"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

How Stupid Does James Carville Think We Are?

I'm actually on vacation right now, but I will post a few things before I pack up the family and head to the beach for the rest of the week.

Got this in an email from James Carville as the DNC tries to beg for money from me:

At midnight tonight, the FEC deadline hits and we will have to report how much money we have in the bank. As of now, we're still $43,124 away from hitting our million dollar goal.

If we hit our goal, that means the media is gonna judge that President Obama still has momentum on his side when it comes to health care and everything else. If we fall short, they'll be saying that Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, with the over $14 million they just raised for Republicans, are stealing our thunder.

First, does Carville actually believe that the media will ever say that Barack Obama has lost momentum? If he really does believe that, then he has an IQ lower than the average American because Joe and Jane Average American know better than to believe something as crazy as that.

Second, does Carville believe that the media will ever place the philosophy of a Conservative Republican over that of a leftist Dem? Again, only the most gullible and naive will believe any of this.

The Dems really do need to come up with a better message if they are trying to outspend and outscore a political party they've been declaring "dead" over the past several months.

Just something to think about.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Sign The Petition: Stop The Energy Tax

The cap-and-trade legislation currently in the House of Representatives is nothing more that an energy tax that will cost the average American family over $1,800 per year.

Let your Representative know that more taxes on an already uncertain and unstable economy will mean nothing but trouble and worse economic times ahead.

Please take some time to sign the following petition:

Sign The Petition To Stop The Energy Tax

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Blue States (Dems) To Pay Less In Carbon Tax Than Red States (Republican)

Now the truth comes out about why Obama and the Dems are so hot to pass this idiotic cap-and-trade carbon tax proposal. It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with political payoffs.

From Leland Conway of the Conservative Edge:

The Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade bill makes states like Kentucky, that produce energy through their rich coal resources, into the indentured servants of states like California and New York, who import that energy for their use.

Here’s how it works. The bill, as it is currently structured, would impose massive fines on states that produce and export so called “dirty energy”. There would be a huge additional cost to the consumers in those states in order to carry this burden. Most conservative estimates put the additional cost to the average consumer in the Commonwealth at around $1700 per household per year.

Meanwhile, states like California and New York actually pollute much more heavily than Kentucky does. They have a higher population, many more industries and many more cars on the highway. They import their energy however, so they will not be subject to the same fine structure that Kentucky and other coal producing states will be.

In effect, that means we’ll be paying for the lifestyle and energy consumption of states that pollute much worse than we do.

If this were truly about the environment, states like California and New York would be more than willing to step up to the plate and pay their fair share, or even more than their fair share if their belief was honestly sincere.

But, they aren't doing so and are more than happy to have states like Kentucky and other Red states carry the burden.

Does anyone stand to gain from this massive energy tax that is being imposed on us? Yes. Read on:

As if this weren’t enough, many on the left side of the political isle stand to make a massive profit off of the lie of manmade global warming. Al Gore’s carbon trade hedge fund investments alone stand to net him somewhere around one billion dollars. Not bad for the prophet of an inconvenient truth who lives in a mansion that uses 21 times the energy of the average American.

Many other lobbyists and elected officials in Washington stand to score a major windfall off of this policy as well. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is betting a large portion of her already massive fortune on the passage of this bill. The list of Washington insiders who are heavily invested in companies that stand to make big cash from government subsidies under the cap and trade scheme is endless and continues to grow.

Again, if they believed that this were truly about the environment, they would give up the money and their lavish lifestyles and live like they are demanding Joe and Jane Average American live.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

No Kentuckian Should Support Cap And Trade
Leland Conway
Conservative Edge
June 14, 2009

North Korea Threatens To 'Wipe U.S. Off Of The Map'

Been awhile since my last post. But, as I have said before, I do have a life outside of blogging.

Seen the new headlines? North Korea is rattling its sabre (however insignificant such a sabre is by comparison) at the United States.

From the Associated Press:

North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.

Now, why would North Korea make such an idiotic threat against a foe that could potentially turn the land north of the 38th parallel into a glass parking lot?

Read on:

Off China's coast, a U.S. destroyer was tailing a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons to Myanmar in what could be the first test of U.N. sanctions passed to punish the nation for an underground nuclear test last month.

The Kang Nam left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago with the USS John S. McCain close behind. The ship, accused of transporting banned goods in the past, is believed bound for Myanmar, according to South Korean and U.S. officials.

The new U.N. Security Council resolution requires member states to seek permission to inspect suspicious cargo. North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to provoke another Korean War.

This is another test of Barack Obama's leadership strength/weakness. It may very well be that there is nothing aboard the Kang Nam. But, North Korea is looking to find out how Barack Obama responds to the provocation. If Obama's response is weak, then that will most likely encourage North Korea to deploy ships like the Kang Nam more often and maybe even transport a nuclear weapon for real.

That prospect is so dangerous that no rationally thinking person would allow a suspected illegal cargo go uninspected. The Obama Administration needs to step up and take definitive action to let North Korea know that we will not tolerate such behavior from irresponsible dictatorships like DPRK.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

N. Korea Threatens US; World Anticipates Missile
Hyung-Jin Kim
Associated Press via Google
June 24, 2009

BTW, where are all those leftists who claimed that Fox News was just making this up?

Friday, June 19, 2009

More On North Korea Situation

It isn't enough that Japan is reporting a North Korean intent to launch on the 4th of July. We also have to deal with a DPRK ship that may be carrying an illegal cargo.

From Fox News:

The U.S. military is tracking a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

The ship, Kang Nam, left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials.

What is Obama's response? Read on:

The apparent violation raises the question of how the United States and its allies will respond, particularly since the U.N. resolution does not have a lot of teeth to it.

The resolution would not allow the United States to board the ship forcibly. Rather, U.S. military would have to request permission to board -- a request North Korea is unlikely to grant.

North Korea has said that any attempt to board its ships would be viewed as an act of war and promised "100- or 1,000-fold" retaliation if provoked.

If there is cause to pursue the ship, sources told FOX News the U.S. military would instead likely follow the slow-moving vessel until it goes into port to refuel.

At that point, sources said, the U.S. military could request that the host country not provide fuel to the ship.

Uh-huh. That will certainly put DPRK in line, now won't it?

Why not just fire a shot across it's bow and give the command: "Heave to and prepare to be boarded!" Because Obama is a weak president and would prefer to wait until thousands of people have been killed in an attack before deciding on how to respond. It would never occur to him or the Dems to take a pro-active stance and err on the side of safety.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.S. Military Tracking North Korean Ship Suspected Of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes
Jennifer Griffin and Justin Fishel
June 18, 2009

Japan: North Korea Planning 4th Of July Missile Launch Towards Hawaii

You know, you could sketch a comedy routine about leftist liberals and the looks on their faces when reality comes up and punches them in the stomach. Such is the case now with Japan reporting that North Korea may attempt a missile launch towards Hawaii next month.

From the UK Daily Mail:

North Korea may launch a long-range ballistic missile towards Hawaii on American Independence Day, according to Japanese intelligence officials.

The missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles, would be launched in early July from the Dongchang-ni site on the north-western coast of the secretive country.

Now, that in and of itself is not very earth shattering. But this is:

It was announced today that the U.S. has deployed anti-missile defences around Hawaii in response to the threat.

For the past eight years, and almost every day during last year's presidential campaign, the Dems and other leftists have been screaming that we do not need a missile defense system and that research into such a system is a waste of money. Obama himself pledged to end funding for such a defense system.

Now that reality has come home to roost, the Dems have a different view. If we do not need a missile defense shield, then why would a Democrat administration deploy one to Hawaii in response to a possible launch from DPRK?

It is one thing to run a campaign and debate on academic theory, but, as the Dems are now learning, it is quite a different thing to expereince reality.

North Korea appears to be taking advantage of the weak foreign policies of Barack Obama. We will see more provocative actions like this in the next three-and-a-half years.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Japan Warns That North Korea May Fire Missile At U.S. On Independence Day
Mail Foreign Service
UK Mail Online
June 19th, 2009

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Letter To America's "Leadership"

This is long, but read it all the way through. It was written by Janet Contreras of Arizona.

I put the word "Leadership" in quatation marks in the title because I do not really consider those idiots in Washington to be leaders.

The words are truer than most people even know:

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

If you wish to sign the petition that is this letter, go to the following website:

An Open Letter To Our Nation's Leadership

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Obama Administration To Attempt Another Socialist Power Grab

You know, I have a question for all the hard-core Democrats that keep stamping their feet and insisting that Obama is not a socialist: Why does Obama insist on proposing socialist policies which enhance his power over the free market? I have yet to see any Democrat answer that question.

Here is Obama's latest attempt at a socialist power grab according to the Los Angeles Times:

The Obama administration this week will propose the most significant new regulation of the financial industry since the Great Depression, including a new watchdog agency to look out for consumers' interests.

Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system. Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to banks.

The government shouldn't have the power to seize anything and this latest attempt by Obama to grab more power for himself over the means of production should serve as the final straw for any true freedom loving American.

But it isn't just Obama. Other Democrats wanted this measure earlier and with more power:

"This is too little, too late," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), based on his understanding of the plan. "It's going to be way less than it should be."

We have to wake up! From my history lessons, I remember two prominent socialist movements who seized the means of production in their respective countries and they both ended in disaster, one in utter defeat in 1945 and the other finally fell under its own weight in 1991.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama To Propose Strict New Regulation Of Financial Industry
Jim Puzzanghera
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2009

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Doctors Boo Obama

Obama's trek towards socialized medicine got off to a rocky start with his speech to the American Medical Association in Chicago last Monday. Part of the reason was that he refused to endorse limiting the payouts of medical malpractice lawsuits.

From Richard Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press:

For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.

The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority—limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.

Why would Obama go to an AMA conference and say something that he knew would draw the ire of the crowd?

Read on:

If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions—major supporters of Democratic candidates—on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups.

Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear.

Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board—without alienating others. It's a fine line for him—and sometimes for them.

Obama and the Democrats can no longer hide the fact that socialized medicine is going to be expensive (about $62,500 per person per year, including illegals) and that people are going to get screwed by the new socialized system.

But, the Dems still say they want to reform the system because the current system is too expensive. Where is that expense coming from?

The article actually hit on it here:

Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system.

Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.

A very large perecentage of the tests and procedures that have "little or no value" to the patient are requested by the doctors to make sure they didn't miss anything that they could be sued for. In other words, it is not the patients or the insurance companies driving doctors to request these test, it is the medical malpractice suits that Obama refuses to address that are the driving force behind them.

Obama also tried to say that he is not endorsing a socialized medical system. Either he is lying or he is incredibly ignorant. There are people from Canada and Great Britain who know very well what a socialized medical system is and they see Obama trying to build exactly that.

Here is something to show that Obama really is pushing government run health care:

Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits.


Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.

And how would those "decision making habits"change? Through government edict.

Although Obama avoided the term "socialized medicine" he was unable to avoid the desciption of it in his own plan.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Analysis: Doctors' Boos Show Obama's Tough Road
Richard Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press via Breitbart
June 15, 2009

Essay From A Retired Army Command Sergeant Major

Got this in an email. One thing about this CSM (Command Sergeant Major), he does not waste time getting to the point! This essay has been around for a long while, but the points made are still extremely valid.

(I checked this out on snopes.com but didn't find anything to indicate that this wasn't written by J.D. Pendry, US Army, Retired.)

"The Axis of Idiots"

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and our embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good
pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a Communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating
the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to
Do is hang on a little longer.

It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are all America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your collective stupidity will destroy us. self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics
will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want
our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

J. D. Pendry - Command Sergeant Major, USA (Retired)

You've got to admit, nothing was served cold in that essay!

J.D. Pendry is the author of The Three Meter Zone: Common Sense Leadership For NCOs available at Amazon.com

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Biden: "Everybody Guessed Wrong" About Stimulus Package

So that's what government does? Make guesses only to have those guesses turn out wrong?

Many promises were made by those who supported the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package, promises that those of us who opposed the measure knew could never be kept. Joe Biden finally admitted as much.

From the Associated Press:

Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration's spending designed to combat rising joblessness.


"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before," Biden said.

But they are not coming at the pace first estimated.

Just 10 days before taking office, Obama's top economic advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent of below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval.

"Jobs are being created that would not have been there before." What Biden left out (deliberately it would seem) is that more jobs that were there before are not there now. In other words, jobs are being lost faster than the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package could have possibly created them. Why is this so?

Because government cannot create jobs. Government can destroy jobs through excessive taxation and over-regulation or can tranfer jobs from the private sector into the lower-paying government tent, but government cannot create jobs.

Therein lies the fatal flaw of the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package; it assumes an untruth to be the truth. And that is why Joe Biden is now admitting that "everybody guessed wrong."

His full quote:

"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed," Biden said.

Not everyone, just those who supported the measure. Those of us who opposed it knew exactly what the outcome would be.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Biden Says 'Everyone Guessed Wrong' On Unemployment Numbers
Associated Press via Fox News
June 14, 2009

Time has an even more scathing analysis:

Biden tells "Meet the Press" that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the stimulus, economy was worse off than anyone thought.

Backs away from the estimate that the funds could create or save 3.5 million jobs, instead promises 600,000 by the end of the summer.

You can access that story on-line here:

Stimulus Concession
Mark Halperin
June 14, 2009

Global Warming Not Affecting Chicago?

The central thesis of global warming theory is that as concentrations of atmospheric CO2 rise then so does global temperature. Unfortunately for Al Gore and the AGW alarmist crowd, global temperatures have remained steady or have been declining since 2003 despite the fact that CO2 concentrations have been rising (thanks to the industrial efforts of China and India whom the leftists want to exempt from any type of carbon restrictions).

The city of Chicago is feeling the effects of this period of Global Cooling:

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

If the Global Warming alarmists were correct, temperatures should have gone up, not down. That would be true for the temperature in the Great Lakes as well as in the atmosphere.

Global Warming theory has once again failed it own test.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

So Far, June's Chill Is One For The Records
Steve Kahn
WGN Weather Center
June 12, 2009

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Political Humor: Divorce Agreement

I got this in an email from my sister today:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.


John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

The sad part is that if the Dems succeed in inflicting socialism on the United States in such a way that it become irreverisble through the electoral process, what you just read above may actually happen and the U.S. will split into to distinctly separate nations with one nation embracing the disaster known as socialism and the other going back to the roots of our Founding Fathers. You can already see the beginnings of it from the states that are declaring their sovereignty from the Federal government.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Sarah Palin: 14, Democrat Smear Campaigners: 0

Sounds like a football score, doesn't it? Well, Gov. Sarah Palin (R) of Alaska has shut out the Democrats who began fabricating bogus charges against her almost immediately after she was announced as John McCain's running mate in last year's Presidential election. If you need any more evidence of how ineffective the Dems are, you need look no further than their bumbling efforts at trying to smear her.

From Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times:

Mrs. Palin, who became a target of such complaints after being named Sen. John McCain's running mate, is 14-for-14 in fighting off the complaints. She's been cleared of 13 charges by the independent State Personnel Board and of another complaint by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

After the latest complaint in Alaska was dismissed last week, Mrs. Palin's team said that having to fend off the pile of accusations was wasting state money.

"This complaint cost the governor personally, and the state of Alaska, thousands of dollars to address," said Thomas Van Flein, the governor's attorney. "It is regrettable that the ethics process has been diverted for partisan purposes by some, but it is also commendable that the board remains focused on the law."

But the Democrats felt so threatened by Gov. Palin that they continued the complaints long after the polls closed:

Even after the election was over, the stream of complaints continued.

Alaska residents challenged Mrs. Palin's trips out of state to attend a campaign event for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, and to speak at a pro-life breakfast in Indiana, as well as for conducting television interviews in her state office.

The latest complaint to be decided was filed by Anchorage resident Linda Kellen Biegel, who took issue with Mrs. Palin for wearing to a public function a jacket made by a company that sponsored the governor's husband, Todd, a snow machine racer. Ms. Biegel asked the personnel board to determine whether Mrs. Palin was abusing her position to serve her personal and financial interests.

Mrs. Palin called the complaint "asinine political grandstanding," and the board's independent investigator said there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

That says alot about Gov. Palin's strength of character. Not only in her being able to show all 14 complaints as being patently false, but also for the fact that the Dems feel so vulnerable to her politically that they need to attack her like this.

She most certainly is a threat to the leftist hate-mongers in America, but throwing false charges and bogus accusations in her direction was probably the dumbest thing the Dems could have done.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Palin Fends Off Ethics Charges
Amanda Carpenter
Washington Times
June 8, 2009

Another Look At Socialized Medicine From A Canadian Doctor

I find it interesting that the Dems are all about looking to other nations when it comes to interpreting American law, but when it comes to socialized medicine, they want to ignore the experiences of other nations.

The Wall Street Journal has a column by Canadian-born physician Dr. David Gratzer concerning socialized medicine in his home country.

Here is what he has to say:

Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

Not just in Canada, but in Great Britain as well and any other country that practices socialized medicine. And the waiting is extremely detrimental to patients who need care as soon as possible:

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Why would we want to move to a system that is so inefficient and so low-quality? The failures of socialized medicine are myriad:

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Rationing. That's what socialized medicine comes down to. The government will decide who gets what treatment and when. That is the main reason why cancer survival rates are lower in places like Canada and Great Britain. Delayed detection and delayed treatment allows cancer to spread and grow in a patient until, in many cases, the treatment comes too late and the government then decrees that the patient is now a "hopeless diagnosis" and should be left to die.

But, it seems as though the people of Canada have learned their lesson. Dr. Gratzer asks a very profound question while presenting some good evidence that privatized medicine is the way to go. Make sure you read the following excerpt all the way through:

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada's supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.

And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics.

In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.

In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Canada's ObamaCare Precedent
Dr. David Gratzer
Wall Street Journal
June 9, 2009

Chrysler Deal Highlights The Democrats' Culture Of Corrpution

You may get tired of hearing this, but it needs to be repeated over and over and over. Back in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on a Republican culture of corruption. Their claim was that they would bring back transparancy and fairness to Washington D.C.

Well, the Dems lied to us. They are more immersed in a culture of corrpution than the Republicans ever were, even more than they claimed the Republicans were. Now, we can see that this culture of corruption extends all the way to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Chrysler bankruptcy deal was supposed to sail through with no problems and Fiat would be the new majority owner at the end. But, the Obama administration didn't count on a group of Indiana pension funds looking critically at the deal and finding out what was really going on.

This whole deal with Chrysler was about paying off union supporters at the expense of Joe and Jane Average American.

From the Dow Jones Newswires:

Fiat would initially own 20% of the new company, though it would have the option of increasing its stake to as much as 51%. A United Auto Workers health-care trust would initially get a 55% stake, while the U.S. and Canada, which are lending Chrysler $4.9 billion during the bankruptcy, would own 8% and 2%, respectively.

Senior lenders owed $6.9 billion would receive $2 billion, giving them a recovery of about 29 cents on the dollar. The Indiana funds own about $42 million of the senior debt.

The UAW's health-care trust has an unsecured claim against Chrysler for about $10.5 billion. In addition to the equity stake in Chrysler that the trust, an unsecured creditor, would receive, it would also get a $4.5 billion note under the plan.

In other words, the UAW, a junior creditor, would be given preference over the Indiana pension funds, part of the senior lenders group. This is why the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the sale, to look at the legality of this situation.

Giving junior lenders preference over senior lenders is wrong. This is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to pay off their leftist union supporters through the sale of Chrysler and screw over hard-wroking Americans in the process.

(BTW, didn't Obama promise to get the automakers back on their feet? Why is he now so hot about selling them off?)

The concept of fairness and the due process clause in the Constitution dictate that senior lenders must be tended to first and junior lenders after that. Obama is trying to turn that around. In other words, he is changing the rules in mid-stream so that his supporters get the greater benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The Democrats' culture of corruption now adds to Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson and Todd Blagovich the name of Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pension Funds Ask High Court To Delay Chrysler Sale
Mark H. Anderson
Dow Jones Newswire via Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2009

And another good analysis can be found on-line here:

Don't Like the Game? Change the Rules
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 8, 2009

Monday, June 8, 2009

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting

Here is more evidence that the big media outlets like the Washington Post and the alphabet networks do not cover the news in an objective and balanced way. On Tuesday, June 3, 2009, the 3rd Annual International Conference on Climate Change took place but not one single major news outlet covered it. Why? Because this conference was based on real science and would have shown evidence against the political agenda espoused by networks like CNN and NBC.

From Scott Harper of the Virginia-Pilot:

"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."

Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

How unpredicatable are the earth's weather patterns? So much so that the global warming alarmist people have gotten their own predictions wrong. The earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003.


Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."

And this:

[S]cientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations sponsored group), especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."

How interesting it would have been to see this covered on the Today Show or Good Morning America or some other news broadcast. But that would have meant doing damage to the leftist political agenda, even if it meant bringing some truth to an issue that many people seem to be completely ignorant of.

But, where global warming alramists are politicians (or scientists trying to win research grants) the skeptics are mostly scientists objectively looking at the data:

William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."

Let's get the politicians out of the debate and let the scientists discuss the full spectrum of data.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting
Scott Harper
Virginia Pilot
June 6, 2009

Friday, June 5, 2009

DPRK (North Korean) Communists Hold American Journalists; Threaten A Kangaroo Court

Communists don't change. From Stalin to Mao to the current leadership of DPRK (Pronounced Dee-Perk), it has always been the same: Sustain a reign of terror, even if it means trying and convicting innocent people. Evidence and transparency are irrelevent, just make arrests and start tossing people in prison.

According to the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his epic work The Gulag Archipelago, that is how communists work. North Korea hasn't changed one little bit along those lines.

From the Associated Press:

North Korea announced that two U.S. journalists were about to go on trial — then came the mysterious silence.

The day passed Friday with no updates of the criminal proceedings that were supposed to begin Thursday for TV reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

And what were these two supposed to go on trial for? Read on:

The journalists — working for former Vice President Al Gore's California-based Current TV — were arrested March 17 as they were reporting about the trafficking of women. It's unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China.

Although the Americans were accused of illegally entering North Korea and unspecified "hostile acts," Pyongyong has yet to publicly announce the exact charges against them. South Korean legal experts have said a conviction for "hostility" or espionage could mean five to 10 years in a labor camp.

Given the track record of lies and distortions that make up the bulk of the history of communist regimes, I would venture to guess that aggressive border guards crossed into China. How can I make such a claim? Read the history of "justice" in DRPK:

Venezuelan poet Ali Lameda described to the human rights group Amnesty International in a written report his experience in a North Korean court that sentenced him to 20 years in a labor camp in 1967. Lameda, a member of the Venezuelan Communist Party, said he was working as a translator in Pyongyang when he was accused of spying, sabotage and infiltration — allegations he denied.

No evidence, formal charges or specific allegations were presented during the one-day proceeding, he said. Instead, court officials repeatedly demanded that Lameda confess his guilt. A defense lawyer was assigned to him, but the attorney gave a long speech praising the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung before suggesting his client be sentenced to 20 years.

No, the communists haven't changed one little bit.

Where is Barack Obama and why isn't he demanding the release of these two Americans being illegally held by DPRK? He and the Democrats are certainly vocal enough when it is the U.S. holding legitimate terrorism suspects.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

North Korea Silent About US Journalists' Trial
William Foreman, Jean H. Lee and Kwang-tae Kim
Associated press
June 5, 2009

Some Aspects Of Obama's Speech To The Muslims

Anyone who listened to Barack Obama's speech in Egypt knows exactly where he stands on issues involving the Muslim world. He is clearly for the Muslims and against us mainstream Americans.

One of his biggest whoppers was saying, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Now, why would Obama tell such a huge lie? Does he actually think that the Arab Muslims will believe that?

Debbie Schlussel has the numbers:

At one point during the Presidential campaign, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation (despite the numbers given above). He even lashed out at John McCain for saying that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. Today, Obama says we are a Muslim nation? Must be that fuzzy math that the Democrats insist on teaching in public schools. The numbers show that among nations with Muslim populations, America is ranked 34th.

Obama also went on to blame the U.S. for the problems in the Arab world and said that colonialism was the root cause. But America never had any colonies in the Arab world. So, how can we be responsible for something we didn't even get involved in?

Instead of bashing America, Obama had the opportunity to build up America's image by citing the many times when Americans came to the aid of the Muslim world. He could have talked about Kosovo, Bosnia, the aid we sent to the tsunami victims in Inodnesia and southern Thailand and a whole bunch of other examples. But, no. Instead, Obama had to show how much contempt he has for the country he is supposedly leading by trashing us on foreign soil yet again.

Obama talked about a new understanding of Islam. But where was his call for Islam to launch a new understanding of America? A man who truly had the best interests of America at heart would have done exactly that.

Obama also said, "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Is that why Jews are not allowed in Muslims countries? Is that why Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be a Christian? Is that why many Muslim nations force their women into subservient roles and require them to hide their faces? If a Muslim preached Islam on the streets here in the United States, no one would bother them. (First Amendment, you know.) But, if a Christian preached the Gospel or a Jew preached the Torah on the streets of Iran or Saudi Arabia, they'd be charged with heresy and face the death penalty. Obama must think we are really stupid if he expects us to believe that the Mohammedans are tolerent of other religions or other cultures.

Obama said that we Americans overreacted to the 9/11 attacks where 3,000 innocent people were killed by 19 Muslim terrorists. And yet he said nothing about how Arab Muslims were dancing in the streets in celebration of the success of the attacks. A rationally thinking human being would call the dancing in the streets an overreaction, but Obama, preferring to blame America first, would never come to such a logical conclusion.

In terms of extremism, Obama could have called on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting the Wahabbis, a sect that promotes hatred and violeance as a means of extending the rule of Islam. No, Obama instead preferred to blame America for the hatred that Muslims feel towards us.

Clearly, Obama wants to prop up the Mohammedan world at the expense of those of us living here in the West.

Did you vote for that last November? Whether you did or not, that is what you are getting.

You can access a very good analysis of the speech on-line here:

The Lies in Obama's Speech Exposed!
Christopher Logan
Islam In Action
June 4, 2009

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Venezuela's Chavez: 'Obama More Left Wing'

And yet again I am reminded of all the Dems who stamp their feet and go into temper tantrums whenever someone refers to Barack Obama as a socialist. Then, those same Dems will insult our intelligence and say that Obama is not. Well, the Western Hemisphere's most notable socialist disagrees.

From Reuters:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."

And let's not forget:

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Venezuela Chavez Says "Comrade" Obama More Left-Wing
Enrique Andres Pretel, Frank Jack Daniel and Jackie Frank
June 2, 2009

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Obama Administration Pushes For Illegals To Be Allowed To Vote In Georgia

Anyone still think that Obama is all about securing borders and keeping safe the integrity of the American election system?

Not after his Department of Justice declared that the state of Georgia was not allowed to verify a voter's citizenship through a verification process. What this means is that Georgia must halt citizenship checks. Thus, illegal aliens can now register to vote in Georgia.

According to Shannon McCaffrey of the Associated Press:

A three-judge federal panel in October ordered the state to seek Justice Department preclearance for the checks under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the same reason the federal agency must sign off on the new law that made Georgia only the second state after Arizona to require such proof. Georgia is one of several states that need federal approval before changing election rules because of a history of discriminatory Jim Crow-era voting practices.

Secretary of State Karen Handel blasted DOJ's decision, saying it opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state.

"Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy," said Handel, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

You can read Secretary of state Karen Holder's response here:

Barack Obama’s Department Of Justice Shows A Shocking Disregard For The Integrity Of Our Elections
June 2, 2009

Should you be concerned about this? Yes, and here is why:

Handel said that more than 2,100 people who attempted to register in Georgia still have not resolved questions regarding their citizenship. Her office's inspector general is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who said she registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

Handel said the checks were designed to follow federal guidelines to ensure the integrity of the vote and that those eligible are casting ballots.

Now, multiply that case by the thousands of illegals who could potentially register to vote in Georgia under the Obama administration's directive.

And don't think Obama doesn't know about this. I'm sure he's done the math more than once and he's knows that he can solidify his power by legalizing million of illegals and getting them to vote in favor of the Democrats' socialist programs.

After all, one of his biggest latino cheerleaders filed the original lawsuit to make this happen:

"We are pleased with this decision," said Elise Shore, Southeastern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "It vindicates our filing of the lawsuit."

Yep. Pleased times 12 to 20 million illegals.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Feds Spike Voter Citizenship Checks In Georgia
Shannon McCaffrey
Associated Press via Google
June 2, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it weren't for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male ..."

Now, let's say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman..."

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a "racist" and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren't they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that's racist?

Read this from Sean O'Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution."

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.


When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O'Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

An Example Of An Obama Crony: Brian Deese, Butcher Of General Motors

How did Brian Deese become such an influential voice in the Obama administration and how did he get put in charge of dismantling General Motors?

Let's look at his resume. According to Glenn Beck at Fox News:

Deese grew up in a Boston suburb, the son of a political science professor at Boston College. He moved to Vermont and attended Middlebury College, where he studied political science and also took time to host a campus radio show called "Bedknobs and Beatniks," described in one write-up as "a format of music, news, discussion and banter."

He graduated college in 2000 and then it was onto a pair of non-profit think tanks: the Center for Global Development and the Center for American Progress.

Eventually Deese went to Yale for a law degree, but a few credits short of graduating, he went "on leave" to work on Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, quickly becoming her top economic policy staffer.

Did you see anything in there that would even remotely qualify this guy to work in the auto industry? Neither did I. So, how did he get to where he is?

Read on:

Last summer, Deese moved to the Obama campaign as a deputy economic policy director and, just before this current gig, he served on Obama's transition team as an economic adviser.

There it is. That's it. No other reason. This is an example of pure cronyism on the part of a president who promised that such things would not happen in his administration.

Also, you should note that this same president promised to fix the auto industry in Detroit. But since he took the reigns, the auto industry has been going bankrupt faster and faster. That's why GM is being sold off by pieces and a deal to merge Chrysler with Fiat is being pushed through.

If I were the CEO of Fiat, I would be very concerned at how much influence an inept and bumbling Obama administration wields with Chrysler. So much so that I would call off the deal unless I could get a guarantee in writing that the U.S. government would stay out of my business.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Meet Brian Deese
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 2, 2009

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Playboy Goes Off The Deep End And Advocates 'Rough Sex' On Conservative Women

I know. Several of you libs out there will say that I am over-reacting to some harmless twit who happens to write for Playboy Magazine. Well, my answer to that is: Would you leftists have the same exact attitude if it were a Conservative man writing about wanting to hate**** leftist-liberal women? I doubt that anyone on the left would tolerate that for even two seconds.

Thus, leftist the double standard shines through once again.

In case you don't know what I am writing about, Playboy published an article by some idiot named Guy Cimbalo who lists the Top 10 Republican women he would like to hate****/rape.

Here is what was written in that article:

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship-a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f***. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.

Although Cimbalo wrote this himself, his use of the word "we" suggests that everyone at Playboy feels this hatred of these Republican women and that they believe these women should be treated roughly for their opinions.

Apparently, Playboy was so embarrased by the whole thing that they've already pulled the pages off of their website and tried to throw them into the memory hole. Too late though. You can access screenshots of those pages on-line here:

Screenshots of So Right, It's Wrong
Warning: Language Content!!!
June 2, 2009

And Washington Times writer Amanda Carpenter, who made the Top 10 list, has this to say:

I’m in Playboy for GOP women they’d like to “hate f***” They didn’t even get my employer right. What should I do? Mon 01 Jun 11:51 via web

I’m steamed. That list is vile, insulting and WRONG on factual matters.


The use of the word hate **** makes this list vile and completely out of line. To suggest to men that GOP women should have some kind of rough sex pushed on them because of their political beliefs is sickening. They are smearing professional women over politics and not even pretending to look at facts. They didn’t even get my employer right, but there was detailed descriptions of how I might perform in bed.

Looks like Playboy has sunk to the level of Larry Flint. Any claims of class on the part of Playboy must now be considered as chutzpuh.

Again, to all of you libs who would simply excuse this away as some sort of immature "boys will be boys" happening, I have to ask: Would you hold the same exact attitude if it were a Conservative man writing that he wanted to hate**** liberal women?

Feel free to respond.

The Ehthanol Hoax: Still Going Strong

I posted last year about how ethanol was one big hoax. You can read that blog entry here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
March 13, 2008

And you can get information about the side effects here:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
April 29, 2008

Well, ethanol is still a big hoax and the Obama adminstration thinks that you and I are still dumb enough to fall for it. From the Wall Street Journal:

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not -- a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

What has happened here is that the Big Corn/Ethanol lobby has successfully conned Congress into giving them a monopoly over the ethanol industry and forced Americans to buy only from this monopoly. (Where are the trust-busters now?)

And then there are the side effects:

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 "the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices." Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

So, not only are you paying higher gas prices, but you are paying higher food prices as well.

But, many of you out there will say, "We're helping the environment, though!" Not so. Ethanol is having negligible effects, and in many instances, negative effects.

A second study -- by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality -- explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. "As with petroleum based fuels," the report concludes: "GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels."

The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a "basic natural gas fired dry mill" will over a 30-year horizon produce "a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline." When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process "significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol" creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

And the parting shot:

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn't reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol's Grocery Bill
Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal
June 2, 2009