30 July 2009

Maxine Waters: I am the fifth most beautifullest person on Capitol Hill!

...beware those who oppose me...

I must mention that The Hill must have been in a hurry to post their annual 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill. There is no way in HELL that I will believe that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) the harridan who loudly proclaimed she wasn't afraid of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, as if she had something to fear from them, is the fifth most beautiful person on Capitol Hill. No way in HELL! If Waters is the standard, then obviously, Medusa was a Republican congresswoman, since no Republican congresswoman or Senator made the list...lol! I certainly don't corner the market on looks, but this shit takes the freakin' cake!

Waters, in addition to not being afraid of mere men, isn't afraid of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress either. She rips White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for instituting his strategy in both the Election of 2006 and 2008, recruiting conservative Democrats in red districts. I, for one, thought Waters liked her party holding the majority in Congress, but you know I'm crazy as hell. At least Waters is on the right track in assigning blame, unlike the White House and stupefied blue bloggers, who continue to blame the GOP.

It's a very good thing that Waters is not on any committee that recruits candidates to run for public office, or she must have been too busy railing against Bush's War in Iraq to notice how many in the electorate were disillusioned by Bush and Republicans' spending habits from 2001-2006. Those "Blue Dog" Democrats won simply because they ran as all things conservative. Rahm Emmanuel is anything but stupid, he knew what he was doing. Had Waters' strategy worked, Ned Lamont would have ousted Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race...he didn't. Next year, it will be more difficult to portray Democrats as fiscally responsible in light of Porkulus, Crap-n-Trade, and ObamaScare, so my advice to Mrs. Waters would be to keep her protestations under wraps.

She's not the only one expressing frustration at the "Blue Dogs," as Hank Johnson (D-GA), who had the privilege of ousting Waters' fellow race-baiter, Cynthia McKinney in 2006, claims that opposition to the so-called "public option" was based on racism, since all the "Blue Dogs" are white. San Fran Nan went on a tirade against private insurance companies, calling them "villains." It must be hot as hell on Capitol Hill, with liberals fanning the flames. What liberals don't seem to understand is that profits are not eeevil, in fact, they represent customer satisfaction with the company's product, as Stephen Carter explains for us. A business has every right to fight against confiscatory policies of the government that seek to put it out of business. The so-called public option will do exactly that, by forcing private insurance companies to unfairly compete with government insurance plans, backed by taxpayer subsidies.

For more on the horrors of the so-called "public option," read this post by David Freddoso on Betsy's page...

But Obamessiah wants to assure you he's not antibusiness...it's his policies that are...

Have a great day...

Congressional Democrats on firing nine US Attorneys: Politization of the Justice Department!

Congressional Democrats on the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation:...

My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.

Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").

Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.

Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...

Have a great day...

Democrats: We're strong on terror, just like the Republicans...

...we're actually timid when it comes time to prove it...

Most Obamabots agree that the president has marked a sharp contrast to the bungling, keystone cop-like, Bush Administration. They have this mindset that because the Bushites actually took the terrorists at their word, they were being unfair to the terrorists. We were called on by liberals to understand their plight and moderate our rhetoric to appease the terrorists, and this way, they would go home and leave us the hell alone. Oh, and that our opposition to appeasement was inherent in racism (almost forgot that one...). On the campaign trail, Obamessiah called Bush foreign policy "dumb" and "made us less safer," (another instance where crazy lefties' theories were aired by Democrats) even though terrorist plots were being stopped by our Justice and Defense Departments. Upon his first day in office, Obama pledged, with Secretary of State Clinton's acknowledgement, that the US would engage in "smart power," who's first mission was to quell tensions in Russia (and we all know how that turned out...lol!).

So far, the Obama foreign policy of "smart power" has been anything but. From his slow-footed response to the Iranian regime's crackdown on protestors, condemning Israel while appeasing Arab governments that sponsor terror groups, to siding with a power grab in Honduras, the president is showing that he's more adept at being a grievance monger than being an actual leader, or a rebuttal against a policy he declared "dumb." Debra Burlingame, sister of late pilot Charles "Chic" Burlingame of Flight 77 fame, which crashed into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, writes an article in the Wall Street Journal about "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid's latest attempt to continue his jihad against the United States. In 2007, Reid filed a lawsuit against the United States claiming that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. SAMs are rules that are put in place against an inmate that would prevent him from corresponding, communicating, or contacting others when those actions pose a serious risk of bodily injury or death to others.

It should be no secret that terrorists do not cease their jihad once they enter prison. In fact, one of the reasons why Lynne Stewart sits in prison is because she violated a directive put in place against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, that he be prevented from communicating, corresponding, and contacting members of his terror group, a move David Cole of The Nation called a "stretch," and "an indication of how far things got in the 'War on Terror'" and equating the Justice Department to the terror groups. It is clear that Stewart was abetting her client, and not just a naïve woman who was caught at in the wrong place at the wrong time, as liberals claimed about John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi, and José Padilla. While in prison, terrorists conduct prayer meetings in languages not understood by their English-speaking correctional officers. The Justice Department, in 2008, dismissed Reid's claim, and cited another terrorist, Mohammed Ajaj's similar disdain for the safety of the US.

In the discussion of Obama's not-to-well-thought-out move to close GITMO, several of his supporters latched on to the fact that no prisoner has escaped from SuperMax in Colorado. They don't note, however, the constitutional problems this move would cause, and I seriously doubt the ACLU will cease coddling terror suspects if they moved within the borders of the United States. The executive order was clearly designed to pander to the fringe element on the Left, you know the one that doesn't make policy for Democrats, to close GITMO. To be such a "smart man," the president clearly isn't thinking, on this, or other matters.

Mark Morford: The Birthers are hijacking the GOP's agenda...

...the crazies on the Left did no such thing about Democrats...

By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?

After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).

Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.

In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.

There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.

In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.

Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?

Have a great day...

29 July 2009

Obama 2008: We should transcend partisan politics!

Obama 2009: All my problems are Bushitler's fault...

It's hard out there for a race-baiting president. He thought he was going to ride the wave of this transcendentalism political thingie and enact his agenda without any resistance. He was the one who was going to say a few words and all our problems would disappear. All he had to do was rely on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to get the magical wave started. Now, six months into his administration, the "stimulus" bill hasn't stimulated anything but his backers' pockets, crap-n-trade is stalled until September, and ObamaCare is all but dead on the Hill, and he's frustrated. Didn't his predecessor, in the note left for him on 20 Jan 09, tell him being POTUS wasn't easy? Perhaps dude shoulda stayed in the Senate a little longer.

He still believes his poll numbers are strong because he continues to blame others for his failings. In part, he's right, but the more people that wake up from his "Hope, but no Change" rhetoric, those numbers will come down as well. Some Democratic strategists are hoping to hypnotize the electorate in believing that Republicans have held the majority in Congress for the past three years, and that all of the problems we face as a nation is squarely on their shoulders. Slublog provides an antidote to the Democrats' poison. And Obama leads the charge hoping we all forget he's been a member of the US Senate since 2005.

In addition to it being difficult being President Obama, comes news also that it must be difficult to be a Democrat. A recurring theme throughout the campaign from Democrats was a similar theme of President Reagan in the Election of 1980, "were we better off than we were..." Since taking the majority on Capitol Hill, the unemployment rate has risen, the national debt has increased, and life doesn't seem to be getting any better. For the first time in a while, Republicans have a shot at regaining the majority in the House, as several polling outlets now say that a generic Republican will oust a generic Democrat on a generic ballot. I should note that the percentages are quite small, and in one poll, within the margin of error. Glenn Greenwald at Salon yawns. Would like to see the look on his face if the GOP does make a comeback!

Liberals can continue to be deluded in thinking Democrats are untouchable, in light of this evidence. The electorate is obviously not buying the spin coming from the Obama Attack Machine, as they are fed up with his punting and Democrats spending money we don't have. Obama has either forgotten, or hopes you have, that he was elected to fix the economy. If his "Swindle US" package had done at least that, I doubt he'd be facing an agenda stall now.

It's not only the economic agenda that leaves us scratching our heads. One episode where he could have shown leadership was the Iranian protests. His decision to "wait it out," effectively siding with the regime, is not what the Leader of the Free World should be doing. He should have condemned the Iranian regime the instant the crackdowns occurred, and refused to appear to be led by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, and finally having the gall to take credit for the protests he took two weeks to support. GayPatriotWest calls it "2LT syndrome." His lack of leadership is likely to get people killed, and I'm not sure he realizes that.

Say what you will about Bushit!, at least the man knew how to lead...

Have a great day...

Liberals: Damn you rightwing nuts! Don't you understand the words that are coming out of our mouths?

...criticizing Obama is R-A-C-I-S-T!

You knew it wasn't going to last for long. The good doctah has returned to his senses and started seeing liberals for the opportunists they are. Coming on the heels of agreeing that the Birther issue is one not worth pursuing, comes a return to the theme that played throughout last year's presidential campaign...critiquing Obama is racist, especially if a white guy does it (if a black guy does it, like the good doc, then he's guilty of either not giving him a chance or a complete sellout). Borrowing a theme from conservatives about liberals' bouts with reality during the first eight years of the decade, comes their idea that conservative criticisms of Obama lie not only in racism, but because of ODS (if you have no clue about ODS, just replace the 'B' in BDS with Obama...and liberals always malign conservatives for not being original). Of course they believe the leader of the Obama Derangement Syndrome movement is none other than honorary senator, Rush Limbaugh.

Kleefeld goes on a tirade against Limbaugh for the parody, Barack the Magic Negro, based on an article in the LA Times, by a man of African descent, David Ehrenstein, who repeatedly lampooned Barack Obama on forgetting where he came from. In his first article, of the same name, Ehrenstein talks about how Barack Obama lent himself as the balm to assuage "white guilt," as Paul Shanklin's parody pointed out. His second article lampoons Obama for trying to play both sides of the fence on gay issues, by courting gospel singer, Donnie McClurkin, who claimed to be an "ex-gay," and complaining that the GLB"t" community was challenging his authenticity on gay issues. The final article went after Obama for allowing Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. The bottom line, Ehrenstein was making it clear that Obama is an opportunist, the same theme Republicans and Hillary Clinton voters pointed out during the primaries. Are Obamabots going call the lot of us "racists" as well?

Kleefeld, nor his friend Zandar, pointed out at least two instances where Obama has shown that he's out for "whitey." There was no mention by them about the Obama Justice Department dismissing a blatant episode of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, and playing the race card in Skip-gate before all the facts were known. He has offered nothing but scorn for the United States, and bends over backwards to embellish the record of other nations. This nation was founded by dead white guys, and the president believes he has to remind us they were racists, too.

Whenever the "race card" is played to shut down an argument, or cease criticism of a particular policy, the one it is played on should see the vulnerability in the other's argument. The "race card" is a distraction, and in this case, a distraction from Obama's failures as president. Democrats, namely San Fran Nan, are unpopular now as unemployment rises, and an increasing percentage of the electorate believes the government is wasting more money, and not helping the economy. The man is six months in his presidency and has very little, if anything, to show for it. And the best Obamabots have is to call us "racists"?

Liberals believe in this deluded notion that the more Republicans and conservatives go after Obama's vulnerabilities, they will alienate more members of the electorate. Oddly, this political strategy worked very well for them in 2006 and 2008. They continue to be deluded by the notion that Barack is indeed a "magic negro," who with a few words will make all our problems go away. Sometimes, I, too wish I was was dreaming...

Can the "magic negro" find the words soon? 'Cause my company is looking at layoffs if things don't get better...

Have a great day...

28 July 2009

Democrats: Will someone rid us of these meddlesome Blue Dogs?

...out, out damned spot!

While ObamaCare stalls in Congress, its supporters continue, unabated, to look for any villian to justify why ObamaCare isn't law. They've tried President Bush, but he's been out of office since January. They've tried Rush Limbaugh, three times, and they've all failed. They've tried blaming the Republicans in Congress, only to be reminded they [Democrats] hold significant majorities in both chambers AND have a majority at the White House complex. The president has attempted, yet again, to fool the populace that ObamaCare is necessary. This time, he holds a townhall with members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Senate Republicans have told Paul Bedard, of US News and World Report, they have talked to at least 1 million people about the looming perils in ObamaCare.

Of course, ObamaAid drinkers will smear the GOP as being satisfied with the status quo, and rooting against the country. The idea is to shift focus from problems within the Democratic caucus, and this bill, and blame the Republican party. It is hard to argue that government can expand healthcare, improve it, and keep costs down. Coming under fire recently, has been the Congressional Budget Office, which has said none of the proposals that claim to save money, will do so, and according to charts at HotAir, even the tax increases proposed by Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will not be enough to offset the skyrocketing costs. Obama and the Office of Management and Budget director, Peter Orszag, have met with the director of the CBO, which is highly irregular. Ya think they're trying to cook the books on ObamaCare?

Blue Dog Democrats, one of which is my congressman, John Barrow (D-GA), seem to hold the key to the success or failure of ObamaCare. Recently, they met with both Henry Waxman and former House Energy and Commerce committee chair, John Dingell and appeared to compromise. Some reports are indicating differently, as the CBO has yet to weigh in on the costs of an offer made by the chairman. Until then, the Blue Dogs will not compromise. The US Senate, on the other hand, is mulling a strip of the "public option," which is designed to destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, and a strip of the healthcare mandate, which will not only destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, but will drive up costs.

That is the bottom line. Controlling costs, is paramount, despite how ever many liberals bitch and moan. If none of the Democratic-led initiatives have shown to control rising costs, why should Congress support them. Obviously, Democrats believe that the legislative body is answerable to them, not their constituents. During the upcoming recess, our representatives will be asked the hard questions in their districts, especially those who ran as all things conservative in 2006 and 2008. If a majority of the electorate doesn't sleep well at night with the thought of continually rising healthcare costs, then that should be reason enough for Congress to take more time and draft a better bill. The bottom line here is to cap rising healthcare costs, no matter who provides the care. The numbers show ObamaCare is not that vessel...

If Michael Barone is correct, Democrats attempts to continue to grow the federal behemoth will not sit well with an electorate that doesn't favor big government at the outset...

Have a great day...

Lindsey Graham: Sotomayor's confirmation is a really big deal...

...so why should I stand in its way?

It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?

Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.

We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.

And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?

Have a great day...

Kelly King: No one told me Obama's so damn clueless...

...I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out...

Each day of the Obama presidency that passes, I feel vindicated in my belief that he was not going to be close to the post-partisan, post-racial, transparent politician elected to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kelly King, who is a member of the Cambridge Police Department, has stated that because of Obama's demonization of the police department in Skip-gate, she will no longer support Obama, nor his friends Dr. Gates and Governor Deval Patrick. It is refreshing to hear that more and more blacks are becoming aware of reverse racism, that blacks are guilty of racism more often than their white counterparts. Many of those who played the race card, immediately felt the 911 caller did so because she felt that blacks could not live in a nice neighborhood, where Professor Gates lives. It didn't occur to President Smarter-than-Bush that once Al Sharpton got involved, that he stuck his foot deep down his throat. h/t: The Black Sphere and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Conservative sage, Thomas Sowell, writes in a recent article that those who were paying attention, shouldn't be surprised at Obama's slight to the Cambridge Police Department. I have written a few posts that talk about Obama's willingness to stick it to "whitey," no matter the cost. Obama supporters weren't too concerned about his time as a "community organizer," which tends to play off the racial tendencies of blacks against whites. They weren't too concerned that his political career was launched in the home of a man and woman, who were hellbent on destroying this country. It didn't even faze them that the man sat in a church led by a black separatist for 20 years, without flinching. Well, maybe they cared, but their ultimate goal was to portray John McCain as Bush, The Third Term.

Can't blame the man for taking advantage of white guilt. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Hillary Clinton were being portrayed as the obstacles to a smooth and articulate black man. Their gaffes were replayed throughout the campaign trail. I believe Cynthia McKinney expressed a little jealousy that she wasn't getting as much coverage as Obama did (someone tell her it's the hair...). Obama did not come across as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he hid his race pimping very well, and it's admirable in a politician. But the mask is slipping, and we should continue to take note, and spare no expense...even if the media and Obamabots believe asking Obamessiah hard questions is racist.

Kevin Jackson, of the Black Sphere, believes that no matter the progress the United States has made on race relations, it is imperative that Obama, and his race-pimping allies ensure blacks still feel inferior. For those of us in the real world, we should already know how ridiculous Obama and his allies' notion is. He is proof positive of the progress the nation has made to make up for Democrats racist past. He just believes we're too stupid to notice...

Have a great day...

Mike Stark: Getting in people's faces is my job...

...if others put me on the spot, it's a hate crime...

Mike Stark is back. In case you don't remember who Mr. Stark is, he's the guy who went on a tirade against Melanie Morgan's radio show on KSFO in San Francisco after an unknown started sending her sponsors edited clips of her radio show, designed to make it appear that Melanie and her cohost, were hateful. The idea was an attempt to shut down conservative talk radio after the Democrats took the majority on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the Election of 2006. Dan Riehl, of Riehl World View, decided to take on Mr. Stark in a debate, of sorts, on Howard Kurtz' CNN show, Reliable Sources. If your memory's still a little fuzzy, Mike Stark is also the guy who asked then-Senator George Allen if he "spat on his wife," and was the guy holding the sign, "Hannity Sucks Ass," behind Alan Colmes, who was acknowledging Joe Lieberman's defeat in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic senatorial primary. Needless to say, the debate wasn't a good idea for Mr. Stark...

The new mission of both Democrats and liberals, like Stark, is to embarrass the GOP by offering a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. The resolution states that Hawaii is the birthplace of the 44th president, which is a challenge to the GOP to either support the Birther movement or oppose celebrating Hawaii's statehood. Stark has appeared in front of at least three Republican legislators asking them if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The Republican lawmakers, seeing the looming "gotcha" moment, either run or filibuster. The time wasting resolution passed, but that didn't stop liberals from bitching about Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's desire to stop it by saying a quorum wasn't present.

But OH how times have changed...

Let us set the WayBack Machine for September 2007, where we are in the aftermath of the MoveOn.org's heavily discounted ad, "General Petraeus or Betray Us." The Congress US Senate was considered a resolution calling on Democrats, who could not believe the Iraq surge was working, to separate themselves from the moonbattery going on at George Soros and Eli Pariser's MoveOn.org. The Senate had passed the resolution condemning the ad, while the House Democratic leadership refused to consider. The same liberals who are now bitching at Michelle Bachmann for stopping a political charade, went after Congressional Republicans (one commenter at GunTotingLiberal, claimed the GOP was shredding the Constitution for suggesting this...) for doing the exact same thing for which they're championing Neil Abercrombie (D-HI). I say it's just another episode of political theatre, as these liberals said about Republicans then, designed to distract from the inability to pass the disastrous ObamaCare.

In another episode of in the OHTHC theme, is how more credulous one group of conspiracy theorists are than another, according to the media. A few years after 9/11, a fringe group became convinced that President Bush engineered the World Trade Center attacks, in fact a poll released in 2007 said that between 61% of Democrats wouldn't rule out the idea that Bush either knew in advance about the attacks, or that he pressed the demolition button himself. Noted metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proudly claimed on The Spew that 9/11 marked the first time fire melted steel. They were treated in the media, as responsible citizens, who had moral authority to question their government. The Birthers, on the other hand, are treated with scorn, and dismissed as kooks on the lunatic fringe of the rightwingnutosphere. Now, I have no use for any conspiracy theory, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are born. But if one group of conspiracy theorists are going to be treated with scorn, they all should.

Have a great day...

27 July 2009

Conyers: I didn't know members of Congress were supposed to read bills...

...don't people realize we have bigger fish to fry?

I believe that John Conyers (D-MI) has started a national debate. I mean, I would have thought that members of Congress reading bills they vote on as being a no-brainer, but the ruminations by the congressman, who is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, destroyed all that. Not only do I believe that Conyers has been in the House way too long, but it appears he's of the mindset that Congress must enact the president's agenda no matter the cost. He, like President Neophyte, have learned nothing about the Porkulus debate and the bailout of the auto industry. HotAirPundit has the video. Ed Morrissey rightly says that we send delegates to Washington to act on our behalf, so that we don't have to hold national referenda each time someone crafts a bill.

It seems that Democrat and liberal supporters of Neophyte take no issue with the fact that Congress isn't reading bills on which they vote. Everyone flashback to the debate on the Patriot Act in 2001. Liberal opponents of the bill slammed members of Congress for not holding much debate on the bill and passed it without reading it. They attempted to fan the flames that President Bush was "play[ing] to our fears," and besmirched supporters of the USA Patriot Act for allegedly surrendering our civil liberties (What a difference a presidential election makes...). Instead of reading bills, Conyers would rather invoke the Teddy Kennedy strategy, demonize the opposition.

Like Senator Kennedy, Conyers would rather shift focus from his questionable actions as congressman and those of his wife. Kennedy was trying to find some way to get President Nixon, and it didn't help that "Trickie Dicky" wasn't exactly forthcoming either, to shift focus from his July 1969 episode with a car, a woman, and a lake. Watergate, in itself, was not a crime, as many political heavyweights had engaged in similar tactics. Nixon himself was a victim of a break-in during his time in Congress. LBJ called on his press secretary, Bill Moyers, to investigate the sexual habits of Goldwater campaign staffers. LBJ also committed a few instances of voter fraud, while his predecessor's Justice Department wiretapped several prominent Civil Rights activists. Conyers is attempting to criminalize policies that had never been criminal before. By calling what the Bushites did, "torture," is blurring the lines between actual torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques," which were designed with human rights in mind. Liberals have been excellent at blurring lines before, see racism, and opposition to illegal immigration.

Most people are willing to concede that September 11th, 2001 changed how the US government handles terrorism. The methods that were used prior to that day proved ineffective and exposed a giant hole in our counterterrorism efforts. The Patriot Act tore down the wall that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies that had been built up during the war on intel during the 1970s and buttressed by Jamie Gorelick. The US had to engage in tactics that would ensure our nation would be safe from a future terrorist attack, by taking the fight to the enemy. Liberals cried up and down K Street in Washington over the fact that John Walker Lindh, Yaser Hamdi, and José Padilla were being held as enemy combatants...not that these three men were fighting against their country, therby putting it at risk. There was no real discussion over the president's powers in a conflict like this, all we heard were Democrats and liberal leaning groups feeling sorry that the terrorists got caught attempting to destroy the United States (Oh, and that they needed a new home team, since the USSR became rubble).

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon Magazine, is upset that the Washington Post editorial page advocates penalties for those who acted well outside the guidelines of the Office of Legal Counsel memos, which authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques." He, like other liberals, believe that Lyndie England, and her other compatriots that engaged in the horrible acts at Abu Ghraib, shouldn't be the only ones prosecuted for crimes, as they were scapegoated. He contends that the episode is merely breadcrumbs, which led all the way up to the Bush White House, like Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, said about President Reagan.

I wonder how many pieces of paper John Conyers will read during his investigation, if it happens...

Have a great day...

Obama: Don't look at my record, only my words...

Gay Community: That's why we have a problem...

I can't say that I have too much sympathy for members of the GLB"t" community who supported Obamessiah, knowing his stance on gay issues. I wait for the day when the GLB"t" community and blacks come to the realization that at the heart of outright discrimination, lies a Democrat. They've been doing it since the founding of the nation and don't plan on stopping any time soon. That's not to say the GOP hasn't had its moments of racial and homophobic faux pas, as Democrats and liberals make everyone aware of them. The gay community has yet to learn that they are political tools used by Democrats to achieve their ends. It was evident in the Election of 2004, when liberals were outraged that states began banning "gay" marriage, without focusing on the reasoning behind it, Democrats who felt that the courts were a better avenue for making it possible, rather than the legislature. It was evident in 2008, when Democratic-leaning groups decided to bypass the voters and used the courts to trump them. It was even evident before then, when in 1993, President Clinton and a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee reached a compromise called "don't ask, don't tell." Oh, and let us not forget Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)...

Undeterred, gays overwhelmingly continue to support Democrats. Since President Obama took office, over 260 members of the GLB"t" community have been drummed out of the military, one of which appealed to the president, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, to put a halt to the policy. Obama, in a reply to another request, said that he has to consult with Congress on the matter, thereby punting the issue. The President has the authority to suspend charges of homosexuality without congressional action. The president should concern himself with readiness, not his political capital. According to research from the Palm Center, 24 foreign militaries allow gay members to serve openly, and they have not indicated that the inclusion of gay members adversely affects military readiness, unit cohesion, and morale. In my experience in the military, the average member doesn't give two shits about whether their friends are gay or straight, let alone members in their units.

I don't mean to rope all Democrats as being anti-gay, as New York Senator, Kristen Gillibrand (D), has tried to convince members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings concerning the repeal of DADT, despite Obama's rhetoric. Steve Benen has more. I am one of those who came around on DADT, although the policy is selectively enforced, I felt that straight men (and women to some extent) would feel threatened by having a known gay servicemember standing beside them. The fact that the policy is used as a bludgeon against gays, used by some members as retaliation, is yet another reason, and a chief one at that, for the policy to be rescinded. Right now, the military is in dire need of Arab linguists, and other hard-to-fill jobs, and DADT has been one of the reasons why the military continues to face difficulty in finding qualified people to fit those billets. Military readiness is the key in achieving victory in any mission.

I am deadset against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe, and will continue to believe, that more protection needs to be extended to members of the GLB"t" community, because some people will use their wrong-headed perception of gays in their efforts to harm them. I understand that some oppose gays for what they believe are moral reasons. Those reasons should not be used to deny a qualified gay person a service or position they deserve as a US citizen.

Have a great day...

Henry Louis Gates Jr: You know that white cop was racist, and so are other whites who challenge me...

...that label doesn't fit me when I trash Clarence Thomas...

When I visited my parents last week, I asked them about the arrest of Henry L. Gates Jr. First off, I must admit that my parents aren't politically active, and they generally believe anything coming from the Obamedia. They echoed the president's remarks that the Cambridge police sergeant acted irresponsibly, and recalled their bout with racial discrimination during their tenures at Robins Air Force Base. If I were not privy to the facts of the incident, as my parents were, I could easily draw the same conclusion. The fact is, it was "Skip" Gates who was guilty of racial profiling, not Sgt. Crowley (who bears no resemblance or relation to Sgt. "Pepper" Anderson's supervisor on Police Woman).

Mickey Kaus, of Slate Magazine, talks about how Skip immediately began stereotyping the police officer. He refused to answer the officer's questions, and did very little, if anything, to convince the officer that he was not breaking and entering a man's house. If he had cooperated with the officer, this matter would have been settled. Obviously, Gates can't let go of his ridiculous idea that anything involving "whitey" is racist. He had no evidence that the officer was racist, he thought by calling him one, it would force the officer to back down. Glenn Loury believes this incident is proving US Attorney General, Eric Holder, right...we are a "nation of cowards," in terms of racial issues.

That remark was celebrated throughout the black community, because they felt the target of Holder's statement were whites, who couldn't get over the election of the US's first black president. With that in mind, Holder's remark could cut the other way as well. Blacks, and other minorities, often believe that any adverse action against them has some basis in racism. Loury brings up the acquittal of the police officers in the Sean Bell case, and like the Gates' arrest, could have been avoided if the perpetrator acted differently. Bell, who was at a club being investigated for prostitution, was seen leaving the club after one of the men accompanying Bell, got in an argument with a woman inside the club. The men were confronted by a plain clothes police officer, who ordered Bell to raise his hands. Bell, in turn, accelerated the car and hit another police officer and an unmarked police van. The officers fired at the car, killing Bell. It didn't occur to anyone, who said that the NYPD's actions were "excessive," that Bell's actions played a vital part in that action. I recall Randi Rhodes going off on the police because she thought an innocent black kid had been murdered by racist cops.

In a shocking development, HotAirPundit has unearthed a video from April 1996, where Henry "Skip" Louis Gates rails against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-GA). I'm not sure how Justice Thomas is a "hypocrite," but I'm willing to guess it has to do with Thomas' conservative inclinations, which Obama and Gates view as sucking up to "whitey." In his disastrous presser last Wednesday, the president claimed that Sgt. Crowley acted "stupidly," (this was before Obama knew the facts of the case, which isn't surprising considering how he's good at talking out of his ass) causing many to cry "foul." Obama, relying on his old, tried, and true strategy, gave a speech, giving a non-apology apology to Sergeant Crowley. As Brit Hume said on FNC's Fox News Sunday, this is a man who goes around apologizing for the United States, but couldn't bring himself to apologize for being presumptuous about this issue.

I, like anyone else, has had run-ins with the police. I remember New Year's Day 2006, when my parents sent me on an errand. On my way back to their house, I was being trailed by a Warner Robins police cruiser. I paid no attention to it, and we later met at a stop light. I reached over to change the CD in the car's CD player, causing me to readjust my seatbelt, which I had been wearing the entire time. The officer stopped me for not wearing a seatbelt, but I told the officer what had happened, and he started accusing me of being disorderly (which, if you met me in person, you'd see how that assertion was absurd on its face). I backed down, and accepted my citation. The charges were later dismissed, but had I acted hostile to the police officer, that situation could have ended badly. Later I found out that the city had been experiencing a rash of burglaries in the area and at the time, I had an out-of-state tag.

A commenter at the blog, Sweetness & Light, believes Gates was not calling the officer a racist, but was blinded by his own elitism. I believe that may also be plausible. Sometimes the elites, no matter what race they are, tend to think they're smarter than the rest of us imbeciles...

Have a great day...

Birthers: We don't mind grasping for straws...

...we just wanna stay relevant...

Talk about strange, your humble blogger friend, Dr. Asten, agrees with Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. I'm gonna get in trouble with some of my more conservative leaning friends based on my opinion about Obama's birth certificate. I believe conservatives have more valid grounds in going after Obama other than proving whether he is a citizen or naturalized based on the 14th Amendment. If his mother was an Amurican citizen, Barack Obama is a citizen as well. End of story. John McCain is a citizen, like any child born to military and civilian parents who live overseas. To continue to pursue this silly story makes Obama appear more credible and will make it that much harder to scuttle his disastrous agenda. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and they often distract from our main goal, which is to keep our politicians honest.

Like the 9/11 Truthers and the deniers of Bush's election as president in 2000, Birthers come off as unhinged, and rightfully so. All of Barack Obama's ducks are in a row on this issue, it would be best if those on the Right (and possibly the Left) dropped it, and instead turned their efforts elsewhere. John Hawkins at Right Wing News, wrote an article about the Obama birth certificate, and I believe he's right when he says that based on all the evidence we have thus far on this issue, no minds are changed then it's best to let the issue go down the memory hole like the North American Union. I'd like to add when Alan Keyes is the de facto leader of the movement, that's reason enough to let the issue die a slow death (perhaps he's still reeling from being beaten by Obama in the Illinois US Senate race in 2004...).

I suppose it'd be easy to jump on this bandwagon in light of Obama's declining popularity, just like liberals, who thought that any given action by former President Bush was a scandal. With ObamaCare seemingly on the skids, the administration backtracking on its Porkulus rhetoric, and Obama believing that Emperor Hirohito signed a treaty on the USS Missouri in 1945, Obama opponents have a plethora of things with which to hammer him. So, for those of you who thought I, an ardent Obama opponent, was going to side with you on the Birther issue, you were sadly mistaken.

That doesn't mean we still can't be friends, though...

Have a great day...

22 July 2009

ObamaCare: So good, Congress doesn't have to use it...

...and if YOU don't, you'll be penalized!

I'm afraid that I'll have better things to do than listen to President Oprompter try to impress the electorate again with his flowery rhetoric. With the revelation that he has no clue what's in any of the three bills that make up ObamaCare, I feel reassured that he's talking out of his ass. I'm tired of being farted on by this president, and the rest of the electorate, who seems to love the smell of methane in the morning, needs to get tired along with me. One of my blogger friends, The Black Sphere, had the privilege of attending a town hall hosted by the son of the late and former Missouri governor, Mel Carnahan, Russ (D-MO), where he tried to persuade Missourians to accept the so-called benefits of ObamaCare. The Black Sphere, né Kevin Jackson, asked the congressman “If it’s so good, why doesn’t Congress have to be on it?” To which, Congressman Carnahan refused to answer.

Sister Toldjah talks about how Senate Democrats reacted to an amendment made by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), mandating members of Congress and their staffs, to enroll in whatever healthcare program Congress comes up with. The amendment passed in committee, with a majority of Democrats voting "nay," but will likely be stripped in the conference between the House and the Senate. That says a whole lot about the bill writers in Congress. But that doesn't faze our dear friend, Zandar, who unleashes on Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, for not picking up the slack after Hurricane Katrina (even though he was just a mere congressman then...no hatred directed at Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin however...), and for offering subsidies to the insurance companies...or something.

Governor Jindal served as Louisiana's director of Health and Hospitals, where he rescued Louisiana's Medicaid program from bankruptcy, caused childhood immunizations to increase, allowing Louisiana to rank third best nationally in health care screenings for children, and instituted new and expanded services for elderly and disabled persons were offered. Those seemed to be the cornerstone of his piece in the Wall Street Journal, real reform, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that ObamaCare suggests we do. Admittedly, I am not to keen on economics, but I do know that the government has the ability to undercut the profits of the private industry. The government has an endless supply of taxpayer funds to support whatever investments, good or bad, it so chooses. That advantage isn't given to private insurance companies, who must adhere to the prices the government sets OR suffer severe profit loss to compete with the government. Let me explain this a little further...

Military members have access to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), where servicemembers are able to buy goods and services tax-free and often at cheaper rates than Wal-Mart. In my experience in the Air Force, I would often shop at the shopettes or the Base Exchanges (BX), because I could get a bigger bang for my buck. Gasoline is usually cheaper on base, and I took full advantage of it. If a store like Wal-Mart had to directly compete with AAFES, it couldn't because its profit margins would decrease. Another example is healthcare that is given to military members, where they do pay a small amount for health insurance, and they receive treatments and their prescriptions at no cost. But, I challenge you to find a military member who says good things about military physicians, or better yet, the military healthcare system at all.

As mentioned in a previous blogpost, the ObamaCare theory is based on the Massachussetts' state-run healthcare system, which is being forced to dump 30,000 immigrants from its healthcare rolls, because of the state's growing deficit. And there is talk that healthcare insurance will be mandatory, as it is in MA, forcing the poor and lower middle-class to pay penalties in the range of 2.5%. A concept that has a blogger at the DailyKos sitting a little uneasy. That should give a few ObamaCare apologists pause, but I'm not holding my breath on that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for affordable healthcare, but not ObamaCare...

So Democrats in Congress have upset Dear Leader...they were supposed to be taken in by his flowery language too! PSYCHE! The Obamanian presidential poker chips are all in, ObamaCare fails, so does his presidency. He said it himself!

Have a great day...

Dan Rather: I may be a fool, but at least I'm not bitter...

Dr. Asten: I'd say you were both...

You should have known that with the death of Walter Cronkite, we wouldn't hear the last of Dan Rather, his successor on the CBS Evening News. For those who aren't aware, Dan spent 25 years in the anchor desk and was fired from his job for pushing a story specifically designed to change the presidential election of 2004, the Bush AWOL story. In Rather's mind, John F'n Kerry was better suited to be the next Commander-in-Chief because of his 4 month service in VietNam. Kerry won Purple Hearts, and Bush came away from his service with nothing. Again, it's funny how the qualifications for president changes every four years, because the veteran didn't win the last time, the person who viewed the military as an anathema did. Anyway, because the documents Rather used to push the story were forgeries, despite Rather's insistence that independent investigations concluded the opposite, Rather was removed from his cush job at CBS. He, like the producer of the story, Mary Mapes, believes he was the scapegoat.

Rather filed suit against CBS a few years later claiming that his career was damaged by a political junket against him. The suit seemed dead, but recently, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that Rather's lawyers have access to over 3,000 documents, some of which contain emails between the suits at CBS and 11 former employees, who were prohibited from discussing the Bush AWOL story upon their departure. From what I have read about the lawsuit, Rather is not concerned about whether the documents he used to prove the case were forgeries, he's upset that politics may have been used in deciding who would be on the investigative panel, and why he may have been used as the scapegoat. However, that won't stop the anti-Bush crowd from intimating that Bush was AWOL, based on the same documents that were forgeries. But try all they might, Bush was reelected, and the documents are still forgeries...

If Rather was used as a scapegoat, then he has a case against CBS. But if we review his actions during the almost two week long episode, he fought tooth and nail against those who claimed that the documents CBS used to "prove" Bush was AWOL in the 1970s were forgeries. He said the documents had been independently authenticated by experts retained by CBS. The investigative panel did not consider CBS News' failure to authenticate the documents, but instead concluded that CBS made several mistakes in trying to scoop other news outlets. It is unclear whether Rather's resignation in 2005 was directly caused by his performance in Memogate. On that last note, he's gonna have a helluva time explaining why he resigned a year earlier than he planned AND why he took responsibility for his part in the charade, if he still stands by the story.

Liberals want to have this both ways. First, many proclaim that the documents used by CBS could have been produced with typewriters from the 1970s, but since no one has conclusively proven the documents to be authentic, they claim KKKarl Rove did it to distract the media from reporting on Bush's performance in the National Guard. But they didn't mind John F'n Kerry embellishing his own military record. We all know what came as a result of Memogate, liberals then invented the "chickenhawk" defense to shut down debate. At least Dan's effort didn't go to total waste...

Have a great day...

21 July 2009

Liberals: The Republicans have no plan...

...and frankly, we don't either...

The more I hear liberals whine about Republicans' alleged gumming up the otherwise well oiled Obama legislative machine, the more I feel justified in my belief that liberals are expressing frustration at congressional Democrats who have been unable to agree one with another on whose healthcare coverage needs to be screwed first. Obama has gone after Republican strawmen, yet again, claiming that they are happy with the "status quo" (even though no Republican has...) and how his plan will not increase the deficit, but rather yield a savings that could be squandered on other pet projects...like Porkulus II (I made Porkulus II up...). Something just didn't sound right to me, because there was a disconnect between the rhetoric emanating from the White House and what the rest of us read in HR 3200, otherwise known as the Obama becomes your doctor bill. Come to find out, our Dear Leader has frankly no clue what's in ObamaCare...and he's supposed to be the most intelligent president EVUH, at least that's what they tell me...

Perhaps Obama isn't aware that we are in a recession, which is surprising since he continues to use that line as an excuse to blow up the deficit. The electorate wants results, and with Porkulus I not showing any visible signs of working, they're not too keen on giving Obamessiah the green light on overhauling a system that frankly doesn't need it. Sure, our healthcare system isn't without problems, but there is a reason why those in Canada or other parts of the country venture to the US for its healthcare. It's because it's second to none. Howard Fineman writes in Obamaweek, that the "plan" was supposed to change the way people regard healthcare, to improve it and to cut costs. We're waiting to see whether anything coming from HR 3200, or any of its relatives, will do that.

Rushing Congress to pass a shitty bill may be fine and dandy for Obamessiah and Democrats, but it won't sit well with the number of families who will be affected by the craptastic bill. The goal isn't to ensure Amuricans acquire and maintain healthcare coverage, the goal is to make sure Obamessiah fulfills a campaign promise, before his dwindling political capital runs out...no matter what the costs. I ask, "who's playing politics?" It would be hard to argue that Republicans are engaging in such, when the president is demanding Congress stop debate and give him a bill to sign before their August recess. As Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, the first time the president uttered the word "crisis," we were handed a $787B piece of shit that no congressman read, and to date, hasn't been spent wisely...and wasn't crafted with the president's assurances in mind, that it be used to "jumpstart the economy." So Obama's a liar when he attempts to blast Senator DeMint by claiming that this bill isn't about him. It is definitely about the O.

What Democrats and Obama, like their lapdogs in the blue blogosphere, don't seem to understand is that most Amuricans view their current coverage with satisfaction. As they were in the HillaryCare debates, they are concerned that ObamaCare will degrade their current coverage. Resistance to healthcare overhaul works, and Republicans are in a good position, because a majority of the electorate is beginning to sour on ObamaCare. Democrats are feeling the heat as well, which explains why committee votes on it continue to be postphoned. There is nothing wrong with Congress taking time to craft a better bill, that benefits all people, instead of Democratic donors and the unions.

Have a great day...

Henry Louis Gates Jr: I'm a black man, and don't you forget it!

...even when I show my ass...

Before he was arrested for breaking into his own house, I had heard very little about Henry Louis Gates Jr, a Harvard professor of African-American Studies (which can be misread as the "Why the White Man is the blame for the systematic failure of the minority to reach comparable status" department). I must apologize for the inner cynic in me for not believing Gates' charge of racism against the Cambridge police department. After being faced with an incessant amount of stories about race-pimping and believing that all criticism of a black man is racist, I decided to pay no mind to anything Gates had to say about the issue. I felt more vindicated when it was reported that Gates was arrested, not because he is black, but because he's a damned fool (and that proves no matter how educated you are, you can still do foolish things...).

Pam Spaulding, in typical fashion, charged the Cambridge Police Department with racism, citing Dr. S. Allen Counter, a contemporary of Gates, claiming that the same thing happened to him in 2004, when he was mistaken for a robbery suspect. Unlike Gates, Dr. Counter produced identification and was never arrested. The police were at Gates' home investigating a robbery, and Pam ponders whether a white contemporary would have been able to reach a worse conclusion than Gates, since white men have never been subject to arrest for disorderly conduct.

Attempting to diffuse the situation and make himself appear above reproach, Professor Gates released a statement, which is at odds with the police report. Gates' statement does not address the confrontation which occurred inside the home, as he's still under the impression that because he's a black man in the Obama Era, he's above the law. We can argue whether Gates' bitching about the Cambridge police man's inability to match wits with him on an SAT exam warranted a charge of disorderly conduct, but to claim his arrest was racially motivated would even make Al Sharpton blush...

I wonder if Gates' tirade gives us insight in how he conducts his lectures...

Have a great day...

Congressional Democrats: Despite our majorities in Congress, failure to enact our agenda will be the GOP's fault...(UPDATED)

...let's cross our fingers and hope the electorate buys our excuse this time...

The 103rd Congress and the 111th Congress are similar. Both are in the first terms of a Democratic president, and both are considering major healthcare bills designed to overhaul the system. Both congresses had enough Democratic votes in each house to enact any legislative agenda Billy Jeff and Barack Obama imagined. Even though all these are true, of both congresses, the minority party in each, is being blamed for much of the ambitious Democratic agenda stalling. The only difference between the current Congress and the one who met from 1993-1994, is the Democratic majority in the US Senate is now larger, by four seats. It makes no sense for liberals and Democrats to blame Republicans and conservatives for their failures, there must be something more sinister afoot...and I believe it lies in the insecurities Democrats in Congress have about the effects this so-called overhaul will have on future generations.

It has been a tactic used by Democrats since the 110th Congress, when they too had the majority, but blamed their failures on their so-called inability to outshine the then "Dumbass-in-Chief." I had said in the runup to the Election of 2006, that Democrats are better at bitching and whining than they are about actual governing, and the four years they will be in the majority, if the Election of 2010 changes the party structure, and even if it doesn't, what has happened in DC has borne that out. What this president doesn't understand, is that this isn't something he can read in his training manual, "Being President for Dummies." He can't credibly blame his failures to enact his agenda on Republicans. It doesn't matter if his political opposition has a plan or not, (I don't recall any Democrats having alternatives to combat Chimpy McBushitlerton's policy initiatives on national security, other than whining about protecting the rights of criminals) the bill as written has too many problems and as more sunshine is shone on it, public support continues to decline. There was no need for him to preach to the choir in a conference call yesterday...

The problem with HillaryCare lay in the former First Lady's arrogance. She refused to accept compromise and wise counsel from those in the business. Obama, in his adamant effort to not repeat the demise of HillaryCare, is doing the same thing. Unlike Clinton, Obama is doing way more to ensure this bill does as much damage as possible. By calling on the shock troops at the DailyKos, MyDD, and Crooks and Liars, it shows he's not open for compromise and is also putting the future of his party's majority in serious jeopardy. Many of the congressmen and Senators in the 111th ran as all things conservative, and it will pose a great risk to those up for reelection, like Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Like Porkulus, which was designed to "jumpstart the economy," ObamaCare will do nothing to shore up healthcare deficits and like the Massachussetts model it is based upon, it will bust at the seams due to its inability to control costs.

While perusing for another article, I came across this one from Geveryl Robinson, who was listening to a talk radio program that was discussing the healthcare given on Indian reservations. Fuck the healthcare systems in nations like Canada, Sweden, or the UK! Let us focus on what type of government care the American Indian receives on reservations, which is a total disaster. The American Indian mortality rate from diseases like tuberculosis, alcoholism, diabetes, and suicide are drastically higher than the rates of other Amuricans. And ObamaCare advocates insist that THIS is a better alternative to our current healthcare system?

So my question is, if ObamaCare passes, where will the Candians go for their healthcare?

Have a great day...

UPDATE 0958, 21072009: Well, so much for compromise...I guess, The Hill reports that Dear Leader plans to veto any semblance of a healthcare plan similar to the one McCain offered on the campaign trail, even though the Obama Administration is mulling the same idea...

20 July 2009

ThinkProgress: Damn that Ralph Peters! (UPDATED)

...leave the conclusion jumping to us...

While Zandar blames Obama's slipping poll numbers on on healthcare on the Republicans (way to take your orders from The One Master!), let's shift focus on another story where it sounds like the media is making an apparent deserter a national hero. Army Private Bowe Bergdahl is the military member who was captured by the Tahl-ee-bahn a few weeks ago. The Taliban has released a video of Bergdahl calling on the US to withdraw from Afghanistan or he'll meet his maker. According to "Wordsmith," at Flopping Aces, it is against international law to use captured military members for humiliating propaganda purposes.

Despite that, there are questions surrounding the circumstances which led to Bergdahl's capture. First off, under no circumstances should the Taliban, or any other terrorist organization, be justified in murdering US soldiers, or anyone else for that matter. My prayers are with Private Bergdahl and his family and I also pray that the DoD make any attempt to rescue him, by whatever means necessary...hopefully, successful. Unlike in the case of Nick Berg, where the media and liberals blamed his murder on BushCo, Bergdahl's capture isn't the fault of Obamessiah and his cronies. Terrorists have NO compassion for human life, and we shouldn't delude ourselves by thinking the opposite. With that said, Michelle Malkin noted some details about Bergdahl's story which were deleted in later wire reports.

The first account given to the AP was that Bergdahl walked off his base with three Afghan civilians without body armor or weapons. A later account said that the Taliban captured a drunken soldier, which if I recall correctly, the Afghani theatre is dry, so therefore alcohol wouldn't be available on post. A third account, coming from Bergdahl, was that he was lagging behind his patrol when he was captured. This is also problematic for me, since being an Air Force veteran, and I'm sure is the case with the other three military branches, it is drilled into us that we do not leave our buddies behind. It's HIGHLY unlikely that Bergdahl's patrol left him behind and he was captured by the Taliban. The first account, as Michelle noted, is desertion and is punishable by death...despite what "legal expert" Jonathan Turley says.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that Bergdahl was left behind by his patrol, but the first account seems the most plausible, and if true, Bergdahl should be punished according to Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Leaving that all aside, the pants-wetting now coming from liberals in regards to what Ralph Peters said on FNC's America's News HQ is absurd. Peters did not say anything totally off base, but I am willing to allow a court-martial to make that determination, even though execution wouldn't be a likely punishment.

Have a great day...

UPDATE 1420, 20072009: This is the first update I've done since blogging on Blogger, so I'll explain the numbers above. The first is the time I started typing the update and the second set is the date (DD/MM/YYYY).

I read the blog post from Jawa about Bowe Bergdahl, and I want to make clear that I am not declaring Bergdahl to be a deserter, but going AWOL does seem to be a more plausible reason for his capture. I don't want to make this about Bergdahl, but about his captors. I wanted to speak out against any attempts by the media and the military absolutists on the Left to make Bergdahl some sort of hero.

Obama: I don't believe I've ever served in Congress...

...because I insist that I inherited this mess upon my first day in office...

Boy, the healthcare reform debate is heating up. The rhetoric is becoming nasty and the strawmen are in endless supply. Opponents to Obama's agenda, or "powergrab," depending on how you look at it, are being cast as satisfied with the status quo. It seems to me those who are quick to smear opponents of ObamaCare and a host of other disastrous programs of his, are unsure whether these policies will work. Obama has had a few pieces of major legislation designed to "fix" the problems that he wants to believe he "inherited." Instead of fixing the problems, they're making them worse, and proponents of ObamaCare continue to believe the shiite coming from his piehole about this legislation saving costs, and even drawing a surplus.

Coming under fire from ObamaAid drinkers is the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, because of a report from Speaker Mimi's office, which claims that the ObamaCare bill, HR 3200, is budget neutral, and produces a Medicare and Medicaid savings of $550B, and a $6B surplus to boot! I am sure you're asking yourself about the discrepencies between what the CBO report claimed last week and what you've read on San Fran Nan's blog. The answer lies in a charge that was made against Enron and Arthur Andersen in 2002...cooking the books. According to Ed Morrissey and Patrick O'Connor, Democrats plan to introduce new accounting rules to take away the constant headaches they suffer from the CBO's reports.

As I have said before, none of these issues deter the most ardent ObamaAid drinker. Michael J. W. Stickings and Zandar and Zandar again, are upset at Blue Dog Democrats and the GOP for having the gall to oppose ObamaCare, on the merits. Zandar is particularly apopletic because of a report by Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly, who claimed that Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, warned the GOP in 1993 to stall HillaryCare because they did not want Billy Jeff to get credit for reforming the healthcare system and lead to an everlasting Democratic majority in Washington(not that HillaryCare was a disaster, much like ObamaCare and that Obama himself didn't want to repeat the HillaryCare debacle...nah, couldn't be that...). But are the memos as horrific as Steve Benen and Zandar claim? Hell nah, it's plainly another episode of Democrat insecurities and fear-mongering (a concept they preached against on 12 September 2001).

The memos stated that Republicans didn't need to compromise on HillaryCare because public support for it had declined, which was true at the time these memos were crafted. The memos discussed how Billy Jeff had planned to use the same strategy used by the current president, to paint his program as rosy as possible, despite public opinion at the time being satisfied with their healthcare coverage. Many opponents of HillaryCare were concerned about its provisions degrading their current coverage, much like ObamaCare would. Like Clinton in the 1993 healthcare debate, Obama is pointing to the vulnerabilities in our own and magnifying them, when only marginal reform is needed. No one is claiming that our healthcare system is perfect, which is the strawman most oft used by this president, Republicans, "ConservaDems," and other conservatives alike, believe, that our system does need reform.

Both Benen and Zandar, and I would presume all those who have used Kristol's memos as some proof that the GOP is opposing ObamaCare, not on its merits, but for political reasons, aren't aware that the same clouds are forming amongst the electorate as they did in 1993. They aren't too keen on what they've heard about ObamaCare and Obama's approval ratings are slipping as a result. But Obama wants us to believe that he hasn't had a hand in our current state, because he wants the electorate to believe that he hasn't been in Congress since 2004...

First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue – believe it or not – that health reform will lead to record deficits.


The president always invoked Dr. Martin Luther King's familiar phrase, "the fierce urgency of now," but he spent that on shoving Porkulus down our throats, does he, and his acolytes believe that he gets a do-over? Perhaps, as McQ (not the John Wayne movie) said, it's not that the opponents of ObamaCare don't have anything to bring to the table, they just don't buy into the fearmongering coming from President Obama and his allies in Congress. The more sunlight shone on this bill, the less of the public approves it. The White House knows it, Democrats in Congress know it...somebody else tell Zandar and Steve Benen.

Have a great day...

16 July 2009

Zandar Versus The Stupid: Wingers can't read...

...and neither can I...

There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.

I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.

Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.

But at what costs, Mr. President?

Have a great day...

Meghan McCain: Joe the Plumber's a dumbass...

...and since my father said "You're all 'Joe the Plumbers,'" you're all dumbasses too...

In an article from The New Republic, Jamie Kirchick profiles Meghan McCain for an article in OUT magazine, a GLB"t" publication, and discusses her rapid ascension in the punditocracy, by taking on more prominent conservatives, and much like her father, attempting to liberalize the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or as he's more commonly known, "Joe the Plumber," recently gave an interview to the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today where the question of "same-sex marriage" was asked. Joe's response, or what got Jamie's knickers all knotted up, was Wurzelbacher's belief that having teh ghey is wrong, but he loves the sinner and hates the sin. He has friends who have teh ghey, but is not inclined to have his children exposed to them, and he stated his gay friends understand that (I also think that Joe's gay friends don't view him as 'homophobic,' either...).

To this, Meghan McCain replied "Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing." It's odd she won't comment on Sarah Palin publicly. Before you get the idea that liberals are embracing the bravado of Meghan, some of them see her for the political opportunist she is. Between liberal's thinking aloud about Wurzelbacher's sexuality (they think that all people who oppose "gay" rights are closet homosexuals, but they slam the Right for bringing up old arguments), many of the commenters at TP, (again, not something you need to wipe their posts with) point to McCain's appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher as evidence that the girl's in over her head (and I tend to agree with them...). So much for calling other people "dumbasses..."

Meghan McCain has to learn the lesson that Cindy Sheehan, Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke, Scott McClellan, Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson had to learn the hard way. They were tools of the Left when they wanted to score points against the Right. They still want to maintain relevance by saying things about their fellow righties, or Amuricans, and hope to get media time. They haven't learned their five minutes of fame are up, the Left has moved on. Meghan needs to reread and understand the story of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. He no longer had the trust of his allies in Christ's discipleship, and he lost trust with the Roman authorities, because they rightly deduced that if a man is willing to sell out his principles for 15 minutes of media time, there will be no price too high to stop him from doing it in the future. No one likes a stoolie...

As far as her belief that the GOP needs to get progressive on a few issues, she's not totally off base. I believe the GOP can do a great service to the GLB"t" community by reminding gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the "transgendered" that free market principles, smaller government, lower taxes, etc. is better for our community than Democratic positions. The GOP can fight against the Democratic label that Republicans are "anti-immigration," by celebrating the sacrifices immigrants have made on behalf of Amurica, but say that opposing illegal immigration is essential to our national security. They don't need to try and convince people like Rachel Madcow or Keith Olberdouche, because they'll never be convinced. They can use the new media to get their message out.

Have a great day...

15 July 2009

Pam's House Blend: Jeff Sessions is a man and isn't qualified to question Sotomayor...

...his testicles are shrinking before my very eyes...

Well, it's refreshing to see liberals championing women again. I'm sure Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Janice Rogers Brown would have welcomed the change a little sooner than later. Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, is criticizing "pale males" who have the audacity to question Sonia Sotomayor on her tendency to champion the minority over the white guy. As I mentioned before about many in the pro-Sotomayor crowd, they haven't noted Sonia's reversals and backtracking on her words. They are highlighting Jeff Sessions' testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, to try and distract people from the truth about Sonia.

At least Pam Spaulding has now admitted that a strong woman makes men like Chrissy Matthews and Barack Obama jealous. But of course, none of her criticism is directed at the likes of those in the media who were airlifted to Juneau on September 30th, 2008. It will be even more refreshing when Pam gets her friends in the media to collectively admit that Palin, and Hillary Clinton, were treated shamelessly by them. When Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin voiced opposition to the savagery they faced, Pam slammed Rice for distracting from Senator Boxer's alleged main point about the sacrifice of military families and encouraged Katie Couric to take the gloves off when she interviewed Governor Palin last year. So it seems disingenuous for Ms. Spaulding to issue caution warnings to GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee after calling on Palin and Rice's opponents to take "the gloves off" when talking to conservative women.

As I have always said, liberals view any policy differences personally, which is why they don't see the Republican senators questioning Sotomayor as legitimate. This confirmation process is less about race, and more about whether Sonia is qualified for the court. Liberals are making this about Sotomayor's race, as she did, when she made her comment about being a "wise Latina." They highlight Jeff Sessions' alleged racial bias, by relying on the testimony of one J. Gerald Hebert, and believe that Senator Sessions, like the other white Republicans, are threatened by the slippage of a white majority. Obviously, they haven't heard the same confirmation hearings I have. None of the Democratic senators have taken the view their base has in these hearings. I'm sure someone as uncouth as Charles Schumer and Al Franken would have pointed that out.

Unlike Democrats during the Alito and Thomas hearings, Republicans are ensuring that Sotomayor is being candid about her jurisprudence (which she isn't). Not one Democratic ally, that I know of, was cautioning Democratic senators on the Judicary Committee to tred lightly in their treatment of Justice Thomas. They tried to derail that man before he sat down in front of the dais, led by the NAACP and the paragon of women's rights, Bob Packwood (R-OR), was right there to oppose Thomas. I just wish liberals would be honest with not only themselves, but with the public and agree with Sotomayor's opponents, that she's not qualified. They can cry all day long about white men scared of their diminishing power, but I notice these arguments were absent when the nominee was a minority of a different political persuasion.

Have a great day...