News Ticker powered by Fox News

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Does Chris Dodd Buying First 2010 Election Campaign Ad Show His Desperation?

Dodd must be desperate. Not only is he getting started with the 2010 elections pretty early, but he is also bringing in the biggest dog of them all into his Senate battle right off the bat:

Christopher Dodd hopes to get a boost from President Obama as he airs the first TV ad in his 2010 re-election bid.

The 30-second spot set to air statewide in Connecticut on Friday features Obama praising the Democrat for his work crafting the new credit card reform bill that the president signed into law last week. Dodd chairs the Senate Banking Committee.

After all of the trouble that Dodd has had with his scandals, especially regarding AIG and Countrywide, he is way behind his Republican counterpart in the latest polls:

He faces the toughest re-election fight of his five terms in the Senate. A Quinnipiac University Poll released this week showed Dodd trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons 45-39 percent. Dodd is one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats facing re-election next year.

This will definately be one to watch over the next year and a half.

Nebraska Follows Kansas, 13 Other States Requiring Ultrasounds Before Performing Abortions

Nebraska follows Kansas and 13 other states in making women get ultrasounds before they get abortions:

Lawmakers passed the bill (LB675) Friday afternoon on a 40-5 vote, and Gov. Dave Heineman signed it a short time later.

Pro life supporters believe that this is step in the right direction to save many babies lives:

Mary Spaulding Balch with the National Right to Life Committee said Nebraska's proposed law is worded more strongly than that of most other states with similar measures. She says Nebraska's law requires the ultrasound image to be displayed instead of just requiring that the woman be asked if she wants to see the image, as the other states do.

"We think it's an important distinction, because we feel that when women are in a crisis -- such as trying to decide whether or not they will have an abortion or not have the abortion -- they're probably just thinking that they don't want to be pregnant, and they're not really asking too many questions," she said.

Therefore, if the woman is making a rash decision to get an abortion because she's scared, she might change her mind if they make her take more time to think it more thoroughly, and seeing her baby on the ultrasound would pull at her maternal, instinctual heartstrings. Then, she might change her mind and keep the baby.

Of course, Planned Parenthood didn't like the bill. They said that it was an intrusion of doctor/patient relationship:

"This is basically telling doctors what information and what care is best for their patients," (Planned Parenthood spokesman) Kierstead said.

However, I wonder why liberals claim to want to "limit the number" of abortions and give women all of the choices available to them. Whenever they get a chance to do something that might limit women getting abortions by giving women all of the facts, they balk and cry foul. I thought they were for giving women options and all the information about their health. I guess not. It seems to me that Planned Parenthood cares more about women getting abortions and paying them for the procedure.

Flashback: Obama Was Among Those Involved in Justice Alito Supreme Court Filibuster Attempt

Jake Tapper mentioned an interesting fact on his blog today:

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

Therefore, what he said in his weekly address seems a bit hypocritical:

President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

While it looks likely that Sotomayor won't get filibustered by Republicans, it shows his propensity to be a bit two-faced or sanctimonious. This dubious distinction might get Obama some ribbing from Republicans for being for Supreme Court filibusters before he was against it.

Tapper Exposes White House's "100 Days, 100 Projects" Fabrication, Severely Embellishes Accomplishments

Here is a patial transcript from the conversation between ABC's Jake Tapper and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. Tapper pointed out an embellishment in the booklet that the White House released to brag about the "successes" of the Recovery Act after 100 days:

Tapper: I looked at your "100 Days, 100 Projects" booklet yesterday, and the very first one says, quote, "Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding a public housing development in D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit.  As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, green roof, rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting, as well as water-conserving toilets, showerheads and faucets." But when I called the D.C. Housing Authority, they said only $59,000 was spent of stimulus money, not $27 million, and of these seven things mentioned, only two of the seven were actually done --

GIBBS:  I think the mistake -- mistake in that one, as you blogged about earlier, took a series of different projects in a cut- and-paste into one.

TAPPER:  OK.  So it wasn't as clear and -- it wasn't as accurate as it could have been?

GIBBS:  I -- I think that's accurate to say, yes.

"It wasn't as accurate as it could have been?" That is not just a slight understatement. It was an outright lie and total misrepresentation of the truth.

There is a huge difference between $27 M and $59 K. It's not just a slight miscalculation. Also, their claim of seven projects finished is a complete fabrication.

Obama's White House seems to be trying to rewrite history to make himself look good. Most of the press is so in love with him that they don't even think to thouroughly investigate his claims.

I understand why he feels like must do this. His stimulus package is a complete boondoggle, and everyone knows it. Now, he must do his best to portray it as beneficial to the economy when most of the evidence suggests otherwise.

After all, his porkulus package isn't even stimulus by definition. Stimulus is supposed to be that a massive amount of money is thrown into the economy in a short amount of time. The reality is that most of the money won't be spent for years.

San Diego Follow-Up: City Officials Say Never Mind, We Won't Fine Home Bible Studies

After causing a firestorm of contraversy, San Diego county officials have backed down trying to restrict home Bible studies:

Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

They folded like a cheap suit after given a 24-hr deadline by the pastor's lawyer.

She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.

“We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,” Wallar said. “My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.”

I don't know what was in the minds of the county officials or the neighbor that complained about the amount of cars, but it sure reeks of an anti-Christian crusade. There was no legitimate reason for them to go after the couple in this way. If there really was 30-40 cars like the neighbor complained there were, the county could of approached them for a resolution before threatening them with fines.

Instead, they used a statute meant for churches to stop the peaceful religious assembling of a few people. They could of used other statutes that referenced residential parking issues, but they had to bring their religion into it. Why would they do that other than to show contempt for their beliefs?

Friday, May 29, 2009

NRA Stays Silent Over Sotomayor Despite Her 2nd Amendment Views

Conservatives received some bad news yesterday:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is staying on the sidelines in the battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to the dismay of conservative activists who hoped that the gun-rights group would pressure conservative Democratic senators to oppose her.

As The Hill explained, the NRA has a track record of staying mum in these sort of situations. However, may hoped that things would be different this time because of Sotomayor's previous rulings and comments regarding the 2nd amendment. Her thoughts of allowing the states to usurp power over the Bill of Rights especially the 2nd amendment would seem to be something that would normally enrage the NRA, but they seem to be keeping silent for now.

San Diego Follow-Up: 24-Hour Deadline Given to the Officials That Sought End to Pastor's Home Bible Study

This is a follow-up of the story that broke yesterday of the San Diego officials that threatened a pastor and his wife with fines if they did not stop holding Bible studies in their house:

Code enforcement officials in San Diego who banned a pastor and his wife from holding Bible studies in their home or face fines have taken less than 24 hours to respond to a demand letter from a legal team representing the couple in what could be a major First Amendment dispute.

And now they have a deadline to withdraw statements that lawyers believe already have created an irreparable violation of the First Amendment.

This will be very interesting to watch. We'll probably see the officials issue a half-hearted attempt at an apology, and they will back off the couple.

I'll keep ya'll posted on this story.

California Supreme Court Actually Acts Like, Well, Judges Not Legislators

Yes, I know that this happened a few days ago, but so much has been happening that it slipped through the cracks. The state supreme court of California shocked the country:

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.

The court surprised me by actually recognizing their role of not making law but interpreting it.

Chief Justice Ron George, writing the 6-1 decision, said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The court is the same one that last May ruled it unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry. That led to the constitutional amendment offered on the ballot last November.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Why didn't they come to this conclusion last year when they made new law by overruling the measure passed by the people of California of not allowing gay marriage? The 6-1 vote was surprisingly one-sided, too. Maybe they saw the backlash that rained down on them last time, and it was too much to put on themselves again. Could they have realized that we want judges to intpret not make law? I can only hope the this will begin a chain reaction of change away from judicial activism.

Is Michael Steele Asking Conservative Commentators to Committ Media Malpractice When Discussing Sotomayor?

The GOP chairman raised some eyebrows this morning while substituting for radio host Bill Bennett by chastising fellow Republicans for criticizing Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

He also said that conservatives should refrain from speaking against Sotomayor because of how the overly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would react.

I personally like Steele, but he seems to have a Biden-like knack for putting his foot in his mouth. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just name call and make up stories to discredit her, but there should be a honest vetting process of his nominee by the press. We cannot be afraid to criticize her because the left will call us bigots. If we failed to vet her, we would committing media malpractice just as the media did when they failed to vet Obama properly.

Many people were "afraid" to vet Obama because he was the first black that had a legitimate chance at the White House. It wasn't right then, and it wouldn't be right if we didn't vet Sotomayor because she was the first latina nominated to the Court.

The "Affirmative Action" label probably should be avoided because there is no real proof that a reason why Obama picked her was her race or gender, but her quotes, legal rulings, and stances on legal issues are fair game.

As long as her race and gender are not used as reason why she shouldn't be confirmed and critics make a well-thought out and relevant case against her, it shouldn't hurt them with Hispanics. They must take the case to them, though. Maybe go on Spanish tv and radio to make their case why Sotomayor is outside of the mainstream and isn't right for the Supreme Court. Perhaps, they should also give a couple of alternatives of other Hispanic women that would be better suited for the highest court in the land.

It's Official: Obama's Bailout Success Record Goes To 0-3

This was a long time coming:

General Motors will file for bankruptcy on Monday in federal court in New York City, FOX Business Network has confirmed.

Looks like billions of taxpayer money that both Bush and Obama threw at GM and Chrysler to keep them out of bankruptcy was just an exercise in futility.

Gibbs Gives Pathetic Excuse Regarding Sotomayor's "Racist" Statement

A couple days ago, Robert Gibbs tried to explain away the statement by Sotomayor that white men don't make as good of decision as latinas most of the time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sparred with reporters during Wednesday's briefing about the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks. "I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said." But reporters pushed back demanding Gibbs explain what he thought Sotomayor meant in her remarks and "why there is no racial component" to them. Gibbs said the nominee had lived a different life than than others that would lead Sotomayor to different conclusions.

Judge Sotomayor didn't say they would be "different" conclusions. She said that they would be "better" conclusions. There is a huge difference.

It's amazing that this response was the best Gibbs could do to explain her "racist" statement. It shows that there isn't a good excuse that anyone can come up with to make Obama's Supreme Court nominee look good regarding this quote.

We should proceed with extreme caution. She has some very questionable stances in the past. We need to make sure that she was just misquoted or misunderstood. If she wasn't she is far outside the mainstream. We don't need to be giving a lifetime appointment to someone that far out.

PDS Sufferers Lament: 13th Ethics Complaint Against Alaska Gov. Palin Dismissed

The crusade against Sarah Palin has hit a dead end, yet again:

May 27, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today welcomed the news that yet another ethics complaint against her has been officially found to lack merit and has been dismissed.

Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.

This is the 13th ethics complaint against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the executive ethics act. A few more are pending.

When will those that suffer from PDS give up? Liberals are so scared of Palin that they are obviously desparate to create a scandel involving the Alaskan governor even if they have to make one up as they did with the Bristol baby farce.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

MSNBC's O'Donnell: No White Men Were Good Enough For Supreme Court

From the same network that have guests that call tea party activists "teabagging racist rednecks" and don't challenge them, Norah O'Donnell claims that there weren't any qualified white men to replace Souter.

During the 3:00PM EST hour on MSNBC on Wednesday, political analyst Pat Buchanan wondered why President Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court only included women, in response, anchor Norah O’Donnell declared: "Did it ever occur to you, Pat, that maybe there weren’t any white men who were qualified?"

Buchanan replied: "No, it did not occur to me...You mean there are no white males qualified? That is – that would be an act of bigotry to make a statement like that." O’Donnell defended her remark by claiming past discrimination against women in the nominating process: "In the past there have been no women that have been qualified." Buchanan argued: "They certainly have been qualified in the past. I don’t doubt there are. But probably half of the great lawyers and judges are white males in this country. And to rule them out, why? Because of their sex and because of their race is wrong, I think. At least it’s affirmative action."

O’Donnell rejected Buchanan’s claim: "I don’t think you have proof that they did that." Buchanan asked: "How did he come down to four women?" O’Donnell simply repeated White House talking points: "He said that they were the best and that met the views that he had, the particular criteria." Buchanan summed up that "criteria": "One of them, it’s got to be a woman, and the other it got down to be, ‘hey, it’s an Hispanic,’ that’s affirmative action."

Last time I checked, Souter was a white man. So a white man isn't capable of replacing another white man. That doesn't make sense.

While I agree with Buchannan that affirmative action is in play here, we all knew it was coming. So, I don't know why Buchannan acted surprised. He was probably just making a point, but it's falling on deaf ears over at MSNBC and their overly liberal audience.

"Coach" Craig T. Nelson: I'm Not Paying Taxes Until Politicians Take Responsibility

The former TV star was on the Glenn Beck show earlier when he made this shocking statement.

I don't know whether he was being real or being facetious, but it was quite an interesting declaration.

He went on to call on others to join him in his civil disobedience crusade.

Hey, civil disobedience is good for ACORN. It should be good for Coach, too.

San Diego: Freedom of Religion Attacked, Pastor & Wife Fined For Hosting Bible Study

Apparently, San Diego county is following Sotomayor's advice of choosing which of the Bill of Rights to follow because the Constitution doesn't apply to local governments:

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

When did California cease to acknoledge the freedom of religious expression and assembly?

The attorney for the pastor and his wife that were hosting the Bible study was aghast at the audacity of the of San Diego county's actions:

(Attorney Dean) Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The county was refering to the law that was meant to pertain to churches not a small group of people. If they get away with this, what will stop them from stopping any group of 15 or more from assembling peacefully?

Liberal Jonathan Turley Says Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth

MSNBC's Chris Mathews didn't get a tingle up his leg after being blindsided by the liberal Jonathan Turley's criticism of Obama's choice of Supreme Court replacement of Souter:

Until (Tuesday), liberal law professor Jonathan Turley was generally hailed by the leftwing blogosphere for speaking "truth to power." However, now that same group is attacking Turley for speaking truth to MSNBC. Chris Matthews probably thought Turley would support Sonia Sotomayor's nomination right after it was announced. If so, he was in for a big surprise.

Chris Mathews looked a bit like a deer in the headlights after Turley said this:

You're not going to have a nominee stand up and say "The first thing I do is get rid of the Founding Fathers." But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy.  You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We're selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I've read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don't speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I'll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed.

This could be interesting if the liberals start turning on her. It would be yet another failed nomination and appointment for Obama.

She has been called racist and now Turley is pretty much saying that she isn't really that bright for a Supreme Court justice.

This nomination just keeps getting better and better for The One.

GOP MN Governor Pawlenty Outsmarts Democrats: Pulls Rug Out From Their Spending Spree

Pawlenty played the Democratic free spenders in his state's legislature like a fiddle here. It was a brilliant move by the Republican Minnesota governor to stop his state legislature that is dominated by the Democrats drunk on the taxpayers' money:

Like most states, Minnesota has been facing a huge budget shortfall -- an estimated $4.6 billion over two years. These dire financial straits didn't deter the DFL-controlled legislature (the DFL is Minnesota's chapter of the Democratic Party), which got to work on big new spending bills. Included were not just the usual increases in appropriations but gems like $1.2 million in grants for TV and film producers and $200,000 for a youth environmental education program. Recession? What recession?

To fill in the hole they'd blown in the upcoming fiscal budget the DFL then proceeded to float every tax hike known to Garrison Keillor. A short list: A new top income tax rate of 9% (the fourth highest in the nation); across-the-board income tax increases; sales taxes on Internet downloads; the end of the local property tax cap (enacted only last year); alcohol taxes; cigarette taxes; eliminating the deduction for an organ donation (no joke); and killing the home mortgage interest deduction.

Throughout this spectacle, Mr. Pawlenty kept voicing three simple principles. "Number one, we must have [because of the constitution] and should have a balanced budget," he told me. "Number two, the state government needs to live within its means, just like everybody else. Number three, we shouldn't raise taxes in the worst recession in 60 years." Minnesota already has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.

The DFL wasn't listening. As the clock wound down (the session ended at midnight this past Monday), the legislature sent Mr. Pawlenty one large spending bill after another. The assumption was he'd veto them, be forced to call a special session, and then be negotiated into tax hikes. That's when the governor got Minnesota nice.

Upon receiving the last spending bill, he announced that he would exercise the power of "unallotment," which has been on the books since 1939 and which has been used four times. Under it, the governor is allowed to "unallot" (take away) any state spending for which there is no money to pay. Panicked, the DFL passed tax legislation to cover its blowout spending bills, 10 minutes before the session's end. Too late. The governor said he'd veto the bill and would not be calling back the legislature to do any more mischief.

Mr. Pawlenty is now free to strip $2.7 billion from state spending to balance the budget. Tax hikes are dead. He tells me this will be one of the first times in modern Minnesota history that the state will reduce the size of government in real terms, not just slow its rate of growth. "The correlation in recent history has been between job growth and states that have reasonable government cost structures," he says. These cuts, he says, will position Minnesota to take advantage of the recovery when it comes.

Huh! A Republican acting with fiscal responsibility. That's something we haven't seen from the executive branch of any level of our government in a long time. If the Republicans would've been doing more of this, we might not have ever lost the Congress or White House.

Hopefully, this a sign of things to come from the Grand Ole Party. We need someone looking out for our grandkids' financial future. The Democrats don't seem to care.

Sotomayor: Many Question Nominee's Past Regarding Possible Racist Beliefs

Previous quotes and associations regarding Sotomayor has led many to question whether or not she holds certain racist beliefs:

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

La Raza claims to be just a Hispanic civil rights organization, but some of their views go beyond just looking out for the rights of Hispanics. They have advocated that some of the states in the Southwest United States should secede from the US.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

So, according to Sotomayor, a white man could never have experience as "rich" as a latina. Therefore, a white man can't make a decision as well as a latina.

Isn't this same type of logic that whites used against blacks to justify their enslavement and later segregation? They believed that the European culture was superior to the African culture. Therefore, according to white supremacists, blacks can't be as smart as a white person. What is the difference between that logic and Sotomayor's?

This another dangerous position for a judge to hold. If she really believes that Hispanics "reach a better conclusion" than whites, she could subconsciously favor a Hispanic attorney or client that comes before her court over their white counterpart.

Obama Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Believes Second Amendment Doesn't Apply to States

Apparently, Sonia Sotomayor's "empathy" stops with gun owners:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

I wonder how we are to know which of the rights in the Constitution states are supposed to follow. Maybe New York can block the freedom of the conservative press. Florida can arrest any dissenters for daring to petition their grievances to Tallahassee. Utah makes the Mormon church of the state and will not any other churches to exist within its borders.

Let's not even start with the 13th-15th amendments. If those amendments didn't apply to local governments, slavery and segregation could possibly make a comeback.

What makes the 2nd amendment different from the other amendments other that Sotomayor and other liberals don't like it? Her decision flies in the face of the Supreme Court case just a few months earlier that said that DC must recognize the 2nd amendment.

She seems to believe that states can pick and choose which amendments they like to uphold and ignore the rest. This is a dangerous position for a Supreme Court judge to hold.

Maher Shocker: Criticizes Liberals, Calls Them "Supersensitive"

What's the weather report in hell? Has a cold front run through there over the weekend? I find myself agreeing with Bill Maher.

Speaking with Howard Kurtz about how (Maher) always gets booed when he tells an Obama joke, Maher said "we get a very supersensitive liberal audience" on HBO's "Real Time," and "it's always that limousine liberal crowd that just has their finger on the politically correct button...That's what bugs me the most about liberals is that they just -- they object before they even know what they're objecting to."

Despite Maher also claiming that "especially on campuses in the last 10 or 15 years, the repression of speech has come more from the left," one got the feeling the "Real Time" host wasn't being completely honest about his distaste for liberals when he later complained about Democrats: "We don't really have a party that represents me or any progressives."

All comedians have had a hard time with overly sensitive limousine liberals that have their finger constantly on the PC button. Comedians have been afraid to criticize The One because the PC crowd will label them as racist if they criticize the first black president.

There has begun PC backlash across the country. This will only inflame that backlash. People have grown tired of constantly walking on eggshells afraid to hurt anyone's feelings. We have a freedom of speech, petition, and dissent in this country. We shouldn't be hesitate to use our freedoms because of a few who might not like what we say.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

May 30: Seattle Tea Party Leader Heads Funeral for Health Care Protesting Obama's Health Care Plan

From one of the founders of the Tea Party Revolution, Liberty Belle aka Keli Carender, comes the Funeral for Health Care:

Do you get a sinking feeling (or rising nausea, or both) when you read about some giant, collectivist march or rally that just happened in your city, and you did nothing to show your opposition? Do you wish that you could go back in time and at least show up so that your point of view is represented and the other side does not speak for you? Do you hope that someday people will stand up and show the world the immorality of stealing from one person to give to another under the guise of "the greater good," which basically amounts to buying votes?

WELL HERE'S YOUR CHANCE!!!The unions, socialist and communist groups, and special interests are getting together to have a nationwide rally to support Obama's vision* of single payer health care on May 30th. Unlike all the years prior to this date, we are finally organized enough to make a stand against them! This is why we gathered email addresses at the Tea Parties! So please join us, on May 30th, 2009, to stand against socialized medicine, and attend the Funeral for Health Care.

Back in 1994, Hillarycare was defeated largely because of rallies like the one in Seattle that started the backlash that defeated healthcare under Clinton. I agree with Michelle that I hope that this will lead to universal healthcare being defeated one more time.

New Justice League Starring Ted Turner-Superman, Oprah-Wonder Woman, & Michael Bloomberg-Aquaman?

Watch out world! There are new superheroes are among us, at least according to ABC:

George Soros is a superhero along the lines of Batman and Superman? That's the comparison correspondent John Berman made on Thursday's "Good Morning America." The ABC journalist was reporting on a closed door meeting of billionaires that included liberals such as Soros, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss charitable giving, leading ABC to feature a graphic with Turner as Superman and Winfrey as Wonder Woman.

And while well known arch-liberal Soros, financier of groups such as, wasn't featured in the silly illustration, he was discussed in the piece, with no mention of his hard-left positions. (Billionaire/Mayor Michael Bloomberg was relegated to being portrayed as a lesser hero, Aquaman.) Soros, who once compared the Bush administration to Nazis, was simply referred to this way: "Together with others in the meeting, including George Soros, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, they're worth more than $125 billion."

This is once again blatant liberal bias by ABC. They only applaud liberal philanthropists as super heroes. They totally ignore conservative billionare philanthropists.

To Be a Fly on the Wall: Obama Speaks to Bush Recently, Keeps Silent About What Was Said

Interesting little tidbit I found:

President Barack Obama says he's spoken with former President George W. Bush since taking office. But the current commander in chief is keeping mum about the details.

Obama says that even though he's been president for only a few months, he thinks having a general policy of keeping confidence with former presidents is important.

It's especially important since it seems that he doesn't always know what he's doing. I wonder if there was a "Sorry, George for all of the things that I have said and continue to say about you even though I've been proven dead wrong" in there somwhere. Probably not.

It would be interesting to know whether any conversations with Dubya led to Obama's reversals on military tribunals or the slow down on the closure of Gitmo.

Does CBS Still Have a Editor With Ethics? CBS Chief Legal Analyst Calls Cheney a "D**k"

CBS is keeping it classy as always:

It appears CBS News's Chief Legal Analyst doesn't agree with his colleague Bob Schieffer that former Vice President Dick Cheney is winning the national security debate with Barack Obama.

Quite the contrary, Andrew Cohen thinks Cheney is still living in "the world of September 11, 2001, a world where hijacked planes are screaming toward their targets, chaos reigns, and anything goes."

As a result, Cohen wondered in a Friday posting at his blog "Court Watch" if Cheney is, "as many people say, just a d**k".

Did you wash your mouth out with soap before you kissed your mom last? This is just inexcusable for someone in the mainstream media being blatantly disrespectful to the former Vice President. Of course, after they defended Dan Rather for knowingly falsifying memos about Bush's military record, their occupational integrity left them years ago.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Pelosi Buries Head in Sand: "I Stand By" CIA Blame Game, Stop Asking Me About It

Apparently, Madame Speaker isn't backing down while refusing to prove her accusations about the CIA:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she stood by her statement last week in which she accused the CIA of lying to Congress about Bush-era interrogation methods, but then refused to make any more remarks on the topic.

In her first public comments since her accusation last week, Pelosi attempted to tamp down a story that she fueled and now Republicans say she either has to prove or apologize for."

I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this. I don't have any more to say on this," she said at her weekly news conference. "I stand by my comments. And what we are doing is staying on our course and not being distracted from it."

She made this statement whil hiding behind a
"human shield" of her Democratic collegues. To their credit, the "press wouldn't let her" get away with hiding behind her fellow Democrats:

When reporters tried to ask Pelosi about all that has happened since her accusation of the CIA last week - the calls by Republicans for her to resign, and the strong defense of the intelligence community by CIA Director Leon Panetta - Hoyer at first tried to step forward and answer for her.

But reporters asked for Pelosi to respond.

The only response to questions that Pelosi gave, if she would give one at all, would be bring up jobs, healthcare, and other topics that had nothing to do with the elephant in the room.

She may try to hide her head in the sand and hope and pray that this goes away, but Republicans aren't letting Pelosi off so easily.

But Republicans aren't letting this one slide.

The GOP has seized on her accusation that the CIA misled Congress, contending that the California Democrat's remarks have demoralized the intelligence community. House Republicans on Thursday demanded that a bipartisan panel investigate her allegations.

"To have this charge out there and not have it resolved I think is damaging to our intelligence efforts, and certainly will have a chilling effect on our intelligence professionals around the world," House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

While the proposition to have the panel investigation failed in the House, Republicans aren't going to stop there. The only response that Pelosi gave, if she gave one at all, would be bring up jobs, healthcare, and other topics that had nothing to do with the elephant in the room:

There was one shout out from a reporter as Pelosi left the room asking for comment on Rep. Steve King’s personal resolution asking for a suspension of Pelosi’s security clearance.

Pelosi winced but did not answer the question.

On Thursday evening during Special Order speeches, Congressman Steve King (R-Ia) read into the Congressional record a privileged resolution calling for the suspension of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s security clearance stating that if Pelosi’s situation is not resolved by the time the House reconvenes after the Memorial Day district work period, King intends to introduce the resolution.

“The relationship between Members of Congress and the intelligence community cannot be jeopardized because of the Speaker of the House leveling allegations of lying to Congress against our intelligence officials,” King said. “Speaker Pelosi has accused the CIA of committing a federal crime -- lying to Congress. The CIA and other American defense and intelligence agencies cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with our national secrets, let alone our national security, until this matter is resolved. If true, there has been a serious violation of federal law. If false, American national security requires a new Speaker of the House. The severity of Speaker Pelosi’s accusations leaves no middle ground, and her security clearance should be suspended pending investigation.

“If the Speaker is unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support her allegation, that she and Congress have been lied to by the CIA, the American people will be left with no choice but to conclude that she made this allegation for political purposes,” King concluded. “Until her allegations are proven, she should not receive sensitive or classified information pertaining to the national security interests of the United States.”

Almost $30 B More Given to GM As White House Prepares Them for Bankruptcy

GM moves one step closer to bankruptcy:

The Obama administration is preparing to move General Motors into bankruptcy as early as next week under the terms of a plan that would give GM tens of billions of dollars more in government financing, the Washington Post reported.

Under the GM draft bankruptcy plan, the automaker would receive just under $30 billion in additional federal loans, a source told the Post, which would up the government's overall investment in the company to nearly $45 billion.

GM is one more step toward officially becoming a baliout failure for Obama. The writing has been on the wall for months here, here, and here. Why is Obama determined to throw good money after to fail?

Sunday, May 17, 2009

"Jane Roe" Arrested During Obama's Speech Protesting The One's Pro-Abortion Stance

Interesting note from the protests of Obama's speech at Notre Dame:

The plaintiff who put the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade was arrested today at Notre Dame while protesting President Obama's commencement address.

Norma McCorvey, who had a change of heart and became a pro-life activist after originally suing for her right to have an abortion, was arrested with about 20 other protesters when she refused to leave the campus, Fox News and the South Bend Tribune report.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Joe Biden: The Gaffemaster-In-Chief Reveals Location of His Batcave

The jester of the Obama's royal court has struck again:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall. Cheney has emerged as the leading critic of the Obama administration on national security, saying the president’s policies are making America less safe, and if there’s another attack, it will be Obama’s fault. This is tough stuff, but as the architect of the Bush administration’s policies on war and torture, he has a much bigger legacy to protect than the president he helped steer onto the shoals.

It's nice of Biden to give out the blueprint to a top secret hideout for himself, if we were ever attacked. Now, Bin Ladin and others like him can plan their assault on him with relative ease thanks to Biden.

More Superb Reporting From AP Covering Obama

Another Pulitzer-caliber investigative report from the Associated Press:

It's a busy Saturday for Barack Obama. First he named a new ambassador to China and then he switched from being president to being a soccer dad.

Obama traded a business suit for jeans and a Chicago White Sox jacket before shuttling around Washington to see daughters Malia and Sasha play in separate soccer games.

Obama cheered and clapped along the sidelines at 7-year-old Sasha's game with two Chicago friends. At one point, after Sasha's team scored, the president excitedly shouted "go ... go ... go ... goal."

Friday, May 15, 2009

New Gallup Poll Shows People Pro-Life Outnumber Pro-Choice For First Time Since 1995

This is interesting to see:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

This poll seems to contradict claims by liberals that the country is moving center-left and the social conservatives are a dying breed.

Food Police Go After Sugary Drinks Including Coke, DP, Etc to Pay For Obama's Healthcare Plan

The first went after cigarettes. Now, they're going after other things that they deem bad for us so they have to tax out the wazoo. This time they're thinking about adding more taxes on the soft drink market in the middle of a recession to punish overweight people into eating better:

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

This will further hurt the economy in a time that it needs help not hinderence.

Didn't they learn anything from Gov. David Patterson's attempt at a "fat tax"?

People don't want more taxes.

Al Gore: I Waited 2 Years to Criticize Bush, Weekly Standard: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The Goracle scolded former VP Dick Cheney for speaking against Obama's policy:

“I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.”

Adam White of the Weekly Standard did a little research and found out something shocking. The Goracle lied. He found some quotes from him starting within Bush's first year in office:

Contra Costa Times, 1/10/02: "While praising President Bush for his leadership in the war effort, he went on to say that the economy was another matter. 'I'm not here to make a political speech, but I am concerned,' Gore said."

Boston Globe, 4/14/2002: "'They are wrong to vilify honorable men and women who oppose their right-wing domestic agenda and oppose a blatantly dishonest budget,' Gore said. 'They are wrong to imply that those who stand up to them are somehow unpatriotic.'" (Headline -- "Combative Gore Lashes Out At Administration Policies In Fla. Speech, He Hits Bush For 'Radical Agenda'") [Note: So much for his assertion today that his early criticism of the Bush Administration focused on policy.]

USA Today, 4/15/2002: "Gore's speech was the emotional peak of the convention. With practiced skill, humor and a passion some delegates said they did not see during the campaign, Gore denounced virtually every element of Bush's domestic policy." (Headline -- "Gore's fiery speech raises questions of plans")

NY Times, 4/23/2002: "Sounding very much like the candidate he was and may become again, Al Gore said today that the environment was a moral issue and the Bush administration was giving 'policy payoffs to polluters.' 'Our environment is under siege,' Mr. Gore , the former vice president, said in an Earth Day speech here to 400 students at Vanderbilt University. 'The Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and subsidize the obsolete failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future. Instead of ensuring that our water is clean to drink, they thought that maybe there wasn't enough arsenic in the drinking water.'"

LA Times, 6/30/2002: "In a speech Saturday night to local Democrats, Gore attacked Bush's economic policies as "a total catastrophe." He also noted that in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has yet to catch Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and he denounced the White House for "trying to use the war for political purposes.'" [I guess that's just more pure criticism of policy ... .]

So, apparently Pelosi isn't the only one who is having trouble keeping his foot out of his mouth lately.

What could he have been thinking? He had to know that this could be easily researched and disproved.

In-Fighting Starts Early in Obama Administration: Pelosi: CIA Lied, Leon Panetta: No, We Didn't

A firestorm of controversy has surrounded Nancy Pelosi about what she knew and when she knew about the use of water boarding. She has sudden outrage over the practice that many say she knew of years ago and said nothing about her disapproval.

Now, she said that when she was supposedly briefed about the subject the CIA lied to her and to the rest of Congress:

Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in its use.

"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.

"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.


She was the head of the Intelligence Committee in 2002. She had to have been briefed. She wouldn't have been briefed that someone else was briefed.

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job—the Congress part," Pelosi said.

While it is true that no single letter could have changed the policy, she didn't have to stop at just one letter if she really cared as much as she says she does. She could've shouted it from the mountaintops, but she didn't say one word for years.

In response to her excuse of her only job being helping Democrats get elected, don't you think that if she would've blown the whistle about waterboarding in 2002-3 when she was told about the enhanced interrogation techniques, it would have possibly helped John Kerry and other Democrats get elected, assuming voters were actually on her side? If it was that egregious she should have talked about it back then in either role
she carried.

This is what Leon Panetta had to confute:

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

Here is his rebuttal:

CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.

Panetta said that "ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

So, he pretty much called Pelosi a liar. Leon went on in his agency-wide CIA memo:

Panetta, President Obama's pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton's former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" according to CIA records.

"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication," Panetta said in the memo. "Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."

In the pep talk-style memo titled "Turning Down the Volume," Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi's remarks created."

My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission," Panetta wrote. "We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country."

This whole thing has blown up to now include calls for her resignation and plenty of heat from the left and right. Maybe, Nancy can keep her foot out of her mouth long enough to have this blow over, but it seems to have possibly a life of its own. It could end up costing her chairmanship or even her seat in the House next year.

Napolitano Caves: Right-Wing Extremism Report Pulled, Blames Anonymous Person Releasing It Too Soon

The report released last month on extremism from the right has landed Secretary Janet Napolitano in hot water with everyone. She has apologized to every veteran that she has met lately. Apparently, she has had enough criticism over her ill-thought out report. Maybe I'm not an extremist after all:

A contentious "Rightwing Extremism" report that warned of military veterans as possible recruits for terrorist attacks against the U.S. was not authorized, has been withdrawn and is being rewritten, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Capitol Hill lawmakers.

"The wheels came off the wagon because the vetting process was not followed," Ms. Napolitano told the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. "The report is no longer out there," she said.

"An employee sent it out without authorization."

The last line had me ROFL. There wasn't any anonymous rogue employee at the Dept of Homeland security like Janet Napolitano says there is. She knew full well what was being sent out and authorized it. If she doesn't know what is being broadcasted on all channels out of the department that she runs, she is incompetent.

She goes on:

"It was not authorized to be distributed. It had not even completed its vetting process within the department.

There was a vetting process done on the report the media started torching it before it was officially released and lawyers warned that it shouldn't be distributed by DHS. Did Napolitano listen to anyone of these "vettors"?

No, I'm afraid that she didn't.

Even some Democrats were taken aback by the report:

Rep. Christopher Carney, Pennsylvania Democrat, said that as a veteran he "took offense personally," and his constituents were offended by the report as well.

"It really hit home hard to me and in our district," Mr. Carney said. "It's not a good start when I go to town hall meetings and I hear people calling for your resignation."

Ms. Napolitano said the report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is not the only report she has seen that says veterans are targets for recruitment by racist and other hate groups.

"It was an assessment, not an accusation," Ms. Napolitano said.

"It didn't say that," Mr. Carney interrupted.

She tries to put the blame on an anonymous person in her department releasing the report before it was supposed to and that "appropriate personnel action is being taken" to resolve the issue. Unless that "appropriate personnel action" includes a her resignation letter, it won't resolve the issue.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama: Maybe Those Man-Made Disaster Makers Will Be Our Guests Indefinitely

The ACLU will be thrilled:

The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Obama's possible adoption of this stance further signals to the world that he is realizing that Bush guy may have been on the right after all. Although, he will never actually go right out and admit it.

First, Obama admits that closing Gitmo is much harder than first thought. Then, he brings military tribunals back and he fights the release of the "torture" photos.

What's next? Maybe he'll realize that Gitmo ain't really that bad, and keep it open for the next few years.

Hey, after all of the lack of change in between the Bush and Obama policies on foreign policy, it is a real possibility.

Obama Has Epiphany: Torture Photos Will "Further Inflame Anti-American Opinion"

Obama had an amazing revelation about releasing the "torture" photos:

President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse Wednesday afternoon, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

The move is a complete 180. In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge on April 23, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

It's nice to see Obama coming to the same conclusion that everyone else other than the hard left came to months ago. If the photos are released, they will become "locker room fodder" and recruiting tools for Al-Qaeda.

The courts could end up releasing the photos anyway, but he should fight them tooth and nail to stop it.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein Defends Pelosi Using Cheney's Argument

The AP curiously buried this quote at the end of the story:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, backed Pelosi.

"I think it's a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that," she said.

"I don't want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks."

Sen. Feinstein meant to defend Maj. Leader Pelosi, but it could also be used to defend Bush and Cheney using the same argument.

This is the same argument that Cheney has been debating for years, but I guess the argument only works for Democrats.

Do Democrats Even Understand Keynes' Theory of Stimulus?

Here's a follow-up to the porkulus bill's ineffectiveness:

Nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states.

Although administration officials say the program is right on schedule, they have actually spent relatively little so far.

Dare I ask again, what was the rush Pelosi, Reid, and Obama?

By definition this isn't even stimulus. It's just added waste.

Does this make 0-for-3 for Obama's economic policies? Chrysler has already went into Ch. 11 and GM is close behind. Now, the results are coming in from Obama and the Democrats' porkulus bill. It's a big "F". There has been no signs of economic improvement as a result of the Democrats' spending orgy.

Chinese "Sex Workers" Get US Tax Money to Learn How to Drink

Here's an unique way to waste some of our money:

The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.

This is ridiculous on a few levels. First of all, what good will "drinking resposibly" do to curb HIV infection? You can't transmit the virus over a vodka martini. Maybe they should use the money to get the women out of prostitution.

Second, why are prostitutes in China getting our money. Are there prostitites in the US that might benefit from this give away?

I also curious what kind of "field observations" there will be.

Why does it take millions of dollars to teach hookers how to make a magarita and hold their liquor?

Syria Restarts Sending Suicide Bombers Into Iraq

The Syrian suicide bomber pipeline into Iraq had all but dried up under the Bush administration. A few months after Obama is president, they're back:

Last October, as the Bush administration was touting a dramatic drop in the number of suicide bombings in Iraq, four young Tunisian men left their homes for Libya and then headed to Syria. There, they were met at the Damascus airport and taken to a safe house.

Six tedious months passed until their handlers felt that it was safe to move the men again. In April, they were smuggled across the Iraqi border; within days, two were dead, among the suicide bombers who have killed at least 370 Iraqis in a wave of attacks over the past several weeks.

Almost immediately after Obama says he wants to open diplomatic avenues, Syria answers with a wave of new suicide bombers into Iraq:

The revival of a transit route that officials had declared all but closed comes as the Obama administration is exploring a new diplomatic dialogue with Syria. At the same time, Washington remains concerned by Syrian activities -- including ongoing support for the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as activities involving Iraq.

On Wednesday, acting Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey D. Feltman and National Security Council official Daniel Shapiro arrived in Syria for their second visit since Barack Obama's inauguration as president. Two days later, however, Obama renewed U.S. sanctions against Syria, accusing Damascus of supporting terrorism in the Middle East and undermining Iraqi stability.

So much for using diplomacy to talk down despots.

The violence is Iraq is still low. However, if Obama isn't careful, this new wave of violence could get worse and spark new conflicts.

After $1 Trillion Porkulus Bill: Nothing Has Changed

More Good news from the White House:

President Obama's chief economics forecaster said on Sunday that the country was not likely to see positive employment growth until 2010, even if the economy began to grow later this year. Speaking on C-SPAN, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said that she expected the G.D.P. to begin growing in the fourth quarter of this year. Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, made a similar prediction last week.

But Ms. Romer also said that she expected unemployment to rise even after the economy turns, saying that the G.D.P. has to grow at a rate of about 2.5 percent before unemployment will fall. Before that happens, she said, it is "unfortunately pretty realistic" that the unemployment rate could reach 9.5 percent. A reasonable estimate for the G.D.P.'s growth rate in 2010, she said, is three percent. Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton and advised the Obama campaign, said on Sunday that the rate of growth would have to be higher - 4.5 percent - to reverse rising unemployment.

So, the almost $1 Trillion in Porkulus Bill that was supposed to save and create millions of jobs and jumpstart the economy has done absolutely nothing.

To call this a stimulus bill is a joke. Keynes himself wouldn't even call it stimulus. Most of the money hasn't been spent yet and won't be until 2010 and 2011. Again, what was the rush in getting the bill crammed down our grandchildren's throats?

This just another failure of the young Obama presidency.

What does Romer conclude will get us out of this recession:

The economic recovery, Ms. Romer said, will be driven by business investment in sectors like renewable energy rather than consumer spending. She echoed the views of other economists who expect a long-term economic shift.

So, business investment not consumer spending will bring the economy back. That's what the conservatives have been saying this whole time. Tax cuts has been proven to inspire business investment not massive government spending.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Auto Bailouts Success Rate Looks to Fall 0-for-2

Here's more news from on wasted government money:

For General Motors Corp., the task at hand is so difficult that experts say a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing is all but inevitable.

To remake itself outside of court, GM must persuade bondholders to swap $27 billion in debt for 10 per cent of its risky stock. On top of that, the automaker must work out deals with its union, announce factory clo­sures, cut brands and force hundreds of dealers out of business — all in three weeks.

“I just don’t see how it’s possible, given all of the pieces,” said Stephen J. Lub­ben, a professor at Seton Hall Uni­versity School of Law who specializes in bankruptcy.

This further confirmation that all the bailouts done by Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable outcome of bankruptcy.

Chrysler already declared Ch. 11. Now, GM is about to follow it. That's billions more down the drain.

Captain Obvious Declare Costs Are Biggest Problem For Obama's Healthcare Plan

The AP states that Obama's ambitious plan to insure everyone has hit a slight snag:

Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.

The upfront tab could reach $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while expected savings from wringing waste and inefficiency from the health care system may take longer to show.

Isn't this what we've been saying for months even during the campaign? Has the light bulb finally clicked on over the AP's headquarters?
When will liberals learn that the fantasy land that they live in never works when it meets reality?

Sure, universal healthcare sounds great until it's actually implemented. Just ask the Canadians.

The cost will be more than our government and economy can take. We need to find ways to lower health costs that will in turn lower insurance.

The first thing that they should do is limit frivolous lawsuits as much as they can, but trial lawyers are a big constituency of the Democrats. So, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Two senators have apparently seen the writing on the wall and are getting wary of the added financial burden of a universal healthcare plan:

"You go to a town meeting and people are talking about bailout fatigue," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "They like the president. They think he's a straight shooter. But they are concerned about the amount of money that is heading out the door, and the debts their kids are going to have to absorb."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said cost control has to come ahead of getting more people covered. "Unless we halt skyrocketing health care costs, any attempt to expand coverage will be financially unsustainable," he said.

Will Pelosi, Reid, and Obama be able to see the same writing and put a freeze their massive spending spree?

The AP had another interesting little nugget in the article:

The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.

But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.

So, why is Obama and Co. wanting to spend more money? Maybe if they take out what doesn't work, they'll have enough to try to do some of what he proposes.

Unfortunately, I think those whose "bread and butter" is those wasteful programs have lobbyists in the goverments ears convincing them not to cut them out.

Isn't that what Obama promised to do, though? He promised to use a scalpel on government programs and take out what is useless and wasteful. Maybe he should focus on that instead of thinking of raising taxes especially in this bad economy.

N. Dakota: Police Twarted by Food Stamp Law

Police had to waste months of man hours tracking a thief down that should have only taken a few days, thanks to the hypersensitivity of those who collect government assistance:

John Schweitzer swiped his credit card, bagged his groceries and walked out of a Wal-Mart without his wallet. When he returned a moment later, it was gone.

Schweitzer's misfortune should have been an open-and-shut legal case. The thief was caught on video surveillance, and he used his own food stamp swipe card to pay for groceries before leaving with Schweitzer's wallet.

But a federal law prohibiting the disclosure of information about food stamp recipients - even to law enforcement, unless a specific name is provided - meant it would take months and a lot of legwork before an arrest was made.

What is the point of keeping the name of a criminal away from the police?

Again liberal thinking ends up wasting money that had no business being wasted.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

CBS Reporter Gives Extra Lame Excuse Why Media Rises For The One, Not Dubya

CBS' Mark Knoller tries to explain away why reporters rose in reverence but not Bush:

It’s a long-standing practice for reporters to rise when the president enters the East Room for a news conference, but that hasn’t been the case in the briefing room. I checked with two colleagues who served as senior wire service reporters during the Bush Presidency and who, in matters of press protocol, the rest of us followed.

“The briefing room is always a more informal place,” says Steve Holland of Reuters.

But the principal reason reporters remained in their seats, he said, was not to block the shot of TV cameramen and still photographers in the back of the room who were trying to make a picture of the president’s walk-in.

So, why did they rise out of their seats to greet the One the other day?

When some reporters stood up for President Obama last Friday, they forgot about the needs of their colleagues in the back of the room as well as the less formal atmosphere of the briefing room. Certainly it was a sign of respect for the president, but not one of disrespect for his predecessor.

It was President Obama’s first time at the briefing room lectern since taking office and for some new members of the White House Press, it was their first time seeing a president enter the room as well.

I see that makes it so much better. It wasn't that they were disrespecting Bush. It's that they are so in love with Obama that they couldn't help themselves from rising before their Dear Leader.

As to his other point, he has been in office for over 100 days. How much more time do the newbies need to get used to seeing the President?

They should have just let this go. If they had, the story would have went away. They instead felt the need to explain their tingling feelings they get whenever the One they've been waiting for enters the room.

If they really wanted to put the story to rest forever, they should've found a video where they rose for Bush. The fact that they couldn't speaks volumes.

Democrats Refuse Obama's Request for Money to Move Gitmo Prisoners

Even though they claim that they want Guantanamo Bay to be closed, they will not put their money where their mouths are:

Amid complaints that terror suspects could be brought to the U.S., House Democrats on Monday rebuffed the Obama administration's request for $50 million to relocate prisoners from the detention facility at Guantanamo, Cuba.

When lawmakers unveiled a bill to pay for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the fall, the money to implement President Obama's executive order to shut down the prison within a year was missing from it.

Arlen Specter (D-PA) Exploits Jack Kemp's Death For Personal Political Gain

If only, we had socialized medicine. There would be no more pain. No one would ever die. At least, that is what Sen. Specter (D-PA) implied this past Sunday:

Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.

The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.

Not only did Arlen make this claim once, but he turned around and said it again the same day. Sorry, Harry Reid, there are no takebacks.

"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."

Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

It is despicable to think that anyone would exploit Jack Kemp's death for personal political gain.

His claims are totally unfounded. This country has spent more on cancer research than any other country in the world.

Justice Napolitano? Why Not? She's Done Such a Great Job At Homeland Security

This thought is keeping me sick:

Justice Napolitano? The homeland security secretary might just like the ring of it. Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

Fortunately, not even the One would make this boneheaded appointment. Would he?

Well, he doesn't have the best track record. His Cabinet is a who's who of tax evaders. He already lost two of his major cabinet nominees because of scandals: Richardson and Daschle. He lost Judd Gregg because of Rahmbo's power play to take the census away from Commerce and because of Obama's penchant for spending sprees on the taxpayer's dime.

On second thought, maybe he would.

Napolitano has proven herself an overachiever when it comes to inviting scandals. There many examples just pick one: here, here, and here.

Obama Erases Bush's Twittering Past

Believe it or not Obama Obama wasn't the first president to use Twitter:

Barack Obama 's Webheads are getting ready to launch a new Twitter feed for President Change. But the White House already had a Twitter account. It has disappeared down the memory hole.

Given the widespread belief that Obama invented the Internet, many will scoff at the idea that the Bush White House had a Twitter account. But it did -- and the administration handed over at noon on Inauguration Day, just like it did with the website . Google still has the old account, with Obama's tweets, in its cache.

Actually, Al Gore invented the internet. Obama just perfected the use of it.

Obama didn't just take over the account:

Obama's Twitterers didn't just change the username on the account ; they started fresh, wiping out all of the White House's existing Twitter followers, and the entire archive of messages.

I hope there aren't any presidential historians or high school students for that matter who want to do research on how the presidents used the new media. They would be SOL to find anything related to Bush's Twittering not because he didn't do it but because Obama had the audacity to pretend that there was no other president before him.

What was the purpose of deleting all of the Bush era tweets, followers, etc? The only reason I can think of is spite and hatred for Dubya.

GOP Lead Democrats in Generic Polls For Second Week in a Row

While it is still way too early for this to make any real difference in 2010, it's still good to see that there is some progress being made:

Generic Ballot: Republicans 40% Democrats 39%

For the second straight week, Republicans edge out Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The First Amendment Gets Big Win, Teacher Found Liable For Making Anti-Christiam Remarks in Class

Score one for the First Amendment:

A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

The 20-year teaching veteran, James Corbett, has made many condescending comments to students who have religious beliefs. On this particular day, former student, Chad Farnan, recorded the teacher making 20 inflammatory statements against Chad for his belief in creation.

The one that the judge said violated Farnan's first amendment rights was when Mr. Corbett called creation "superstitious nonsense" in front of the class during a lecture.

There were other comments that somehow the judge didn't think was as bad as the "superstitious nonsense" comment. I don't see how they're any better:

Also dismissed in April were comments such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

One thing I'm a bit confused about is this. Why a European history teacher is talking about creation anyway? Wasn't creation just a little before the beginning of the European history?

Obama's Supreme Court Hopeful Sonia Sotomayor: Courts Are Where Policy Is Made

Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows exactly what many people are afraid of from an Obama Supreme Court appointment:

No, Sonia, policy is made by the other two elected branches of the government. This kind of judicial activism is what has taken away our rights and freedoms. Many judges act as if they are the ones that know better than everyone else. The overturn the will of the people because of their own beliefs even when they have no right to do that.

They overturned gay marriage bans even after the people voted to keep marriage between man and a woman in many states like Massachusets and California.

They've taken away some of our freedom of religion. Students cannot pray on school grounds anymore.

These are just a couple of examples of how liberal activists judges have wrecked havoc on our Bill of Rights. We don't need another judge who thinks that they are the lords of the law and can mold public policy as they see fit.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Another Hard Hitting Expose on Obama From the Lovestricken Associated Press

Here's another hard hitting piece from Christine Sommers of the Associated Press:


Maybe she and the One should just get a room!

I wonder when they'll do a story like this on George and Laura Bush. I'm still waiting on that one.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Chyrsler Bondholders' Attorney: White House Threatened My Client

On Friday, bankruptcy attorney for some of the Chysler bondholders, Tom Lauria, went on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR) to make this eyepopping accusation about the White House's actions toward them. Somewhere, Nixon is smiling from the life beyond:

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

Let's roll the audio back on that:

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

Using Robert Gibbs and company to pound a private citizen who opposes the Bully-in-Chief into submission isn't something that the President of the United States would do. Is it?

Apparently, it is.

After all, he publically went after Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli whenever they expressed his desire for America to not turn into a socialst state and questioned his policies, and he gave Major Garrett and the rest of the Fox News reporters the equivilant of the silent treatment because Fox didn't air his 100th day sermon...I mean press conference.

However, there is not any evidence of this other than Lauria's testimony. So, nothing will probably come of this, but after what happened to Limbaugh, Santelli, and Garrett, we must start wondering if there is a pattern developing here with the Obama administration.

Administration Official: Gitmo Military Tribunals "Don't Look As Bad" Than We First Thought

According to an unnamed administration official, Obama is thinking about reviving a staple of the Bush Administration that drew criticism from every lefty loony around the dial:

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration's system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama's political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

In fact, some administration officials might be wondering why the Liberal-in-Chief stopped the tribunals in the first place:

"The more they look at it," said one official, "the more commissions don't look as bad as they did on Jan. 20."

Translation: Maybe that Bush guy had the right idea all along. Oops, sorry!

Isn't it weird how liberals often have to reject how they believe things should be and face the reality of the way things actually are?

Obama called the commissions an "enormous failure" and said that he would "reject the Military Commissions Act" when he became President. Now, in just a few short months, he realizes that is the best possible option, after all.

Who could have known that beforehand?

Oh, yeah! Bush did.

Ed Morrissey had at interesting thought pertaining to the timing of the media leak about the revival of military tribunals:

Does anyone else find it fascinating that the Obama administration leaked this on a Friday night?  I suspect that they know just how much flak they will take over this reversal, especially in the media.  This seems designed to bury the story in a weekend cycle, with a prayer that a big event occurs between now and Monday to keep it buried.

Fascinating! Indeed!

Attorney General Holder Opens Door For Bush & Co. Extradition For Trial Internationally?

The AP buried this statement deep in their article of Holder commenting on the status of closing Gitmo and the topic of the Spanish inquisition of Bush came up. Apparently, they either don't see the danger of this thinking or they know it is and are trying to save Obama from another embarrassing quote from his Cabinet. My vote is for the latter:

In speaking to reporters Wednesday, Holder also said it is possible the United States could cooperate with a foreign court's investigation of Bush administration officials.

Holder spoke before the announcement that a Spanish magistrate had opened an investigation of Bush officials on harsh interrogation methods. Holder didn't rule out cooperating in such a probe.

"Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it," Holder said.

Hold it right there. ANY request from ANY foreign court will be considered.


This is a nightmare for Obama just waiting to happen. The One will be flooded with requests from every two-bit court in the Middle East bent on punishing "the Great Satan" and every liberal European judge who wants to drag Dubya through the mud.

Mr. Holder needs to think before he speaks.

Ed Morrissey had this to say about Holder's statement:

Again, as I wrote last month, such machinations are an insult to American sovereignty.  The Obama administration has a duty to defend American sovereignty and to stop old colonial powers (heh) from imposing their laws on other nations.  That’s the height of arrogance, and if Barack Obama doesn’t want to stand up to it, Congress should demand to know why Obama and Holder are cooperating with an attempt by Spain to impose their laws on American citizens.  It goes against everything for which this nations stands.

He has a point. If Obama acquiesces to the Spainish court's demands, the sovereignty of the US as a nation might as well not even exist.

Dafydd ab Hugh takes it a step further:

If Garzón (Spanish judge) has legal authority to demand we hand over evidence, he also has legal authority to demand we hand over "war criminals," from American military personnel, to John Yoo, to Jay Bybee, to William Haynes, to Douglas Feith, to Alberto Gonzales, to Richard Myers, to Dick Cheney -- even to former President George W. Bush himself.

This would open a can of worms that would put every administration not just Bush's but also Clinton, the first Bush, or, dare I say it, The One himself in danger of getting carted off to only God knows where to stand trial for various "crimes" real or imagined.

Obama Begins War on Coal, Screws Navajos Out of Previously Approved Coal Plant

This story came out a few days ago, but I just now found it as it has been buried by the Mainstream Media:

In a dramatic move yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the air quality permit it issued last summer for the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant, which is slated to be built on the Navajo Nation in the Four Corners region just southwest of Farmington, New Mexico.

Obama can't seem to pass cap-and-trade fast enough. Instead of trying to "bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,"(aka cap-and-trade energy tax hike), he is going to use the EPA to close them with "little regard for due process or basic notions of fairness".

In closing the plant, he has severely hurt the economy of the Navajo Nation. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley says that the government isn't exactly being “honest and truthful in its dealings with Native America”:

“I have people dying every day because of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, gangs, and the U.S. Government is not there to adequately fund the direct service programs that cater to these needs,” he said.

Now, Obama has crippled their ability to climb out of poverty by taking away jobs from the people that the plant would have hired. So, they're stuck in poverty until Obama's EPA decides to give them the permit to open the plant. So much for creating millions of new jobs.