the lands, by merely paying a fine that they have saved up under their mattresses.

According to the official White House website, President Obama is no different than former President Bush on this issue. Like President Bush, Obama sees the immigration system as dysfunctional and in dire need of reform. The idea is our current system breaks up loving families and drives people in the shadows. Ironically, none of this anger is directed at the illegal immigrant who willfully chose to violate our sovereignty, thereby putting their families at risk. Like the Great Amnesty of 1986, the DREAM Act, and the Great Immigration Debate of 2006, Obama is attempting to pass this under the guise of "strengthening the border." President Bush signed legislation that would build more of the double border fence along Mexico and in 2008, only 14 miles had been completed. So tell me, is Obama going to convince me that he's now concerned about border enforcement, unlike Presidents Reagan and Bush? Hell nah!

Based on Senator Obama's voting record, he supports the "comprehensive immigration reform" bills that passed the US Senate. Though he supported the Secure Fence Act in 2006, he had stated that he would not support such legislation if it did not contain an "legalization" provision. He supported what amounted to an extension of the 1931 Davis-Bacon "prevailing wages" law, which forces government construction contractors to pay its employees a prevailing wage, to guest workers...or in this case, mostly illegal immigrants, not only on federal construction jobs, but in jobs across the board. His amendment was criticized because these protections would not extend to Amurican workers. Coupled with his plan to release soon-to-be former GITMO detainees into mainland US, I don't think for one minute that Obama is as serious about securing the border as he claims.

I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, but I must...I do not oppose immigration. Legal immigrants contribute much to society, and our nation was built on immigrants' contributions. I don't mind eating a gordita, a chalupa, enchilada, or jerk chicken. Immigration should be applauded because all of us can learn somethign from the next guy about culture, but not at the expense of relinquishing Amurican sovereignty, our values, and our laws.

Have a great day...

11 May 2009

Dick Cheney refuses to be quiet...

...and it's good for the country if he doesn't...

It's becoming common knowledge that liberals don't like to have their ideas or motives questioned. They are the all knowledgeable ones and the rest of us are merely flunkies whom they believe are easily controlled. It's no wonder they are always apopletic about something. People are becoming wise to their shenanigans and they don't like it one bit. They believed it was patriotic to question the motives of former President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but if someone questions Obama's coming socialism, the weight of the Ohio state government comes down on them. Some, who always show how selective their outrage is, are dumbfounded about US History and claim that members of an immediate predecessor's administration don't criticize their successor. Now, I know that I am new to this whole political blogging thing, but where exactly was Meghan McCain, say, five to nine years ago when former Vice President Al Gore was blowing a gasket about Bush/Cheney's foreign policy? Or former President Clinton hiding his failures by lambasting his successor...

Liberals see Cheney's opinion that the GOP needs to align more with Rush Limbaugh than Colin Powell as him preferring an oxycontin addict to a war hero, which, as Allahpundit mentions, didn't occur to them in last year's presidential election. When the Democrats suffered losses in the Elections of 2002 and 2004, they did not seek to moderate their platforms, they made them more liberal...catering some of the platform to the fringe left. The idea that Meghan McCain, Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama over the nominee his alleged party named, and Arlen Specter believe that the GOP needs to reinvent itself, is the most fucked up idea I've heard since Miss Cleo predicted me winning the lottery five years ago. I do not disagree that the GOP needs to reinvent itself to return to its conservative principles, but it does not need to continue in its current meely-mouthed state.

One part of me believes that it's not necessarily criticism of Obama's moves, rather the man behind one of the damning critiques of his policies. Liberals believe that former Vice President Cheney shouldn't be allowed to speak because he "authorized torture" against terror suspects, even though they can't come to a consensus on what the definition of "torture" is. They continue peddling the lie that Bush's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) authorized torture, when the only thing they did was make certain that the methods they used to interrogate were within established law. San Fran Nan and other Democrats know this, but their asses are on the line and they're playing ignorant. I wonder if John Amato never asks why Pelosi is lying about not knowing about enhanced interrogation methods.

Chaka Khan had a song titled, Whatcha gonna do for me, and the final line in the chorus says "...when the chips are down." That applies here. Colin Powell, who served this country well as the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, slammed the GOP for not moderating, and in the end, supported the candidate of the opposing party. Rush Limbaugh, who like the good doctah, doesn't like McCain politically, but supported him because he was a better alternative to Obamessiah. There is plenty of criticism to go around about the GOP, but the line is drawn when a critic decides to bat for the other team...

And NOW for something COMPLETELY different...

I like Wanda Sykes. To me, she's a very great comedian, though I'm not sure if she came out last year as a lesbian or not. With that said, her comparison of Rush Limbaugh to the 20th hijacker was stupid. Her jokes about Governor Palin...shameful. The lack of goofs on President Obama...already known. Sykes is a comedienne, who seeks gaining attention, but the obscenity occurred when President Obama, who himself has used Limbaugh's name to get what he wants, laughed at the comparisons Sykes made. Kos, and you know how I feel about him, believes that the media acted the same way at this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner as they have in the past...I guess he forgot about Stephen Colbert's performance in 2006. Something tells me that Obambi won't have to worry about something like that.

Have a great day...

07 May 2009

How to become a darling of the Left one minute...

...to the scourge of society in the next...

I'm sorry if I must continue to repeat the same concept ad nauseum. It was evident throughout the campaign and yet, 53% of the nation either didn't understand what was at stake, or they lied to cover up any facts that took the glow off Obamessiah. There were several opportunities available for people to see that if the Obamessiah is faced with a difficult choice, he often blames someone for setting him up or he uses the power of the White House to shut down his opponents. I remember another president who committed similar actions when the kitchen got too hot for him. The Left, who is always in a fervent need of smelling salts, bitched and moaned when they felt that former President Bush was using the power of the White House to shut down the opposition, which was often amusing coming from the likes of the Hollywood crowd crying about the lack of free speech while spitting in front of cameras. Now that evidence is coming out that the president strongarmed his way as super-CEO of the auto industry, the Obamessiah disciples aren't coming down on Obama...they're coming down on the reporters who are exposing Obama's coming thugocracy and claiming that playing a little hardball is no big deal.

No one has a problem with the president using the "bully pulpit" to rally the electorate to support his cause. If he's doggedly in support or opposition to a policy, he should get behind the blue goose (the unofficial name of the president's podium) and say so. On the other hand, the president does not have the right to threaten a company's reputation which opposes his "swindle us" plan. Of course the president talked about listening to dissenting views, making those who voted for him believe that he was going to be a change from what they were told about the Bush Years. More details are emerging that this is clearly not the case, and these details aren't all coming from his political adversaries...they're from donors to his presidential campaign. The president had acted as though his political career started with the backing of the corrupt Chicago political machine, his administration would rise above that...but I guess that proverb holds true. You can take the man out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the man. I suppose liberals will blame this on the eeevil Karl Rove.

A blogger at Think Progress believes that just because Tom Lauria decided to clam up about his allegations surrounding super-CEO Obama's strong arming, that the whole story was made up of whole cloth. Unfortunately, this is not the same as Memogate, where Dan Rather used forged documents to make the claim that a president who allegedly shirked his duties with the Alabama National Guard, should not have the authority to command US forces. Details are emerging that this is going to be a running theme in the Obama Administration. Porkulus was the snake oil that was used by Obama to convince governors that he had the interest of the economy in mind, but as Michael Barone's latest post illustrates, these moves by Obama is bringing the gangster lifestyle we see in movies to life (well, he didn't actually say that, I just summarized).

Another episode of Obama's "Gangster Government" is his threat towards California, a state on the verge of economic ruin, if they do not rescind $74M in cuts wages for unionized healthcare workers. The $2/hr pay cuts aren't disasterous, and according to Ed Morrissey, instead of allowing the state to create its own compensation plan, the largest contributor to Barry-O's presidential campaign, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) appealed directly to the president, who is apparently good at strong-arming, to threaten the state with economic ruin if the state doesn't comply (reason #145 why I despise unions...). Could you imagine the outrage had this been President Bush's doing? The Left was apopletic with what they thought was a move by the Bush Justice Department in selectively prosecuting Democrats...and now they're silent, as they were with the Census powergrab, when the evidence is staring them right in the face.

No need to think the nation's on the verge of collapse, we have at least two opportunities to bring a halt to this nightmare...2010 and 2012, let's hope we take it!

Have a great day...

06 May 2009

Welcome to the world of Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean!

...hope you enjoy your stay...

Seeing how opponents of "gay rights" are demonized by "gay rights" groups for espousing an opinion that isn't approved by the gay lobby makes me understand why many, who would otherwise support us in our quest for equality, are slow to support it. I have stayed out of the Carrie Prejean-Perez Hilton fracas for good reason, because I figured that Perez Hilton would act as people like him always do, and act irresponsibly. Of course I was right, and Perez Hilton decided to act like a two year old child by calling her all sorts of names claiming that she hates gays. I, as a gay male, would be hard pressed to believe that every person who opposes homosexuality hates gays. They espouse an opinion just as I do, when I say that Obama's leading us on a road to hell.

Clearly, Perez and all those who are now claiming to be "shock and awed" by Carrie's stance on "gay" marriage were unaware that the state does have about one or two conservatives in its populace. Like Governor Palin, they figured a beauty like Prejean couldn't possibly hold any other view than liberalism, until she spoke. Once her opposition left her lips, the onslaught of any group claiming to be outraged focused their sights on Miss California. In the latest episode, nude photos of Carrie appeared on a website, TheDirty.com. Immediately, the anti-Prejean crowd found something to lessen the legitimacy of Prejean. The release of the photos were intended to strip Prejean of her title as Miss California and to proclaim once and for all that Prejean is a sinner, just like the rest of us...not that she claimed otherwise in the first place.

The pageant director for the Miss California contest is mulling whether to strip Prejean of her title, which, in my view, is wrong. She gave her opinion on a controversial issue and if the Miss California contest, or the Miss USA contest, for that matter, were any thing worth their salt, they'd applaud Carrie for sticking to her guns by expressing an opinion that wasn't approved by the self-proclaimed "Queen of all media." Trying to claim that it's not her opinion that gives them the vapors, the directors are claiming that Prejean violated the contract by posing nude when she was a teenage model and for working with a group that's opposed to "gay" marriage (...there's a word that escapes me...ah yes, I remember it now...BULLSHIT!)

The pageant directors are playing damage control, because I bet my salary that if Carrie Prejean said she supports "gay" marriage and a conservative group released the same information, the directors of the Miss California contest would definitely see it for what it is in this case...an attack. They'd stick by Prejean, no matter what the cost. Just as many in the Right has stuck by Governor Sarah Palin, while many liberals tried their damndest to find anything criminal or that would take the shine off her stellar record. The Right should stick by Carrie Prejean, as it seems they will, despite attempts by the anti-Christian, anti-conservative faction of the Left.

Once the Left does a little introspection on why their initiatives continue to fail, they will realize they are doing the most damage to their movement...not the Right. Stick to your guns, Carrie...it's not over yet, not by a long shot!

I should say, though I find the though preposterous, that my support of Carrie Prejean's opinion does not mean that I am against equality for gays. She, like all Amuricans, has a right to an opinion...I'm merely following in Voltaire's footsteps

Have a great day...

04 May 2009

Need another reason to bounce a few incumbents?

...San Fran Gran Nan gives us plenty!

One part of me supports a piece of the Republican platform that calls for term limits. All too often, our political leaders believe that since the electorate makes them incumbents every election cycle, that they are entitled to the job. Some, even channel their inner celebrity, and say some of the most dumbest things, that would make the Dixie Chicks blush. Take for instance, political lightweight, US Senator Arlen Specter (?-PA), who used the death of former congressman and Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Jack Kemp, to fallaciously claim that had the GOP-led Congress spent more money on former President Nixon's "War on Cancer," Jack Kemp would still be alive. It's no wonder this man can't get within 20 percentage points of Pat Toomey...

Speaker Mimi, who is increasingly becoming uncomfortable with her and other Democrats' bouts with corruption, has taken the privilege given lawmakers that they be immune from arrest while Congress is in session, to a whole new level. The privilege was granted to congressmen because England's King Charles I would round up members of Parliament because they did not agree with his policies. It caused massive disruption in the government and the Founders felt that adding this provision would limit the amount of disruption...especially if the arrest was politically motivated. The provision, however, should not be used to justify wrongdoing by any member of Congress, or prevention of administering punishment.

I agree with William Teach's premise, but take issue with how the media would have acted, if former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) were still in charge. While San Fran Nan was calling on former congressman, William Jefferson, to resign from Congress, it was the Speaker who bent over backwards to protect Jefferson, claiming that the Justice Department had violated the "separation of powers" clause in the Constitution. The Congressional Black Caucus leapt to Jefferson's defense bemoaning his treatment as "racist." The media did not cry "conspiracy" against Hastert for circling the wagons around Jefferson. I should note, however, that San Fran Nan did later assist Hastert in circling the wagons around Jefferson...among others.

Democrats had been so concerned about Republican corruption, they ignored it within their own ranks. While former Congressman Mark Foley was being investigated for sending eerie emails to congressional pages, another congressman, Jack Murtha, was facing cries of corruption surrounding some of his campaign donations and ABSCAM (now, he's facing some fresh and new type of corruption). Alan Mollohan (D-WV) was under investigation for ethics charges surrounding earmarking funds for his personal benefit. While Democrats were crying about a congressman, who had been convicted in 2005 for a litany of crimes, and another, who had been convicted of making false statements and conspiracy, they ignored a congressman who is being investigated by authorities for failure to pay taxes, report rental income, living in rent-subsidized apartments, and using congressional stationery to solicit campaign donations. In fact, San Fran Nan has worked hard to protect Charles Rangel...while claiming to "drain the swamp" and crying about former President Bush thinking he was above the law, when they only had different interpretations of the law.

I expect the media and the blue blogs to remain mum on this, since in their view, the goal is to continue to portray the Right as the only group of corrupt individuals in government. This is explained by their continued kid glove treatment of the president and other high members of his administration and in Congress. When news about a corrupt Democrat or liberal comes to light, it's usually in passing, or used in an attempt to draw moral equivalency...like no-bid contracts.

Time to throw the bums out!

Have a great day...

02 May 2009

When passion becomes dangerous...

...it continues to send us down the slippery slope...

The House has recently passed an expansion of the crimes deemed to be considered "hate crimes." As I have always said, I am all for equality for minority groups, and I have no problem with people using the legislative/electoral process to amend laws they feel need to be changed. Too many times, people use some qualifier when they interact with others, but it's often difficult to determine which qualifier people use when they choose whether or not to interact with another person. However, making an already heinous crime a special case depending on some characteristic about the victim, which may or may not have been apparent to the perpetrator is in opposition to our values as a nation.

Clearly, this legislation is a violation of the First Amendment, but we often overlook the Fourteenth. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the 1860s, it extended equal protection to all citizens of the United States. No class of people was given extra special status, because people realized then that this is not Great Britain or India. We do not have castes or lordships here. If one commits a crime against another, they should be punished harshly, if necessary. With the passage of this legislation out of the US House, it allows the government to potentially criminalize thought, and we don't do that in the US of A.

Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL), has listed several fetishes, -isms, and -philias that will not be covered under this legislation...I wonder if any in the LGBT movement have a problem with that...



Gary Bauer makes a point that this legislation will expand an already burdensome federal government. It, in effect, will nationalize local police departments when an alleged perpetrator is deemed to have acted out of hatred for a particular group. I have said in a previous blog on Myspace, that Matthew Shepard was involved in a robbery gone bad, and he was a crystal meth addict. These crucial details were ignored in order to portray Shepard as a proud gay male, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh yeah, and to claim that we gays live under constant oppression...even though gays in this country live a whole lot better than in other countries.

I'm already considered a "homophobe" by some in the gay lobby for not holding many of the same victicrat opinions they do. I don't see how this will reduce "homophobia," but I do see how this will continue the resentment some have towards gays. There are cases where our First Amendment rights are being infringed by an eager gay lobby, who seeks to punish those whom they believe don't sufficiently accept teh ghey. I always have to remind those who call me a "homophobe," or a "homophobic gay guy," that I am all for equality, but not making a class of citizens more protected than another.

Congress should be ashamed for passing this type of feel good legislation...

Have a great day...