29 June 2009

Obama: I don't believe my OWN rhetoric...

...so, why should you?

From Obama's Inaugural Address on January 20, 2009:

We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."


...

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.


And now for the money quote...

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.


Heh, it's becoming clearer to me now. Obama was never interested in condemning the atrocities in Iran, because he wanted to talk to the mullahs at any cost. Yeah, I understand this idea that we can't isolate our enemies forever, that we must at times, offer them the chance to become our friends. Unlike Obama, and his acolytes, this will only work if both parties are willing to become friendly. The Iranian government is not willing to become Amurica's ally, but Obama's damned determined to extend to them legitimacy anyway...in spite of what they have shown about their feelings about democracy. That's why he cautioned about inserting himself into the protests, instead of condemning it like people who stand for freedom would. His acolytes thought this approach showed us what an intelligent president would do (he even got at least one Right-leaning blogger on MySpace to take a sip of Obama-Aid), I was less impressed and saw it as another episode of President Pantywaist.

One would think with all the caution the president exercised on the Iran issue, that he'd show consistency across the board (Now when exactly has the current president BEEN consistent?). Well, it seems a "coup" has occurred in Honduras because the sitting president violated the country's constitution by attempting to repeal the president's term limits. The country's supreme court ruled this Chavez-style power grab was unconstitutional, yet Manuel Zelayda, the former Honduran president went for it anyway, by firing the head of the military. The White House, not wanting to be called weak by "real" leaders like Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Hugo Chavez, quickly called for Zelayda's restoration, and denounced removal of Mr. Zelayda.

On second thought, Obama has shown consistency in both the Iranian protests and on Honduras, by siding with oppression over freedom (when, exactly, has it been in a liberal's best interest to side with oppressors over freedom?). I perused two leftie blogs, Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars, and neither one discussed Obama's hypocrisy on quickly condemning the impeachment/coup that occurred in Honduras. Conservatives shouldn't be surprised at Obama's foreign policy "change we can believe in." He has shown that we should speak softly to our enemies, for fear of offending them, while shitting on our allies...because they deserve tough talk (And this is the man, Obamists tell you, is sooooo much smarter than his 43 predecessors...). There is no explanation for supporting a man who wanted to institute Chavez-style policies in his country, when his people were dead set against it.

Obviously, President Pantywaist hasn't been dissed enough yet. During his Apology Tour I and II, where he handed out all types of prizes to Amurica's enemies for standing tall during the repressive Bush 43 years, he was rebuffed by each and every petrodictator he comforted. His behavior reminds me of the stories my parents used to tell me about not going down the same paths they took. They told me to look at their example on matters where their decisions caused hardships, and take another path. Obama has disregarded this sage advice time and time again, and it's only been his conservative critics who've called him out on it. I don't understand liberals, who claim they're smarter than the average bear, always fall for the same shit time and time again on matters like this. Instead, they applaud him for standing up to Benjamin Netanyahu.

So, can I now be applauded for my political prowess for pointing out Obama's cynical approach to freedom for all in the world?

Have a great day...

27 June 2009

Obama: Hey, maybe Dick Cheney was right...

...but I'm too much of a chickenshit to admit it...

Remember how St. Barack reminded Amuricans how his predecessor's foreign policy showed how stupid Bush was and that he would once again restore us to the likability we had during the Clinton Years, when most of the world was laughing at us? Obama kool-aid drinkers wanted the new president to let the sunshine in on the secrets of the Bush White House and to jail its inhabitants for prosecuting a conflict in the same manner it had been for thousands of years. Since taking office, conservatives have been ridiculed for pointing out that liberals' St. Barack was adopting the very prinicples he derided for about two and a half years.

St. Barack was lauded by his defenders for taking on the criticism of former Vice President Dick Cheney by appearing in the National Archives. The rest of us saw it for what it was worth...taking on Republican strawmen, and a waste of time. Fortunately, with Obama signing an executive order that states illegal combatants can be held indefinitely without trial, he appears to be acknowledging that Bushitler, for all his shortcomings and dumbassery, had it right all along. If Obama was as intelligent and honest as he wants us to believe, he would tell his supporters in a press conference that his predecessor was right, and be man enough to take the backlash (I know, I know...yeah, right). This is a man who believes the Iranian protesters looked to his "Cairo Speech" for inspiration, which said nothing about democracy, not the fact that his predecessor wanted to spread democracy around the world.

On this, like many other issues of a pressing nature, Obama would like to have it both ways. There is nothing wrong with standing on principle, and based on his performance so far, Obama appears to have none. If he believes Bush foreign policy was a disaster, he has the power to change it, not campaign against it and find new love for it when he becomes president. That makes him just as much a waffler as John F'n Kerry who, if you need to be reminded, was for the war before he was against it. Mousavi campaigned against Ahmadinejad using the same rhetoric Democrats used on the campaign trail, that Mahmoud's aggressive policies alienated Iran from the rest of the world and turned it into a pariah state (Well, Mir Mousavi was taking notes from Hillary Clinton AND St. Barack). And if St. Barack's embracement of the very policies he claimed to abhor are any guide, Mousavi would adopt Mahmoud's aggressive agenda as well, that is if Mahmoud and the mullahs cede power.

The fact that he is now embracing these policies shows that conservatives were right all along, in the area of foreign policy. Instead of alienating them, he should at least listen to them, since he acknowledges their wisdom, albeit belatedly. Liberals reminded us that St. Barack was right in his slow condemnation, or lack thereof, of the atrocities occurring in Iran, as if everyone shares their hatred of a strong Amurica. Obviously, St. Barack doesn't believe that either, since he's slowly embracing Mousavi's plight now. Aren't you reminded of that familiar saying, "Don't send a boy to do a man's job?"

Have a great day...

26 June 2009

Liberals: Hey, enough about Michael Jackson, we have a conservative to smear...

...as if their houses are in order...

It's sad that three big names in entertainment passed away in a span of two days. All of them were unexpected, except Ed McMahon, probably. Each death is tragic, but I believe it's below the belt to try use these types of tragedies to score political points. It seems there's no tragedy too great that will prevent liberals from exploiting to smear conservatives. No one is without sin, by far, and liberals would be better off if they stop trying to pretend they're shocked that everyone isn't the Jesus Christ they want them to be.

I am not covering up for South Carolina Governor Sanford's infidelity, I am only pointing out the hypocrisy coming from liberals who are demanding more of Sanford than of President Clinton, who had a history of exploiting women. They covered for Clinton and smeared the Right, and Kenneth Starr for going after the president for "only a blowjob." He has come clean, instead of having an investigation launched, costing taxpayers untold amounts of money. He should be lauded for at least that. Liberals are upset that the news of Jackson's death have preempted them from continuing to express apoplexy at the infidelity bug that has bitten several members of the Republican Party.

The hyperinflation and whitewash of Jackson's "legacy" begins with Al Sharpton calling him a "trailblazer." He claimed that Jackson was the impetus for Barack Obama's historic run for the presidency (Huh? I thought that was because of dreams from his father, who had the audacity of hope...). Jackson did, indeed, make a noteworthy contribution to the music industry, and he never reached the same level of popularity he enjoyed after Thriller. But after his star faded, people began to forget his contributions and focus on his problems, namely his addition to pills, which he, apparently didn't seek help for. TMZ compares June 25, 2009 to January 20, 2009, stating that Barry-O's inauguration shut down the internet like Jacko's death.

Other liberals are comparing Jacko to Rush Limbaugh, calling them both the "king of self-promotion" and "child molesters." I admit, that is a bit hyperbolic...but remember how Perez Hilton got all depressed because someone treated him like a man, or because someone dared to take the spotlight off him? One would think that after getting embarrassed by being shown to be the pussy he is, that he'd be more careful in calling other people "attention whores." Fat chance...

...they say it happens in "threes..." RIP Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett-Majors, and Michael Jackson...

Have a great day...

25 June 2009

Gerald McEntee: I believe President Obama is a man of his word...

...I, Dr. Asten, think the "gay rights" movement may have something to say about that...

Mr. McEntee is the President of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. He, like many in the electorate, believe that Dr. Princess Neophyte will stay true to his word and revamp the US healthcare system, making it free for everyone (except him and his family, of course...). There is a plurality in the electorate that are calling on healthcare reform, but they are worried that they may have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes to pay for it. Both Barney Frank and President Hopey McChangerson have said that they believe single-payer options work well in other countries, and express difficulty in understanding why it hasn't been implemented in the United States yet.

We all know the proverb, "the grass isn't always greener on the other side." While "universal-healthcare" may sound like a viable alternative to our current system (I mean, who can oppose extending healthcare to people less fortunate?), there are many problems that comes along with government-run healthcare that need to be considered. One that stands out is the fact that in countries with centralized government control of healthcare, the care is often rationed, long waiting lists, and other restrictions. The Democrats healthcare plan apparently ignores all these pitfalls and mandates every Amurican get health insurance, pay a fine, or spend some time in the pokey. The Cato Institute argues that universal healthcare coverage is impossible without coercion.

Those who oppose ObamaCare are derided as being content with the status quo. I don't believe I can name anyone who is completely happy with "status quo," but if we all adhere to Obama and the Democrats' healthcare initiatives, by 2019, only 16 Million people will benefit, but at the same time, the insurance premiums will skyrocket. Left out of supporters of ObamaCare's arguments is their dishonesty on the "public option," which is essentially a new insurance company completely run by the government. The idea is based the Progressive Insurance's concept of offering premiums of competing insurance companies and allowing a customer to choose which company they'd like to represent them. Defenders of the "public option" claim this will keep private insurance companies "honest." I thought that debate was settled in the aftermath of the Grant Administration...they did it without making the government a competitor against private industry. Some Obama sycophants have declared that if the "public option" is not included in the ObamaCare bill, Obama will lose support, if not go down in defeat in his reelection bid...and that's the moonbat opinion.

There are several alternatives to reform our healthcare system without crowding out private insurers, by making the government a competitor. Instead of calling this a "crisis," and demand we act NOW, he should consider Republican and conservative initiatives to aid him in keeping the promise he made to the electorate, in allowing them to maintain their current coverage if they like. We barely could not afford Porkulus, and I highly doubt we'll be able to afford the new healthcare entitlement he and Democrats are attempting to ramrod down our throats.

Notice the incongruence here, quick and decisive action on condemning Bushitler's foreign policy, condemning "atrocies" committed by Israel, expanding government entitlements by forcing us to experience the same problems other countries have with single-payer systems...but takes a "wait and see" option in condemning actual oppressive tactics...

Have a great day...

24 June 2009

Patrick Fitzgerald: Hey, you remember how I treated "Scooter" Libby?

...I shouldn't be treated that way...

Patrick Fitzgerald, liberals' favorite US Attorney, is mad that publisher HarperCollins plans to publish a book detailing some instances where Fitzgerald may have committed abuses of power. Fitzgerald alleges that at in least three instances, Peter Lance, the author of the book, Triple Cross, defamed him. The book's main focus is on Osama bin Laden's master spy, Ali Mohammed, who was able to outflank US intelligence throughout the 1980s and 90s, and to this day, lives under a veil of secrecy.

What Peter Lance discusses is how Fitzgerald may have discounted information that would have led law enforcement and government officials to discover an Al Qaeda cell in New York (well, there went the oft repeated line from liberals that "9/11 is Bush/Cheney's fault"). From what I have read, Lance does not specifically blame Fitzgerald, or anyone else for 9/11, he seems to be only focusing on the incompetence of the FBI. Able Danger was a classified planning effort designed to deal with terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda. In December 2006, an investigation by the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee determined that Able Danger did not identify any of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11, but many believe that this determination, much like the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, were a whitewash.

Four of the five members of the Able Danger team stated that they were able to identify Mohammed Atta as a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda well before 9/11, but the bureaucracy and Jamie Gorelick's "wall," designed to prevent information sharing between law enforcement and the CIA, prevented this information from being released to the proper officials. The "wall" was later removed by liberals' most hated piece of legislation, the Patriot Act.

It should be common knowledge that Fitzgerald has been known to dabble in the game of politics, as evidenced by his "investigation" of Plame-gate. He knew who "leaked" Plame's identity, but wanted to indict some top officials in the Bush Administration. I am seeing a pattern here, ever since Mario Lavandeira (Perez Hilton) bitched about being punched in the face by will.i.am's band manager, that there seems to be a little too much whining going on with public officials. If Fitzgerald failed to do his job by indicting a known terrorist, he should be man enough to admit it. His 20 month long attempt to suppress this book is shameful.

Some are seeing HarperCollins' publishing as retribution by NewsCorp for Fitzie's relentless prosecution of the Bushites...you know nothing can keep a good moonbat down

Have a great day...

23 June 2009

Obama: I am inspired by Perez Hilton's tirade against will.i.am...

...I need to find something to get my mojo working again...

So, our dear leader, the leader of the free world wants to side with caution instead of using the example he provided for us, in the fly-swatting incident. He issues a meely-mouthed statement about Iran on his way out for ice cream and is seeing potential roadblocks on his much publicized health care reform bill. Instead of issuing a stronger statement about Iran and calling on the Democratic Congressional leadership to be more bipartisan, he resorts to one of his old tricks...a speech, as if that will make all of the world's problems dissipate. Hell, the White House is already claiming that Obama's "Cairo Speech" inspired the uprising in Iran.

"We're trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves," said a senior administration official who, like others, declined to be identified, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.


The Princess is hoping that by diverting attention away from his ineptitude on Iran, that he will regain the momentum to pass his disastrous policies. This past weekend, I was honored to watch an interview moderated by Mess-NBC's Alex Witt with Chris Kofinis and Brad Blakeman, where Witt tried to shame Blakeman by touting the CBS/NYT poll, which claimed that 72% of the electorate favored government-run healthcare. Even your friend, Dr. Asten, found this too good to be true, but just couldn't prove it. I know that my fellow Amuricans would like to pay less taxes, something the Princess promised to "95% of working families," so I found it hard to believe that a majority would want to see their taxes increase to pay for government-run healthcare. Soon after that, the lid was blown off the poll entirely, so I felt a little better.

This brings to mind one of the panel discussions on Fox News Sunday, where they discussed the favorable treatment Obamessiah has received since taking office. Chris Wallace produced a poll, which said that Obamessiah has received about 44% more favorable coverage, compared to former President Bush, who received 22%. Though there should be no debate as to whether the media wants President Neophyte to succeed, there is apparently, an expiration date on covering for his ineptness, and allowing him to continue to "blame Bush."

On the one hand, it's reassuring to see people having buyer's remorse about supporting a guy who couldn't manage his way out of a one-way street, on the other, it's disheartening that we must endure Obama's single-handed destruction of Amurica before we can recover. From the outset, opponents of Porkulus warned that it would not stem the tide of the recession, and so far it hasn't. Opponents of Obamacare see this plan being just as effective as the DMV...on a good day. By portraying opponents as "people who would rather do nothing," Obama seeks to force this crappola down our throats, and ABC's informercial will be one of the ways he will do it.

Someone tell the president that in THIS job, he can't vote "present..."

Have a great day...

22 June 2009

Weisberg: Obama should shit on Israel to show how much he loves them...

...in another example of talking tough to our allies, but remaining soft on our enemies...

Obama's reluctance to comment on the goings on in Iran and his "tough" rhetoric on Israel gives us an inner look on how he views the two nations. During the power stuggle in Iran, there is talk among the punditry whether Obama will press forward demanding a seat at the mullah's table, even if the mullah's hold on to power. To me, this issue is political dead letter. If the president ignores this event and presses forward demanding the crumbs from the mullahs, the thought that he champions freedom and democracy for all people will ring hollow. It seems inconsistent for the president to demand Israel to freeze its settlements in the West Bank, to end Palestinian resentment, and yet give a pass to the oppressors in Iran.

In the latest issue of Obama Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg essentially blames the US's unconditional support of Israel as the reason for built up Arab resentment in the area. He discusses how Carter and Bush 41 demanded concessions from Israel before they would deal with them, and believes Obama, as evidenced in his "Cairo speech," is doing the right thing by demanding even more concessions from the Israelis, to avoid being seen as blocking the peace process. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43, he says, encouraged Israel's worst tendencies, by believing Israel had a claim to the West Bank, based on the Bible, refusal to talk to the PLO, neglecting the peace process and condoned Israel's "military mismanagements." I do know that President Bush (43) did encourage a "two-state" solution to assuage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because he felt that it would also help in the War on Terror.

Weisberg takes time to make certain his readers know that Obama isn't anti-Israel by noting that Rahm Emmanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, has an Israeli father and once served as a civilian volunteer for the Israeli Army, and that many of Israel's supporters happen to be on "Obama's side." He calls on the president to continue to pressure Israel, but missing from his article is a need to effectively pressure Israel's enemies...like Iran. It's not only conservatives who are cautioning the president against a misguided approach to the conflict, but some Democrats as well. Sometimes, the rebuking of a friend is necessary...but not at the expense of pandering to its foes. This could be the reason that Obama is seen, by some, as anti-Israel...not a "friend in need," as Weisberg puts it.

As with all things about Obama's supporters, they do give him an excuse if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to fail...that "the odds overwhelmingly favor failure" (now, isn't that reassuring?). The conflict could be over overnight if pressure is applied to the group that continues to foment the divide, and from what I've seen in my 30 years, is that Israel has shown time and time again, their desire for peace. What they've received in return are a barrage of missile attacks, threats to "wipe them off the face of the map," and a president who believes, like 9/11 Truthers about the US, that Israel is bringing this crisis on itself.

I'm sure that Obama supporters will see nothing wrong about forcing a "regime change" in Israel, while they want us to "shhh" about one possibly occurring in Iran...

Have a great day...

20 June 2009

Robin Givhan: And on this day, Clair Huxtable begat Michelle Obama...

...and those that disagree are backwoods racists...

Although there is less adulation for Michelle Obama than her husband, Barry-O, there are still instances where black journalists, who believe that no other blacks have done anything notable, believe the Obamas to be the second coming of Christ. I can't walk into any store without looking on the cover of Ebony magazine and not see the Obamas in some type of embrace. It's as if the world has returned to its peaceful beginnings now that the Obamas are in the White House...and look, they're even caring for Michelle's mother. I understand gooey coverage over a history making election like the Election of 2008, but it's past due time journalists get back to what they do best...lie write about the news. Oftentimes, the Obamas are compared to JFK and Jackie-O, and like JFK, specifically, journalists would become like schoolgirls, preoccupied with the youthfulness of Kennedy, and covering up for his failures, like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Recently, yet another comparison was made between the Obamas and some Amurican icon. The Huxtables, from the TV series, The Cosby Show (1984-1992 on NBC). If I recall, some blacks did not like that show because they felt it did not give a real depiction of LWB, or living while black. They bemoaned the strong role model Cliff Huxtable was for his son, and the strong matriarch, Clair. They said that it was rare to have two black professionals as involved with their families as Cliff and Clair...not to mention the music performances. I'm sure you can understand my confusion when Robin Givhan of the Huffington Post, all of a sudden forgot all about the fake portrayal of blacks in a rush to compare Clair Huxtable to Michelle Obama (besides, haven't there been plenty of instances where black women are portrayed as strong and independent?).

I am aware that TV is the medium where many create their stereotypes about others. Black women are often portrayed in a negative light, and it's rare to see a positive portrayal of a group that is so often mischaracterized. To gloss over the instances that caused people to have misgivings about the First Lady, is disingenuous. Many of the First Lady's critics are not racists, by any means, but if the First Lady proclaims on national television, that her husband having a serious shot at the presidency marks the first time she's been proud of her country, does give people pause. Somehow, I don't think Clair Huxtable, for one minute, would mirror the same sentiment.

There are real world examples of positive portrayals of black women, and black men, that get often overlooked by these same purveyors of race-baiting. People like Givhan don't consider success stories like Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, or Michael Steele, as legitimate examples of how far black women and men can get in this country, simply because they're not affiliated with the Democratic Party. After all, Harry Belafonte and Ted Rall both vocalized what many blacks felt about Rice, in particular, that she was a "house n---a" and she forgot that she was black. Those blacks who stray from the Democratic Party plantation are no longer legitimate commentators on race relations. They're dismissed as "self-loathers" or strange phenomenon.

I find it shameful that black journalists must have their blackness validated. Seems to me it's not black conservatives, who don't look through labels anyway, but black liberals who need to relive the "black experience." The Obamas do not define blackness for me, nor should they for any other black person. When I find the time, I plan to pick up Kevin Jackson's newest book, The Big Black Lie.

Have a great day...

19 June 2009

Obama: We should refrain from attacking the mullahocracy...

...because I don't wanna fuck up my pursuit of diplomacy with the tyrants...err, mullahs...

One argument against Obama making a stronger statement about the murderous regime in Iran is the US track record on Middle East politics. Somehow, those who are toeing the Ayatollah Khamenei line that the US, the UK, and teh Jews believe that what has happened in the Middle East as a result of the spread of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is because President Obama rode in on his magic unicorn and spread pixie dust and gumdrops everywhere (and Keith Olbermann hates historical revisionists...). Unfortunately for the mullah supporters, mostly those on the anti-Bush Left, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a result of Bush foreign policy, is the reason the Iranian mullahs are now feeling threatened as never before.

The demonstrations in Iran started out as a protest against the rigged election, where the "results" pointed to an unpopular president being reelected. Because the mullahs see the handwriting on the wall, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of protesters in the streets, they rely on their old bag of tricks, blaming the West for forcing them to crack the heads of, beat, and kill supporters. Even anti-US liberals should see this smokescreen for what it is, but they're still being duped by the Obama-koolaid. What happened in Iraq in 2005, spread across the Middle East and instead of bitching about "imposing" democracy on an "unwilling populace," a populace who was more than willing to risk death to turn their fingers purple, they should have championed the spread of freedom to people less fortunate than those in the West.

David Ignatius believes Obama was right in speaking carefully in the first week of this protest, but he is now, along with Vice President Joe Biden, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several senior Obama officials, calling on Obama to strike a more forceful tone with the mullahs and put his desire for talks on hold. The more Obama misses the point in this, the harder it will be for him later, because if he continues to press for a cessation of the protests in order to start his talking, he will appear to support the oppressors and the Iranian electorate will then fulfill liberals dreams that the Iranian people hate the United States (so much for being the "healer" of the world, eh?).

This should, once and for all, change the opinion liberals have about "smart power" and "diplomacy." No matter how many times Obama wants to talk to the Iranian mullahocracy to coax them into giving up their nuclear program, the Ayatollah has said the nuclear file is closed. Obama has nothing to lose if he strikes a more forceful tone against the oppression, but he has more to lose if he stays silent and the Iranian regime falls...

Jed Babbin believes different...that Obama should keep his yap shut. Not because he agrees with Obama that the US should not meddle, but because Obama's views are incongruent with the protesters...

Have a great day...

18 June 2009

Tina Brown: Sarah Palin should ride Bill Clinton's coattails, just like Hillary did...

...but she should first dye her hair blond...and then don a alpha female pant-suit

It is no secret that I like Sarah Palin. She, unlike Joe Biden and Barack Obama, made me feel great to be in the United States of America. Despite all that went wrong during the final months of the Bush regime, Palin reminded us why this is still the greatest country in the world. She is the reason I decided not to vote for Bob Barr and support McCain, at the last minute. Because she, like "Joe the Plumber," dared to challenge Obama on his vulnerabilities, liberals sprang into action poking fun at her looks, her five children, and her governing style (Troopergate). Obviously, they couldn't find anything objectionable about her policy positions, although I will admit that she should have been more exposed by the McCain campaign.

Even after McCain's defeat in November, liberals still felt threatened by Palin. I guess the governor of Alaska is in a position to be a bigger threat to mankind than Obameconomics. Recently, David Letterman said of Palin that she had the style of a "slutty flight attendant," and of Willow Palin, Sarah's 14 year old daughter, that she had been "knocked up by [A-Rod]." The backlash was almost immediate and, in my view, well deserved. To some Palin haters, it was Sarah's fault because she didn't get Letterman's "joke," and that she should "lighten up." I wonder if they would have been so accomodating if Letterman had spouted the same rhetoric about them or their loved ones (Remember how people bitched about Rush's TV show mistakenly showing a picture of a dog, when he referenced Chelsea Clinton? I don't recall any liberals telling the Clintonistas to "get over it," or that they should "lighten up").

Tina Brown asserts that Palin should take a cue from Hillary Clinton, in that she doesn't hold grudges against President Obama for besting her in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. She also assails Governor Palin for "intellectual dishonesty," because she believes Letterman was not referring to Willow, but Bristol, who had been "knocked up." Most people champion Hillary standing beside her husband throughout the Lewinsky scandal, but Hillary knew that if she divorced Bill, she would not enjoy the power she currently enjoys. She rode the coattails of President Clinton, and it would be difficult to prove that she would have been Secretary of State or a US Senator, if we were not blessed with eight years of Clinton-style politics. Brown goes after Palin, claiming she should have gone quietly into the night after losing the Vice Presidency last year...because that's what "power women do."

Brown considers Clinton and San Fran Nan "power women," but these two did not go quietly anywhere. Clinton quickly ran for Senator of New York before her tenure as First Lady ended. She did not go quietly into the night after her defeat during the Democratic Presidential Primary, she went campaigning for Barry-O and sought to get her reward as his Secretary of State. No, instead of taking lessons from power-hungry individuals like Hillary and San Fran Nan, she should spend time honing the skills she already possesses.

Have a great day...

17 June 2009

Sully: Yeah, A-jad's a mean guy, but you know that Karl Rove and Sarah Palin...

...they're just as eeevil...

Andrew Sullivan, whom some liberals confuse for being conservative, has recently expressed his opinion about the goings on in Iran. He has earned much praise for siding with freedom against the corrupt Iranian mullahocracy, and then, like Vice President Biden, he reminds you once again the wise remarks he makes are when he's OFF his meds. Just like the comparison of Ahmadinejad to former President Bush, Sullivan's comparison of A-jad to Karl Rove and Sarah Palin is a bit over the top and inflammatory.

First off, I, like John Hawkins, am astounded at the fact that the Obama Administration is siding with the tyrannical regime, rather than come out on the side of freedom, by supporting the protesters. The United States has always fought for not only its freedom, but for the freedom of others. Even if Obama wanted to be cautious, he could have called on the mullahs to perform a careful investigation of the matter. Instead, he wants the mullahs to get all their exciting bloodsport out of the way, so they can talk. That's not leadership, that's being a coward, he should take a lesson from other world leaders who have spoken more forcefully, like his former gal pal, Angela Merkel. I think this is the first president who has sided with oppression over freedom...

GayPatriotWest writes about the hypocrisy that has emerged on the Gay Left. In Iran, there is rampant discrimination towards gays...even to the point they are killed for being gay. Nothing has emerged on any "gay rights" websites condemning the anti-gay regime in Iran. But these are the same people who can't make a cohesive argument supporting their causes without demonizing the opposition.

I thought we inaugurated our 44th President on January 20th...not someone without a spine...

Have a great day...

16 June 2009

Hey, you know who's weak on national security?

...silly, you already know...

If you have never caught Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld on FNC, you're missing a real treat. Whenever I have the opportunity, I always catch Gutfeld and his roundtable of political commentators. He presents the political news of the day with such humor, it makes me jealous. On Panetta's comment about former Vice President Dick Cheney wanting another attack on US soil, Gutfeld wrote on his blog, The Daily Gut:

"But after that, Panetta make a fundamental error in his reasoning. See, he mistakes Cheney for a leftwinger. Remember, it was during the Bush Administration that the left milked the hell out of tragedy and calamity to make sure they won in November. Liberal bloggers never met a car bomb they didn't front page, and lefty pontificators would wet themselves whenever an opportunity to portray our soldiers as seething barbarians presented itself. Hell, you remember the mini-industry of films made about how awful the Iraq war was. They failed miserably at the box office, but helped achieve a loftier goal: they pulled crisis out of success, cementing a win in November.

I used to call these folks patriotic terrorists – people who claim they love their country, but need that same country to suffer, so they can win."


Some see this as the deflection it is, from the White House's weak statement on Iran. I guess I can't fault the POTUS for being a coward in this, after all, he's promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. He wouldn't want to offend them with such petty-assed things like stressing free and fair elections (by the way, speaking of "free and fair elections," has anyone heard from Jimmah Carter lately?), the hallmark of a democratic society. To me, it's strange how Democrats hemmed and hawwed up until September 10th, 2001 about President Bush being "selected, not elected," but are silent in the face of actual instances of voter and election fraud. As US Senator Joe Lieberman said, we should stand "loudly and clearly" with the people of Iran. And building on what I said about Mossadeq yesterday, the people of Iran admire the United States, it's the government that has a problem.

On a side note, Allahpundit notes that President Hopey McChangerson was "shocked and outraged" at the murder of George Tiller, but "troubled" about the crackdown in Iran...shows where his priorities are, does it not?

People are being killed in Iran over the election results, and as Ace notes, A-jad was not as popular with the Iranian electorate as the Washington Post asserts. The populace clearly supported Mousavi, and their votes should be respected. It's "troubling" that people like Obamessiah believe that their opinions are the majority, and any outcome that doesn't show that is rigged. They protested in the streets and demanded recounts and claimed that Bushie stole the election, etc. They should be just as vocal as the Iranian protesters and conservatives on this issue, but I guess liberals and the mullahs are on the same page. It's the same "tough" stance he took during the Russia/Georgia conflict last year, calling on both sides to use "restraint," even though in this case, the mullahs are committing the horrendous acts against the protestors (what can a picket sign do against the Iranian military? Piss them off?)

Oh wait! I was sorely mistaken. Liberals have expressed their opinions about the travesty in Iran. You think they are condemning the mullahs for indiscrimiately beating and killing protesters...hell nah! They've compared A-jad to...wait for it...George W. Bush. Liberals are also believing the Cairo speech was the inspiration for the protests in Iran and the emergence of democracy in Lebanon. Funny, how no credit is given to President Bush, by invading both Iraq and Afghanistan paved the way for democratic reforms in the Middle East...

It's like Obama's sent an I-pod with his favorite songs to the mullahs, hoping all will be better...

Have a great day...

15 June 2009

You know, Ed Shultz is a little like Obama...

...but instead of wanting to urinate on his political foes, Obama wants to urinate on our traditions...

Leon Panetta is making the waves again, upset that former Vice President Cheney is salivating at the thought of another terrorist attack on the United States. To Panetta, this would vindicate Cheney's beliefs that Obama is urinating on the tactics the Bushites used during the War on Terror (September 2001-January 2009). I know that liberals find it hard to believe that some politicians are not cynical, especially after defending President Clinton's eight years of narcissism, but I will always believe in my heart that during the days after the horrendous attacks, the Bushites and caring Democrats wanted to do all they could to prevent another one of that magnitude. But hey, James Carville and Paul Begala expressed a desire to force a Republican president to fail, and needed to remind Democrats that the Selected-in-Chief was not a Democrat.

Obama's intelligence officials have warned him against releasing the "torture memos," noting it would continue to flame anti-US sentiments. He has denied Cheney's request to release all the memos, probably because those would vindicate Cheney and make Obama eat crow. He has ordered the FBI to give Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan, he has sugar coated Islamic terrorism, favors diplomacy with Iran and the Palestinians over Israel, as evidenced by his equating the Holocaust to Palestinian relocation. None of this seems to bother Obama's acolytes, obviously, since Jeremiah Wright has a problems with "dem Jooos."

I was reading the latest issue of Newsweak, and a letter written by Howard S., from Scotts Valley, California made clear to those Amuricans ( he called them "history-challenged") why the Iranians dislike our fellow Amuricans...the CIA-backed overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq (or Mossadegh), who was "democratically elected," by the Iranian Parliament after the assassination of the sitting prime minister. Unfortunately for Howard, and all those who believe him, Mossadeq was highly unpopular with the Iranians after his attempts to nationalize the oil wells, among other things, led to an economic slump. Obama slammed the CIA for removing Mossadeq, even though his removal was what the country needed (DISCLAIMER: No Janie, and other liberal spies, I am not suggesting the CIA remove Obama, even though that maybe what our country needs).

John Hawkins says that Obama's decision to put Panetta in the top slot at the CIA shows us how serious he is about terrorism. He muses the CIA has a new Public Enemy #1: Dick Cheney. It's true that Obama's moves since becoming the 44th president shows he's a big ol' softie on national security, but I knew that when he was still a US Senator...

Have a great day...

13 June 2009

Playing the race card can get you burned sometimes...

"I hope she can find a wise Latina doctor to set that ankle, as opposed to an average white doctor, because the wise Latina doctor has much richer experience with broken ankles."--Rush Limbaugh

While liberals focus on the boogeyman "right-wing extremist," in their campaign to cover up for Obama's countless missteps, the race war that he's perpetuating is becoming a little too hot to handle for him. Very few noticed that his association with a black separatist would become a central theme for his presidency. All of his defenders dismiss criticism of Obama's policies as racist, conservatives and Republicans can't stomach having a black president, which is kinda funny when you consider how they supported having two black US Secretaries of State, a minority US Attorney General, and a black US Supreme Court Justice. It has been Democrats and liberals who have been on the wrong side of the race wars, since they believe that just because a white man has held a position for so long, it's time a black guy held it...no matter how unqualified he is.

This crap started shortly after Obama resigned his US Senate seat. Roland Burris believed that the seat should have gone to a black man...namely, him. He played the race card against Harry Reid, who, in a surprise move showing he had a backbone, refused to seat him. After US Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) played Softball with Chris Matthews, Reid folded like a house of cards. Now that evidence is emerging that Burris was in on Blagojevich's selling of the US Senate seat to the highest bidder, Democrats are unbelievably angry, even moreso that the nominees to various positions appointed by Obama feel they're entitled because of their race.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearings will be the first in recent memory that will not focus solely on Roe v. Wade, but on affirmative action. Her responses to questions posed by senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and will be used as fodder if she fucks it up. We all know how Democrats and liberals will stand on this issue, that Republican opposition to Sotomayor is racist, not only against Hispanics, but against the nation's first black president. Since we have minorities in several senior positions in our government, and have for a while now, the idea of continuing a program, like affirmative action, is merely a waste of time.

Minorities have access to a litany of programs and services they didn't in prior years. The nation has come a long way in ensuring equal protections for all its citizens based on race. This is not the United States in the Jim Crow Era, but one that has more than made up for its original sin...slavery. Obviously, based on her ruling in the Ricci case, Sotomayor still believes the race war needs to continue.

Have a great day...

12 June 2009

Every six months, conservatives feel like Ann Coulter...

...we get blamed for something we didn't do...

Some of us already know what a hack Paul Krugman is, but for those that still have yet to experience it, Mr. Krugman, along with the rest of the Left, has blamed not only the Tiller shooting on conservatives, but the shooting at the Holocaust Museum as well. No tragedy should be used to score political points, but that doesn't stop Krugman and his ilk from finding ways to do it. He points to the recent and "prescient" Department of Homeland Security report that highlighted "right-wing" extremism. Lest you believe him alone in peddling these notions, I will have you note, he is not alone in his thinking. Contrary to liberals' protestations about conservatives having issues about the DHS' broadbrush report, this report made generalizations about conservatives and did not note specific threats.

Von Brunn and his organization had been on the radar since the 1980s and DHS did nothing to stop him. I believe there is a stark difference between neo-Nazis and conservatives, the Right tends not to listen to the nutty remarks made by these groups. Besides, it hasn't been any known righties to besmirch the the "Jooos." (I wonder when Krugman will start leveling criticism at this guy)Then again, why are groups who align with left-leaning politics associated with conservative thought. Last I checked, national socialism was a leftie belief, it is their desire for the populace to serve the state. It has been noted that von Brunn despised former President Bush, because he believed he was in on the 9/11 attacks, denied President Obama is a citizen, and was anti-Semitic. And in case one of my lib friends dares to use this as an example of conservatives hating Obama, then they can explain why he attacked the Federal Reserve during Reagan's first term...

I had stayed away from talking about the murder of Dr. Tiller, because it would be a repeat of what I said about the murder of a cop in Pittsburg and Chad Castanaga, that conservatives would be blamed for kooks murdering people. To liberals, it's never the fault of the perpetrator...it's always the system. Even Dr. King's niece felt the comparison of the death of her uncle to the murder of Tiller was a bit over the top. For all the hate directed at Bill Orally for putting a spotlight on Tiller, I notice none of Tiller's defenders paid attention to the methods he used to cover his ass. As I said, as heinous as this man was, he did not deserve to be a victim of a vigilante, and Tiller's murderer should be subject to the death penalty for his crime.

While lefties try to pin the blame for acts of terror on "hate speech" coming from "reich-wing" media outlets and talk radio, let us point out, that many on the left also engage in conspiracy theories, not only about former President Bush, but on Iraq, the Global War on Terror, and why we were bombed in the first place. One name that comes to mind is Keith Olbermann, who recently criticized Rush Limbaugh for essentially saying the same thing he did about former President Bush. Limbaugh's comment, in effect, was that Al Qaeda needed to hurry and destroy Amurica before Obama does. Olbermann must have Alzheimer's since he said of President Bush, in one of his Speshul Komints, that he [Bush] was doing the terrorist's work, that Bush was like Hitler, and that Cheney was just as "insane as the terrorists." The Obamedia didn't mention Keith Olbermann, Medea Benjamin, Arianna Huffington nor Markos Moulitsas, when a Muslim gunned down Private William Long a few weeks back.

To liberals, this brings credence to the shotty DHS report focusing on an "uptick in right-wing extremism." In fact, our dear friend, Paul Krugman is now claiming that the VRWC's media wing is planning another attack in the same vein as the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. I think President Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for that one...

Have a great day...

10 June 2009

"Gee, if they move any more to the Right, we'll be in a theocracy..."

...it's amazing how this belief isn't extended to Islamic fundamentalism...

I got a predictable response about my comment on a blog which advocated a more moderate GOP. The response was that if the Republicans became any more conservative, that they would advocate a theocracy. Nothing scares liberals more than invoking the name of Jesus, except when Obamessiah mentions it. Perhaps they already know he doesn't mean it, since he's embracing their favorite religion, Islam. When President Bush invoked the name of The Almighty, you could see liberals from Manhattan to WeHo, tremble in their boots. I believe that Bushie was simply a man of faith, that wanted the Lord to ensure he was doing His will. To liberals, the man was only trying to establish a theocracy, despite his many efforts to ensure freedoms for not only Christians, but for everyone worldwide.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that conservatives corner the market on tolerance, but as I continue to preach, our policies actually promote individuality, instead of focusing on people as groups. After peddling her notion that conservatives are intolerant, Janie decided to take on another threat to mankind everywhere...our growing federal deficit? No, it's still Bushitler's fault...the fact that our allies are becoming our enemies? No, they just don't understand the Obamessiah, or they're just racists...Obama's pass on protecting voters? No, the federal cases against ACORN and the dismissal of the case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation is nothing more than a reich-wing fearmongering tactic...the threat she decided to take on was...The Constitution Party. From the website, the party desires to return the federal government to its Constitutional limits (who could oppose that? Apparently, she doesn't...) and restore our laws to its Biblical foundations (...ah, that's what got Janie to blow a gasket). For her, and other liberals, the issue is settled...we have a separation of church and state...and the Founders realized the danger of mixing politics and religion. I beg to differ...

The Founding Fathers, deists though they were, always recognized their religion and formed the government with the backbone of morality. The Founders realized that the faithful could not check their faith at the Capitol steps or the voters booth. Contrary to liberal talking points, the "religious freedom" the Founders advocated were against government forming a state religion and then forcing the electorate to adhere to it, like King Henry VIII and his Act of Supremacy in 1534. There is nothing that I found about the Constitution Party to be objectionable. In fact, many of its platforms are core principles of conservative thought. Many of those who considered themselves "deists" considered themselves Christians, but in the sense of Christianity before it was corrupted by the Council of Trent.

The Constitution Party ensures that it does not desire to transform Amurica into a Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, though people like Janie overlook that important fact to demonize. It desires to return the nation to the intention of the Founders, with some added features not addressed in the Constitution. It would be hard to argue it wrong to return our nation back to its Constitutional principles, especially in light of the many diatribes by liberals like Janie, who slammed Republicans for allegedly trashing it. Christians are not like Islamists who desire to force their religion upon the masses. Perhaps those who are so anti-Christian have their religions mixed up...

Christians know that not all are going to be Christian, they have accepted that as fact. I believe it's the same thing with liberals...they're problems are only with themselves. They have a problem with the feelings they project onto others...As for me, I tend not to align with any one political party. I choose the candidate based on their positions, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or Independent. I also believe that I am not alone in my thinking.

Have a great day...

09 June 2009

Falling for the same rhetoric over and over again...

...doesn't dissuade the usual crowd from their talking points...

The good doctah doesn't really like blog wars and generally tries to keep discussions above board and humorous. Occasionally, there is one person who destroys all that and resorts to attacking me. I'm not whining, because I've been doing this for years, but I find it ironic that these are the same people that demand conservatives moderate their stances. Usually those types of blogs utilize President Obama's strawman argument to marginalize dissent, portraying any dissent as loopy and and on the fringe.

There is a blog on MySpace that talks about "Right Wing Whackiness At Its Worst", where the blogger uses the stereotypes about conservatives and Republicans to make her point that every one who criticizes her Obamessiah, is a nut...I thought she was sarcastic, until she admitted she wasn't. One of the things I was trying to figure out while reading this was exactly how the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, the KKK, all of a sudden became associated with the Republican Party. The idea was that in order for the GOP to win elections, they must become liberal. I'm not sure they were aware of the last election we had, but the moderate Republican did not win. h/t: Ryan

I pointed out on this blog that the GOP continues to lose because they have abandoned their conservative base, to which a regular commenter of the blog called me a "wingnut." I took it all in stride, as I do when other people call me names. I believe there's a larger point to be made here, and it goes above the ignorant masses who peddle the nonsense that the GOP needs to moderate. Don't fall for the wiles of liberals, who pretend to have the best interests of the opposing party in mind. Smart liberals know that if they move the GOP to the left, they'll secure future elections of Democrats, since most voters vote for the full monty, instead of the lite version.

Of course there is room in the Republican Party for moderates, but those who are moderate should be more willing to say WHY they lean conservative, instead of seeking ways to alienate them. I have my reasons for being conservative and there are times when I disagree with many of the platforms of the Right. Funny, I don't recall receiving a letter forcing me out of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I believe that falls on liberals and Democrats, who force people out that don't adhere to their tenets...remember Joe Lieberman? Moderates in the GOP have as much a voice as Hardliners and those in between.

I continue to believe that this is a defense mechanism used by liberals to cover up the fact that they are embarrassed by Obamessiah. They can't afford to give up on him just yet, as it is his first year. Things are getting difficult for their Obamessiah, though. His Por-kill-us package has not had the intended effect on our economic recovery. He's losing the edge on spending and I believe if much is made about his Department of Justice taking a pass on protecting voters, among other failings, people like Janie and Dale Husband will soon wake up.

Have a great day...

03 June 2009

I hope he has a strong antibiotic...

...instead of two pills and a glass of water...

Although I know better, I would expect President Obama to visit the Middle East, and not be so determined to apologize for former President Bush's desire to spread democracy across the Middle East, and call on Muslims to renounce the acts committed in their name...and their willingness to wish "death to America" every six months. As a former Muslim (which, during the campaign, was grounds to be dismissed as a hate-filled lying liar), the president is in a good spot to call on Muslims to undergo a "reformation," similar to Christianity, where debate on the central tenets would be encouraged. The president experienced Islam on three different continents, so that would make him more of an authority on Islam than say...your humble correspondent.

Though he's being seen as a cure for the ills of his predecessor, many Muslims are skeptical that he will effectively convince them that he's the anti-Bush, as was evidenced in his speech to Cairo University. Muslims are extremely uncomfortable with the US partnering with Israel, and with anyone criticizing Arabs. He does get praise from the Arab community by expressing the positivity of Islam, though. According to many critics, his speech expressed a similar sentiment used when Obama described the Russia/Georgia conflict, that we should all express restraint. When he did talk tough, it came across, to AllahPundit, like addressing a room full of flat-earthers demanding they believe the earth is round.

Charles Krauthammer notes that the Obama Administration is reneging on several proposals that have been used by both Bushes and Clinton, which calls for a two-state solution to solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict. He says that the United States will no longer dictate solutions, but listen to other nations, since he believes that the US has always started the "peace process" by dictating. In yet another episode of sticking it to "whitey," Obamessiah demands Israel accept his plans, or be subject to being demonized as not wanting peace. Oddly, or should I say, as predicted, no concessions were expected of the Arabs, with the small exception that they shouldn't go around killing innocent men, women, and children.

It shouold be noted that governments that are forced upon people often rely on keeping the people in check. Everyday a dictator is threatened by an uprising by his subjects who have grown weary of oppression. To keep his power in check, the dictator forms a scapegoat to divert attention from his shortcomings. In the case of the Palestinians, and other similar governments, these scapegoats are the United States and Israel. Also noted in Krauthammer's piece was how in the years since Israel turned over its lands to the Palestinians, no infrastructure has been built on these lands by the Palestinian government...of course they blame Israel.

Israel was not the only group thrown under the bus. Several have noted that the president did not call out Arabs on their treatment of gays or women. So my instincts were correct, that this was just another suck-up to our enemies tour. Meanwhile, our long standing allies are feeling this new "change we can believe in." Both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel have recently joined the club formed by Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Gordon Brown...Obama's Snub Club.

I would like to end this entry with this personal observation. Many Obama fans often chastise me for criticizing Obama's plans claiming he's just one man and hasn't had time to get his act together. Apparently, they don't realize that this supposedly powerless man is destroying any and everything that we hold dear in the United States. In six short months, our relations with our allies have been strained like never before, and our enemies are seeing us as pansies...but don't blame me, I voted for the other gal.

Have a great day...

Obamessiah: Hard on rhetoric...2

...soft on standing tough on Amurican principles...

If a political novice allies himself with a known terrorist, a devout Marxist, and black separatists, why would people expect that this same political novice, who is the new president, change his spots? Growing up in a church that preaches black separatism and that "whitey" is the root of all evil, one would expect some hostility directed at "whitey" if this political novice tasted a little power. It seems, as I have been saying for awhile now, that Obama's chief goal is to stick it to "whitey" to pay for their ancestors' past sins. It doesn't matter that those who advocated "separate, but equal" policies are in the minority, and we, as a nation, are accepting many different things as years pass...the goal is to continue to foment the divide that has existed since our nation's inception, and it will continue as long as the Misery Merchants allow it.

I had forgotten why I listen to Rush Limbaugh, but on my way to fellowship with my parents and family yesterday, I decided to tune in. Of course you know, the president is on Apology Tour II, Muslim World Edition. Before leaving, he gave an interview for the BBC, which apologized for an "imposition" of our values on other nations. Limbaugh is right when he says "freedom is not an imposition." The foundation of our nation is Judeo-Christian morals, and we did not impose them on Afghanistan, Iraq, nor any other nation we defeated in wars and other conflicts. When we defeated Saddam, we removed the shackles he placed on his people, by offering the citizens of Iraq the freedom to choose their own government. The same goes for Afghanistan. The forms of government that are imposed on people are totalitarianism, communism, fascism...not democracy. I guess since the face of democracy almost always happens to be white, I guess Obama has to fight against that too.

Limbaugh went on to say that Obama...I mean, the walking strawman, who believes that the US should not "impose" its values on other nations and cultures, doesn't think twice about having other nations impose their values on the US. Pressure from international groups demanded the closure of GITMO, that we surrender Iraq and vacate post haste, and give terrorists rights and privileges for which they didn't qualify. We have to reason with Mahmoud, Hugo, and Bashir because that eevil, mean, white man called Bush imposed some eevil thing called democracy and he always expressed some strange feeling called "Amurica First" rhetoric. Any and everything about the US is bad, since most people associate the US with "whitey." Barry-O feels it's best to run around and destroy "whitey" whereever his head appears.

Continuing on the theme of his lack of clarity on race issues, the Obama Justice Department has recently deemed the Georgia Voter ID law unacceptable. The Justice Department claims that the plan has a "discriminatory effect" on minorities, even though the plan does allow those who cannot afford a driver's license, or a similar form of ID, to get one from the Secretary of State's office free of charge. The rejection stems from a provision in the Voting Rights Act which says that those states under judicial oversight must obtain preclearance before changing the voting rules. There is a case that was argued before the Supremes back in April, that could possibly render the preclearance moot. It should be noted that the Supremes upheld Indiana's Voter ID law, even after liberals claimed it disenfranchised a woman...without noting she was on the voting rolls in two different precincts.

I wish someone would tell the president and his administration that this is not the 1960s, where racism was widespread. This is 2009, and if he still believes there's racism as rampant now as it was then, can someone tell me why HE's the president and not John McCain?

Have a great day...

01 June 2009

It's too early to separate...

...but each passing day makes the job easier...

Liberals are now starting to believe conservatives about Obamessiah, but it's too soon for them to start being more vocal about his ineffectiveness. These people have a hard time acknowledging that those eeevil conservatives were right all along. What I would like to focus on is the continued mantra we hear from liberals that the Right is racist. Watching an episode of my favorite sitcom, All in the Family, when Mike is passed over for a promotion at a university in Minnesota for a black man, the dean's consolation to Mike made plain why liberals feel that minority racism is justified. He said that for too long the scales had been unbalanced in favor of whites, so no matter the qualifications, it's ok if a potentially less qualified minority advances over a more qualified white man. Now, that sentiment reflected what I felt in my teens and early twenties, but how much longer can liberals get away with this type of behavior?

It should be common knowledge that if the goals some liberals claim they're hoping to achieve for minorities were reached, many of them would be jobless. By no means am I claiming that conservatives corner the market on racial harmony, but in my view, it is best that people only judge others based on merits alone and nothing else. Pro-Sotomayor types show their insecurities about her qualifications by claiming that opposition is racism, but this is the same tricks they used when the Right criticized Obamessiah, something that former Obama-aid drinkers are slowly realizing. It's nice when Democrats are reminded of their racist past and are forced on the defensive.

We know how Democrats were at the forefront in opposition to Miguel Estrada because they did not want President Bush to have the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court. Mona Charen believes it's more than that. She believes that Democrats should have to face the consequences when one of their own makes baseless charges. Conservative sage, Thomas Sowell, reiterates what I've been saying throughout my time as a political blogger, that invoking people's feelings in judicial rulings is dangerous, and he bolsters it by saying, in summary, that all citizens are expected to know the law, in advance, and follow it, one cannot know the life experiences of judges if they have the misfortune of appearing in front of one for violating it. He also says that like the Great Immigration Debates of 2006 and 2007, the chattering class can stop this seemingly unstoppable train as well.

Ace, has a post about his feelings for minority conservatives. He says that their skin color should not be a bar to criticism. He applauds Janice Rogers Brown, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Alberto Gonzales' rise up the political ladder, but at the same time, wants people to be careful about criticizing the "wise Latina." Obama's new-fangled opinion was expressed by none other than Montel Williams (he should have stuck with commercials for prescription drug coverage...), who claims that Obama is under some new type of procedure, where Congress has to clear his picks (no doubt this new procedure has a tinge of racism...). He claims that no other president has been under this type of scrutiny and that any opponents to Sotomayor wants the court to return to the days when Democrats appointed all those racist Supreme Court Justices of segregation. Before you laugh, there are plenty of people out there who are ignorant of the US Constitution, and believe exactly what Williams says. That falls into a whole 'nother subject...like high schools not teaching Amurican History the way it happened.

Seeing their excuses folding like a house of cards, the pro-Sotomayor crowd is taking to task those who bemoaned Sotomayor's "empathy," but championed Justice Alito's...

Have a great day...I'll be eating fish!