...and should jump ship before it's too late...
In one of my blogposts on MySpace, I said with great conviction, that I would ne-VUH, EVUH vote for Senator John S. McCain. I could not understand how he was so successful in the Republican primaries last year, especially since a majority of conservatives had shown him very little respect. I continued to be dumbfounded as my first prediction, second, and subsequent favs had all dropped out due to McCain's seemingly unstoppable machine. I was also watching the Democratic primaries, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious against one weak-willed candidate and a weaker-willed Glass Joe. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, I'd vote a Democrat for president for the first time since 2000. Well, it was not to be and we had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a media anointed "maverick" compete against the media anointed "Golden Child."
I joked with my coworkers that I'd be placing my finger next to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, until Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Her speech at the Republican National Committee made me feel great to be an Amurican, in stark contrast to Barack Obama's, which apologized to the rest of the world for having been born in Amurica. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate in the hopes that her conservatism would keep McCain from further destroying his conservative bonafides. Again, my sinister plan was thwarted and Barry-O was victorious. I thought his choice to keep Robert Gates as SECDEF was a very good move, and would seek to provide him cover against conservatives who thought he'd foul up our successes on the "war" front. I also respected, and applauded, his choice to make former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. To me, she comes across as an advocate for strong national security, and an advocate for a tough, but smart, foreign policy. So far, from what it seems, and as Hanson reiterates, Clinton's mark on the office is being impeded by Obama's Apology Tours and the incessant number of policy czars and roving ambassadors, whose role usually fall to the Secretary of State.
I believe this move by Obama, outside of his effort to fool the electorate into believing he's a moderate, was to stymie another primary challenge from Clinton in 2012. I believe that if Obama's ratings continue to drop, he will have to do more than marginalize Clinton to prevent a more moderate Democrat from besting him in the primary. It is becoming clearer to the electorate that the moderate Obama they supported, is not the Obama occupying the White House. So far, it seems even liberals are willing to dump Obama, according to Ed Schultz, but not because they agree with Republicans, but that Obama The Liberal isn't being liberal enough.
Beneath all the hype surrounding ObamaCare, there is an issue on which conservatives seem to agree with Obama. His prosecution of the War on Terror in the Afghan theater is supported by more Republicans than Democrats, according to a February 2009Gallup poll. Democrats, on the other hand, now believe Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore, which is not what we heard from liberals' wailing about Iraq. Between their calls for Operation Iraqi Freedom supporters to enlist, liberals repeated the charge that BushCo had taken their eyes off the ball by invading Iraq. While I think it's over the top to accuse liberals of being wimps on terror, it does seem that their opposition to Iraq lie in the fact that they opposed an issue because Bush supported it.
I was dogged in my support of Iraq and I will remain dogged in my support of Afghanistan. The more we keep the terrorists wondering if today will be their last, the safer our nation. The situation in Iraq looked bleak before President Bush announced the surge, and since then, the situation has remarkably improved. The same will occur in Afghanistan. Things get worse before they get better.
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
20 August 2009
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...
Have a great day...
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
17 August 2009
Liberals: If ObamaCare goes down in defeat, it's because of "white guilt..."
...and Republicans...
No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).
The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").
The idea that the "public option" is facing the knife blade is no reason to believe it will be gone for good. Since our Congress is made up of two houses, they must reconcile differences in various bills, then revote on the consolidated bill. The president receives the consolidated bill to sign into law. Usually, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader name conferees to the committee, based on their support of certain provisions in the bills, and whether the bills lie in the jurisdiction of the conferee's respective committee. For example, Pelosi appointed David Obey, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Lewis, and David Camp to the conference committee during the Porkulus "debate." Once a bill, called a conference report, emerges from conference committee, they cannot be amended, they receive only an up or down vote. Nothing will prevent conferees from inserting the "public option" into a conference report. Folks, this battle is FAR from over.
It is common knowledge now that Obama has shown a lack of leadership during his presidency. He should have been the one pushing forhealthcare health care insurance reform from the beginning, instead of allowing the partisan House leadership to take the reins, and appearing to talk out of his hat. He's continuing to try and convince us of things in the bill that aren't. Steny Hoyer and Speaker Mimi are pretty much doing the same thing, despite the reports coming from the CBO. If the president wants to salvage ANYTHING from seeing the keystone of his presidency from going down in flames, he needs to tell us about it...and I'm not the only one who's saying that. If we are all going to be affected by this "reform," then we need to have a real debate and not rush into this, like Democrats and Obamabots want us to.
Have a great day...
No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).
The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").
The idea that the "public option" is facing the knife blade is no reason to believe it will be gone for good. Since our Congress is made up of two houses, they must reconcile differences in various bills, then revote on the consolidated bill. The president receives the consolidated bill to sign into law. Usually, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader name conferees to the committee, based on their support of certain provisions in the bills, and whether the bills lie in the jurisdiction of the conferee's respective committee. For example, Pelosi appointed David Obey, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Lewis, and David Camp to the conference committee during the Porkulus "debate." Once a bill, called a conference report, emerges from conference committee, they cannot be amended, they receive only an up or down vote. Nothing will prevent conferees from inserting the "public option" into a conference report. Folks, this battle is FAR from over.
It is common knowledge now that Obama has shown a lack of leadership during his presidency. He should have been the one pushing for
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
John Dingell: These protesters are not only un-American, they remind me of the KKK!
Dr. Asten: Except these protesters are Amurican, and they're not intimidating people to not exercise their right to vote...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
04 August 2009
J. Asten: Obama's policies on gays are under the radar...
...when they should be in the forefront...
There is news that the 2010 census will, for the first time, include unmarried gay couples. To me, this is a step in the right direction, as I believe all citizens should be counted in the official census. This policy reversal should be celebrated by all, especially the White House, who in recent days needs all the positive news it can get. But, as James Withers says in the blog, it's typical Obama, in that all his policy moves occur below the fold. With a group that hasn't seen Obama embrace them fully, policies like this, that signify inclusion should cause Obama to move away from his modus operandi.
As I said upon Obama's inauguration, when the president is right, he will be praised. He should be celebrated for the moves he's made thus far on GLB"t" issues, such as extending benefits to the partners of GLB"t" federal employees, even if it doesn't go far enough. Though he still insists he's a friend of the GLB"t" movement, I believe the movement will alow him to punt only so many times (we're gonna have a problem if he goes through with repealing a ban on enlistment based on HIV status). The president should be used to acting "now" without waiting for Congress to act, or at least have time to read bills. Obviously, equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered" is not as high a priority as selling our future to the highest bidder.
Ok, I'm calm...
I call on the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" despite his belief that Congress must act first. He should use the bully pulpit, or the Blue Goose, to stand on the side of freedom (for once in his fledgling administration) and explain why this disastrous policy needs to be placed on the ash heap of history. Considering his reaction to the pleas of soon-to-be former 2LT Dan Choi, we already have our answer...
For the record, I disagree with Debbie Schlussel about the impending doom this extension of recognition will cause.
This marks my 100th post on Blogger.com...there'll be drinks and finger foods on the table in the back.
Have a great day...
There is news that the 2010 census will, for the first time, include unmarried gay couples. To me, this is a step in the right direction, as I believe all citizens should be counted in the official census. This policy reversal should be celebrated by all, especially the White House, who in recent days needs all the positive news it can get. But, as James Withers says in the blog, it's typical Obama, in that all his policy moves occur below the fold. With a group that hasn't seen Obama embrace them fully, policies like this, that signify inclusion should cause Obama to move away from his modus operandi.
As I said upon Obama's inauguration, when the president is right, he will be praised. He should be celebrated for the moves he's made thus far on GLB"t" issues, such as extending benefits to the partners of GLB"t" federal employees, even if it doesn't go far enough. Though he still insists he's a friend of the GLB"t" movement, I believe the movement will alow him to punt only so many times (we're gonna have a problem if he goes through with repealing a ban on enlistment based on HIV status). The president should be used to acting "now" without waiting for Congress to act, or at least have time to read bills. Obviously, equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered" is not as high a priority as selling our future to the highest bidder.
Ok, I'm calm...
I call on the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" despite his belief that Congress must act first. He should use the bully pulpit, or the Blue Goose, to stand on the side of freedom (for once in his fledgling administration) and explain why this disastrous policy needs to be placed on the ash heap of history. Considering his reaction to the pleas of soon-to-be former 2LT Dan Choi, we already have our answer...
For the record, I disagree with Debbie Schlussel about the impending doom this extension of recognition will cause.
This marks my 100th post on Blogger.com...there'll be drinks and finger foods on the table in the back.
Have a great day...
03 August 2009
ObamAid Drinkers: Leave Obamessiah Alone!
Dr. Asten: Hell, no!
I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.
Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.
Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.
In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...
Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.
This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...
Have a great day...
I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.
Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.
Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.
In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...
Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.
This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...
Have a great day...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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...
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...
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
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...
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." TheCongress 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...
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
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
15 July 2009
Pro-Sotomayorites: Did you know Jeff Sessions asked different questions to Sam Alito?
...that just shows how racist he is...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
14 July 2009
Liberals: Advocating the murder of public officials is wrong...
...we've reached an epiphany since our guy was elected to the White House...
Jason Mattera, the cute spokesman of the Young America's Foundation, has made a few new friends on the blue blogosphere for posting on his Facebook page a thought about when Sonia gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, whether she'll have a tendency to shank fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. He admitted that he was mocking liberal's beliefs that Sotomayor's life gives her an insight into jurisprudence that seems to escape the white members, and the lone black on the bench. Liberals at Think Progress twirled like Diana Prince and became the Race Police, attacking Mattera for not serving in the military. This would not be laughable if most of the Democratic party voted for the military veteran over someone who thought military service was an anathema to the best interests of the United States...but they didn't. In fact, liberals view military service as a credible qualification, much like Bill Clinton's policy stances...whatever way the political winds were blowing.
Another person the Race Police must tackle with their Lasso of Diversity Training, is Debbie Schlussel, who refers to Sonia Sotomayor as "Justice J-Lo" and "So So." Don't ask me how that's racist, 'cause I dunno. Last I checked, the real J-Lo is a very attractive woman, and the pro-Sotomayor crowd should thank Schlussel for paying a less deserving woman such a high compliment, instead of projecting their own racist views on others. It shows that like his cabinet nominees, Obama can't vet his appointments to the US Supreme Court. Liberals know if a Republican president nominated someone with the record of Sotomayor, there'd be protesting in the streets. Hell, there was one Supreme Court nominee whose jurisprudence outshined So So's on every level, and he went down in defeat in 1987, with a vote of 42-58, with Snarlin' Arlen Specter (then R-PA) and that paragon of women's rights (*snicker*), Bob Packwood (R-OR), opposing.
This new epiphany that liberals have reached is remarkable and appreciated (/sarc). It's nice that they oppose killing public officials who disagree with them. It's also nice that liberals oppose promoting someone solely based on race, but did liberals have to destroy the careers of successful minorities along the way? During Senator Feinstein's Q & A with Sotomayor, she got all pissed off because Miguel Estrada's name reemerged in the debate. She claimed that Estrada would not answer questions, which is the same thing her union bosses said, and he was not as qualified as their dear Sonia. Senator Feinstein forgot to mention the hurdles they placed in front of Estrada, subjecting him to treatment no other federal court nominee had to face. According to an article written by Byron York in 2003, Democrats refused to send questions to the White House for the nominee to answer. They didn't want Estrada to answer any questions, but they also had nothing to hammer him about...
Estrada wasn't good at the Democrats' game of gotcha...
So Democrats shouldn't act like historical revisionists and paint the Republicans as racists against Sotomayor. The silence of Hispanic "rights" groups about the Democrats' treatment of Estrada is galling, and they should be ashamed. Perhaps it was as then-Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) claimed, Estrada wasn't Latino enough, which is what blacks said about Clarence Thomas. So, if Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to be called racists, no matter how carefully they ask questions, they should make the best of it.
That's just my thoughts...
Have a great day...
Jason Mattera, the cute spokesman of the Young America's Foundation, has made a few new friends on the blue blogosphere for posting on his Facebook page a thought about when Sonia gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, whether she'll have a tendency to shank fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. He admitted that he was mocking liberal's beliefs that Sotomayor's life gives her an insight into jurisprudence that seems to escape the white members, and the lone black on the bench. Liberals at Think Progress twirled like Diana Prince and became the Race Police, attacking Mattera for not serving in the military. This would not be laughable if most of the Democratic party voted for the military veteran over someone who thought military service was an anathema to the best interests of the United States...but they didn't. In fact, liberals view military service as a credible qualification, much like Bill Clinton's policy stances...whatever way the political winds were blowing.
Another person the Race Police must tackle with their Lasso of Diversity Training, is Debbie Schlussel, who refers to Sonia Sotomayor as "Justice J-Lo" and "So So." Don't ask me how that's racist, 'cause I dunno. Last I checked, the real J-Lo is a very attractive woman, and the pro-Sotomayor crowd should thank Schlussel for paying a less deserving woman such a high compliment, instead of projecting their own racist views on others. It shows that like his cabinet nominees, Obama can't vet his appointments to the US Supreme Court. Liberals know if a Republican president nominated someone with the record of Sotomayor, there'd be protesting in the streets. Hell, there was one Supreme Court nominee whose jurisprudence outshined So So's on every level, and he went down in defeat in 1987, with a vote of 42-58, with Snarlin' Arlen Specter (then R-PA) and that paragon of women's rights (*snicker*), Bob Packwood (R-OR), opposing.
This new epiphany that liberals have reached is remarkable and appreciated (/sarc). It's nice that they oppose killing public officials who disagree with them. It's also nice that liberals oppose promoting someone solely based on race, but did liberals have to destroy the careers of successful minorities along the way? During Senator Feinstein's Q & A with Sotomayor, she got all pissed off because Miguel Estrada's name reemerged in the debate. She claimed that Estrada would not answer questions, which is the same thing her union bosses said, and he was not as qualified as their dear Sonia. Senator Feinstein forgot to mention the hurdles they placed in front of Estrada, subjecting him to treatment no other federal court nominee had to face. According to an article written by Byron York in 2003, Democrats refused to send questions to the White House for the nominee to answer. They didn't want Estrada to answer any questions, but they also had nothing to hammer him about...
Estrada wasn't good at the Democrats' game of gotcha...
So Democrats shouldn't act like historical revisionists and paint the Republicans as racists against Sotomayor. The silence of Hispanic "rights" groups about the Democrats' treatment of Estrada is galling, and they should be ashamed. Perhaps it was as then-Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) claimed, Estrada wasn't Latino enough, which is what blacks said about Clarence Thomas. So, if Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to be called racists, no matter how carefully they ask questions, they should make the best of it.
That's just my thoughts...
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)