Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Post Partisan Polemic's

Party of "No" becomes party of "Whoa!"

It really is a beautiful thing to watch. After two years of complaining that Republicans were being too partisan, and too obstructionist, suddenly an agreement between the President and the GOP is a monumental betrayal.

This is not the first act of bipartisanship. There have been many bipartisan oppositions to various Pelosi shenanigans, that were rammed through by a purely partisan majority. It just never gets reported that way.

Until yesterday, bipartisanship meant "sit down, shut up, and vote how I tell you to vote. Otherwise you are obstructing". Apparently they became very accustomed to this environment, and despite the results of the mid term elections they refuse to come to terms with the change that was voted for and is about to take place.

Now, at the first attempt of a truly bipartisan deal in congress since the election of "He who walks on water", the one who spoke earnestly about "reaching across the isle", it is absolute schadenfreude to watch the presidents base lose their minds.

What was that phrase that was so popular two years ago? Oh yeah......"elections have consequences!"

Monday, November 1, 2010

The Tsunami is Here!

After the last of the primaries was over back in September, the Wall Street Journal wrote an excellent piece beautifully describing the mood of the country and I think accurately predicting the political massacre that will take place tomorrow.

The Tsunami Heads to Shore
The GOP casualties are over. Now the voter uprising is aiming right at the Democrats.

The pros tell us that 2010 will be a "wave" election, and if that's true then think of Republicans as passengers on a ship who have just watched the tsunami roll over them. A few were washed overboard on the port side, but the GOP is likely to suffer no more losses. Now the huge wave is roaring toward shore, heading directly for the Democrats who are running American government.
That they did not see it coming is all the evidence you need to know about how out of touch they are.
The real story of this election year is that the voters are massing to repudiate two years of the most liberal governance in two generations. It is Mr. Obama's agenda that has polarized the electorate and set off this voter backlash. Democratic candidates, incumbents or not, are admitting as much by fleeing from Mr. Obama, his priorities and even their own voting records.
What will the Ideologue-in-Chief do now?

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Liberal Fascism on the March

there is no 'liberty' in 'liberal'. You tow the line, you follow the herd, and you never go off the reservation!

It was absolutely stunning to hear that Juan Williams was sacked by NPR.  the irony here is that his comments that supposedly offended somebody came out during a conversation about the absurd and intolerant actions of the ladies on the tv show 'the View', who stormed off stage when guest Bill O'Reilly stated that it was 'muslims who killed us on 9/11'. Never mind that his statement was factually accurate, the ladies could not tolerate any point of view that did not fit into their politically correct belief system, and happened to be true. So they got up and walked away. Argument over.

Arguing with most liberals is a painful exercise in round-a-round non-sequitors, combined with indignant statements of unrelated facts that are supposed suggest that they prove some unelaborated point.  Not Juan Williams though. Whether you agreed with his liberal point of view or not, you always understand how he came to his conclusion using logic rather than squishy slogans. Maybe you didn't agree with the conclusion, buy you respected the point of view.

It is evident that a new wave politically correct intolerance for alternative points of view to the progressive narrative has arrived, and the Battleship NPR has fired the first salvo demonstrating to all that it is not afraid to kill one of it's own for committing political heresy. And in his self respecting fashion Juan continues to call them like he sees them.

Juan Williams: My Words Were 'Not A Bigoted Statement'

Jaun said that in his opinion NPR had:
"Used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought."
It's not just NPR Juan, It's the entire political left. It's fascists who want to tell you what you can say, who you can say it to, and what will happen to you if you don't.

Friday, October 1, 2010

10/2: Union's Flex their Muscles

they say that mimicry is a form of flattery. Despite the ridicule and the condescending condemnation of tea party protests and the Glenn Beck / Sarah Palin 8/28 rally, self proclaimed progressives have decided to respond in kind. While all along belittling these gatherings, while yanking and rolling their eyes, the back on their heels leftists are holding a 'see we can have a rally too' event.

I can't wait to see the results.

Will Nancy Pelosi demand a congressional investigation into who is financially backing this group? Will she weep crocodile tears of fear? No, she won't. It's widely known that this operation is organized, by the most experienced organizing organizations known to man.

Heck, the speaker list is a who's who of union royalty.

the ideology between the 8/28 and the 10/2 messages could not be further apart. 8/28 was about individualism and freedom, and 10/2 is clearly about the progressive (not to be confused with the word progress) agenda, including all out support for illegal immigrants, and community unity (aka Communism).

Is it coincidence that a union operation such as this is held so close to the anniversary of a bloody union triumph?

When asked what he thought about media attempts to classify this rally as an anti-Tea Party movement, Garland said that he thinks “that’s an over simplification.  Media tends to do that.”
“This is really not about the Tea Party,” he said.  “This is about America. This is about bringing people together who have a positive vision for what America can be, not the Tea Party, which is all about negativity, about hatred, about discrimination, about racism.  And we’re not about that, we’re about bringing America together with positive energy and a positive agenda for a positive future.”
Or we (the unions) will kill you................

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Because you can; does not mean you should.

the firestorm over the 9/11 mosque has been interesting to watch.  It is yet another waypoint that demonstrates the upside down world we live in.  the furor started when opposition to announced plans to build a mosque / community center / weapons cache was going to be built 2 blocks away from the flattened world trade center.

Understandably there was a group of americans that protested and testified that this was an intolerable affront.  terror loving miscreants posing as patriotic preservers of rights made the argument that because they could do it, they should do it, and that is what makes this country great. Even though there was never any assertion that the muslims did not have the right to build their mosque, religious freedom and the right to build the mosque became the reason that the mosque should be built. this is a lot like the immigration debate where pro open border supporters argue that 'because you can't deport all the illegal immigrants, you should not attempt to enforce existing law's. Just like the mosque argument, it is a dumb one. Ask any of these dopes if that it stands to reason that because you can't catch all the rapists, why should we pursue them? If you can't arrest all the drunk drivers, then why should you peruse them?

Anyways, back to the mosque. I am opposed to the construction of the 9/11 mosque. I do not deny their right to build their mosque, I merely beg their empathy and understanding, and appeal to them that a mosque built on that location would be hugely offensive to many Americans.

Somehow the muslim world did not care of about any affront to 'non-believers'.

After America was admonished by it's own president for suggesting that a religion ought not to exercise a right it definitely has guaranteed to them, a little known pastor, thousands of miles away decided
 to exercise a right that was undisputedly his. Pastor Jones announced that he intended to exercise his right to free speech, and to ceremonially burn a Koran on the 9th anniversary of the september 11 attacks. 

Well, that got people's attention. Suddenly people were imploring him not to do this. It was too much of an affront to muslims to do this.  Suddenly the idea became that because you can do something, it may be the better part of valor not to do it. the President again got involved, and also called for this pastor to not exercise his right to burn a Koran, and now as of this morning, hundreds of death threats later, and after international demonstrations, he has declared he will not burn the Koran and that he never will.

Now that the politically correct crowd has taught everyone that religious symbolism can be an incitement to violence and that the threat of that violence justifies not exercising a right, will they apply that same logic to the building of mosque near ground zero?

Probably not without the threat of violence.

At least this year we were spared the 'day of service' crap, and it looks as though this year the Obama's will strike a pose of solemn remembrance.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

McCain's Last Stand

the tea party is facing a huge test tonight.  Senator John McCain is someone who most tea party members have probably voted for at one time or another. Senator John McCain is war hero; He has been a dutiful public servant, and he has served his state well whether you always agreed with him or not. Senator McCain is someone deserving of respect.

But, the tea party platform has been fairly absolute. "throw the bums out!". Nary an incumbent has been spared, and neither should Mr. McCain. American's don't like losers, and Mr. McCain has lost two presidential bids. He was on the wrong side of the last immigration debate, and while he is currently repentant on that issue, you never know when the Maverick will appear and be unable to to resist the temptation to appease the other side of the aisle.

the latest polling suggests that Mr. McCain will survive tonight. I can understand the conflict that might arise in the voting both. "I voted for him to be President? How come I don't think he should be my Senator?".

the answer is: he has his chance, we need real change, and we intend to get that by ridding ourselves of the incumbents.

If Mr. McCain is returned to the Senate, it will be the real first big defeat for the tea party.

thanks for the service Senator. Here's your hat. What's your hurry?

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Mosque on the Hudson

the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has morphed into a political issue that I never dreamed would rise to the level of discourse that it has. It's not that I didn't think it an important issue, but I never foresaw the collateral damage that this issue would do to the president.

the initial announcement that this issue was a local one, and that they would have no comment was probably the correct course. Many disagreed and thought the president should chime in, and even I saw the 'no position' position as cowardly.

then last Friday, the President announced his support for the Ground Zero Mosque. Ok, ok, he did not really state support for it, but it sounded darn close, and that is what middle America heard. they heard, that he did not believe what they did, and that mosque should not be stopped. the crowd he was speaking to at a muslim Ramadan kickoff dinner, erupted into applause, clearly buoyed by the presidents appearance of support.

the very next day the president was back peddling. He quickly got the message out that while he was merely stating the obvious, that by law the mosque had a legal right to be built, he was not, and would not,  comment on the wisdom of building a mosque there.

Well thanks for nothing.

How transparent. Waltz in, feign support, get applause, and get back to non-committal the next day. And then! then the administration claimed that there was nothing political about the statements. What!?!?!?!? Really?!?!?!?!

So today, things get worse. and the state-run-media felt the need to ride to the aid of their anointed leader. Early AP headlines read "An Increased Number of Americans Wrongly Believe that Obama is Muslim".

My first reaction was, "wrongly? really? how do you know?". Not exactly objective reporting. the headline was the message. Reports about the poll ignore some obvious questions.

White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily
A new poll showed that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, believe Obama is Muslim. That was up from 11 percent who said so in March 2009. The survey also showed that just 34 percent said Obama is Christian, down from 48 percent who said so last year. 
Wow? Why would that be? think. think. think. the number went up? Now, if a certain percentage of the population was just unaware of the religion he claims to profess, well that happens. they are just uninformed, and they think his muslim sounding name suggests that he is muslim, and perhaps they don't even care. that's fine. Who cares. But when the number increases, and suddenly more people think you are a muslim, something is going on. It's no longer a mistaken perception. the president's words and actions have persuaded people that he really is a muslim, despite what he says.

So of course the headline that said "An Increased Number of Americans Wrongly Believe that Obama is Muslim" had to be changed to a clarifying "White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily".

Me thinks they doth protest too much!

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Empire Strikes Back

Well, it's not a reason to wish for a political defeat in November. The time is right to through the bums out no matter what the consequences. However we are reading more and more that a popular revolt, and a power shift in the House and/or Senate could mean that we witness an episode that might be called "The Empire Strikes Back".

More than a few people have predicted the possibility of a lame duck congress heading home for good would have nothing left to loose, and in good old fashion Chicago Style Pay-To-Play vote selling.

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy
party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.
Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." 
Beware the lame duck
Leading Democrats are already considering this as a way to achieve even more liberal measures that many of their members dare not even talk about, let alone enact, on the eve of an election in which they face a widespread popular backlash to the already enacted elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.
Obama's follow-on reforms are dead. Except for the fact that a lame-duck session, freezing in place the lopsided Democratic majorities of November 2008, would be populated by dozens of Democratic members who had lost reelection (in addition to those retiring). They could then vote for anything -- including measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are threatened -- because they would have nothing to lose. 
This would be the political version of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).  And we know they can be deadly yet effective.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

NAACP is a racist organization

The definition of racism is making a decision or forming an opinion based on the color of someones skin.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has racist intent built into their name. They are in favor of advancing certain people based on the color of their skin!

And now, this organization has moved beyond their race based agenda and they have become nothing more than a shill for the democratic party.  The reality is that this race based political action committee is nothing more than an Uncle Tom race affinity political action committee.

NAACP blasts 'racism' in Tea Party

The historical perspective here is littered with irony and upside down world spin.  I commented a while back on the irony of Harry Reid's perverse jab at being on the wrong side of the vote with issues like slavery.

Making (up) History......

Historically speaking it was the Southern Democrats who fought the Civil War in an attempt to prevent the emancipation of slaves. It was the Republicans who executed the war that eventually won black people their freedom. And honestly, not much has changed. The democrats are still selling their version of share cropping in order to keep black people down on the farm by incentivising them into poverty with entitlements and hand outs.

I wonder if the NAACP showed any video on that big screen behind the podium that made their charges of racism evident? My wish would have been for them to show the video of the two white SEIU union thugs beating up a black guy because he was protesting with the Tea Party.

If the NAACP is worried about organizations that tolerate racism, they should look into the mirror.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Obama, and the Spies who love him

My antennae went up the moment this starry broke. Having a Russian spy ring busted up and hauled in a mere day after a high level meeting with Vladimir Putin's messenger boy, Medvedev, was just too much to let lie as coincidence.

I wrote about it right away knowing there was something very deep going on here.

To Russia with Love

From the beginning this felt like an Obama overture to ingratiate himself to the Russians.  This ideologue actually believes that kind gestures to evil people will yield positive results.  You can't fault him for not being a true believer, however naive that may be.

And now the evidence piles up.

US began deliberating spy swap well before arrests
The White House began deliberating a spy swap with Moscow nearly a month ago
In the course of the following negotiations with Moscow, the United States put forward the names of the four people who were released by Russia on Friday as their part of the bargain
Four people? What four people? It is interesting that the names and profiles have not yet been released.  What a deal!  Obama confesses, and then cleans up some massive loose ends that the new KGB left for us. Loose ends that could have been played, turned, or designated for misinformation at an important moment. You just don't hand over assets like this. Especially for 4 people the nation has never heard of!
the official said, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House.
Reporters?!?!?!?  You mean someone held an anonymous press conference? Usually leaks happen in one on one situations where anonymity can easily be granted. Here we have state-run-media colluding with an orchestrated intelligence leak and pretending like it's an unknown source. White House ground rules?  I have been calling the main-stream-media the state-run-media for over a year. Now you have the proof.
The U.S. government has declared itself pleased with the outcome, saying it got everything it wanted out of the case.
Yip. Nothing to see here. President Obama has offered up yet another gift at the feet of Vladimir Putin, and what did he get in return?


Wednesday, June 30, 2010

To Russia with Love

President Obama continues to lift up his skirt and give gifts to the Russians to prove that he is not a useful idiot, but that he is a true believer. As pathetic as a love struck teen trying to curry favor with the popular girls this president thinks he can win over the Vladimir Putin. First it was the oath to eliminate the plan to deploy defensive missiles into Poland. Then it was the looking the other way when democratic ally Georgia was attacked and is still being occupied by Russia. And now this. Obama has ordered the termination of a long term counter-espionage project.

Now you know why it was all smiles and and fond back slapping at the burger joint.
Comrade! Thank you so much! Knowing our program was compromised is a huge relief! Imagine if you had continued the investigation. Oh my God! The risk of turning one of our agents or using them to collect information on our intelligence gathering methods? Oh my. Thank God you put an end to this potential nightmare.
Oh, and by the way, Vladimir says he does think you are cute and he is sorry for calling you a creepy geek.
Yes, yes. Russia has a little egg on their face, but not knowing and not having the investigation shut down was  far more risky.

Think about it. Why did the FBI move in? There are clearly more than 11 of these deep cover agents here. They could have used these guys to get to those guys. And the timing of this is just too curious. I mean mere days after the visit from the Russian president? Are we to believe that Obama didn't know about this prior to the visit? And if he did (which he did) are we supposed to believe it was not a point of discussion?

The reset in Russian relations is a euphemism for the capitulation by the United States.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Stark Raving Mad!

stark   [stahrk]   adjective, -er, -est, adverb :  harsh, grim, or desolate, as a view, place, etc.: a stark landscape.

Wow! This is the best example of the condescending political class dismissal of what Americans, citizen Americans that is, are concerned about.

Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

And the mockery did not stop there. The constituent asked serious and valid questions and this guy replied with nothing but disrespecting condescending quips in an embarrassing attempt to dodge a question.
"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.
"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.
Watch the video and decide for yourself who is the smarmy asshole!
Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama's health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.
"Mr. Congressman, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining," the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president's plan.
"I wouldn't dignify you be peeing on your leg," Stark fired back. "It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."
Wow. This guy does not deserve to represent Lovey and Thorsten Howell III.

At one point in the video he proclaims that our borders are safe. How disconnected can you get.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Financial Reform: The Big Lie!

If liberals are good at anything, they are good at applying warm and fuzzy, mom and apple pie labels to issues. Usually the issues are so disconnected from the topics at hand that when reflected upon, the label makes no sense. Take the latest example. The battle cry is 'reforming Wall Street". And the state run media is all to willing to comply.

Federal regs set to restrain Wall Street risk

The legislation creates a new federal agency to police consumer lending, set up a warning system for financial risks, force failing firms to liquidate and map new rules for instruments that have been largely uncontrolled.
Leaving the White House for Toronto, Obama said the package will "help prevent another financial crisis like the one that we're still recovering from."

ummmm...not quite.
Bank stocks soared as investors appeared relieved that the rules were not as strict as they'd feared. Bank of America Corp. stock rose more than 2 percent, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each posted 3 percent gains.
Again, not quite. This bill does very little at all to Wall Street. The real impact is to mom and pop Main Street. That's why the fat cat's got the market boost that they did.

The New Lords of Finance
Why Wall Street and Washington both like 'reform.'

The Democrats who wrote the bill are selling it as new discipline for Wall Street, but Wall Street knows better. The biggest banks support the bill, and the parts they don't like they will lobby furiously to change or water down.
Big Finance will more than hold its own with Big Government, as it always does, while politicians will have more power to exact even more campaign tribute. The losers are the overall economy, as financial costs rise, and taxpayers when the next bailout arrives.
A perfect example of how the label does not fit the bill (pun intended)

Let's also not forget the Senate's rendering of a "resolution process" for failing financial giants. This provision is ostensibly the reason for this entire exercise—to end the notion of too-big-to-fail banks and create a process in which regulators feel comfortable allowing failure.
Yet the discretion handed to the FDIC as the resolution overseer allows a replay of the AIG debacle, in which the company was used as a conduit to pay counterparties 100 cents on the dollar. The FDIC will now be empowered to do the exact same thing, except that it will be allowed to discriminate even further—with the discretion to give some creditors a total bailout while imposing losses on others. Think United Auto Workers versus Chrysler bond holders.

The bill being passed only makes it easier for the Chicago Gang to line their pockets and the pockets of their allies.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

To Good To Be True; What Are They Up To?

Is it true? Could it be? Is it possible that Government sponsored entity Fannie Mae has learned something that a 5th grader would have figured out years ago? Has the amount of tax payer money that has been spilling from the government ledgers more voluminous than the BP Gulf oil spill be taking a toll? What about the mission to give houses to people who cannot afford them? Has any one told Obama? Has anyone told Barney Frank?

Fannie Set to Penalize Defaulters

Fannie Mae said Wednesday it would "lock out" borrowers from getting a new loan for seven years if they default on a mortgage they could afford to pay.
The move represents the latest effort by the mortgage industry to prevent a new wave of losses that could result if more borrowers who can afford their monthly payments instead opt to "strategically" default on loans, because they owe far more than their homes are worth.

Well, I guess there is a caveat. "if they default on a mortgage they could afford to pay".  So it's a subjective course correction. If you legitimately could not afford a loan, well then, you are eligible for another one.
Fannie's move comes amid greater concern that it has become socially acceptable for borrowers to stop paying their loans, and that such a shift could exacerbate the housing bust. 
That's just funny. file this under "DUH!".  An administration and a congress that has done nothing but inflated the entitlement culture, discouraged the idea of self reliance and personal responsibility, and can't bare the plight of failure is now wondering why it has become socially acceptable for borrowers to walk away from their obligations. Hmmmmm?
Nearly one in four homeowners with a mortgage is underwater, or owes more than their home is worth, according to CoreLogic
So if you are good at managing money and recognize what the right move is, in order to maximize cash-flow for your family, then you don't deserve a home. However, if your some dumb ass who has never been able to balance a check book? Then you deserve the American dream, and it's on us, keep the change.

When I first read the WSJ article I thought for a moment that maybe Fannie was smartening up. Nope. They are still bent on being the transfer of wealth machine that they set out to be. The amount of wealth being transferred to unproductive members of our society makes the BP spill look like a guy taking a whiz into the ocean.

You got to Roll Me......

Revisionist History

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Il Duce Tries Again

Filed under 'you never want a serious crisis to go to waste '. The administration has used the horrific BP Gulf crisis to take over and control another industry. First the banks, then the car industry, etc. etc. and now the oil industry.

In a thinly disguised dictate that was supposedly recommended by industry experts, the dictator-in-chief issued a fiat that 'there would be no deep drilling or working' ( sung to the tune of 'There'll be no more toy makers to the King').
It's a difficult responsibility
That you accept from the Number 1 lawmaker, me
Have it known throughout the land from sea to sea
There'll be no more drilling in the sea.
Well, the president ran into a little problem this week. His attempt to dictate laws and regulations was stalled by one of those nasty checks and balances.

Obama's Moratorium, Drilled
In a remarkably pointed 22-page ruling, the judge made clear that even Presidents aren't allowed to impose an "edict" that isn't justified by science or safety.
Oil-services companies brought the case, which is supported by the state of Louisiana, arguing that the White House ban was "arbitrary and capricious" in exceeding federal authority, and Judge Feldman agreed. He noted that even after reading Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's report on safety recommendations (which included the ban), and Mr. Salazar's memo ordering the ban, "the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium." 
and finally some justice for the lies perpetrated by the administration in their attempt to make the decision look science based rather than political.

The judge also went out of his way to express "uneasiness" over the Administration's claim that its safety report (which recommended the ban) had been "peer reviewed" by experts. Those experts have since publicly disavowed the ban, explaining that the ban was added to the report only after they had signed off on an earlier draft. White House green czar Carol Browner dismissed their complaints, saying "No one's been deceived or misrepresented."
But Judge Feldman directly contradicted Ms. Browner, describing the report's claim of "peer review" as "factually incorrect." Moreover, the Administration's "hair-splitting explanation" of what the experts did or didn't support "abuses reason, common sense, and the text at issue."

Obama is assuming the posture of a dictator. This is not the first example.

The American Mussolini

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Offer BP Could Not Refuse

While the damage that BP has and is causing in the gulf coast is horrific on so many levels, and while the images of the disaster are so hard to look at, somehow America is devolving into just another Banana Republic.  The rule of law no longer matters. Even though BP waived their protection from the 'liability cap' that was not good enough for the White House. They want the money! Just like Tony Mantana in Scarface, this administration has a style all it's own.
In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you force your ideology down their throats.
So when BP came to the White House for the 'meet' to finalize the deal, I'm sure they got an earful.
What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna BP? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way! 
$20 Billion dollars later, the administration has access to an unlimited amount of funds, available to him for whatever he wants. Oh, he may have to launder it through several parties and hops to make it look quasi legit, but the unions will be involved, and they will make a lot of money too.

Obama's Political Oil Fund

BP has more than 600 claims personnel working to pay fishermen and others that have suffered economic damage. It has vowed to pay all "legitimate" claims and has worked through 20,000 of 42,000 submitted so far, at a cost of $53 million. BP has also promised it will not limit its payments to the Oil Pollution Act's $75 million cap on these damages, and last month it announced it would hire an independent mediator to review claims. Any claimant denied payment has the right to sue for redress under the law, which means BP has an incentive to get these payouts right.
By contrast, a government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration's political goals. Those goals would include payments to those harmed by the Administration's own six-month deep water drilling ban. That reckless policy will soon put thousands of Gulf Coast residents out of work, but the White House knows that BP isn't liable under current law for those claims. The escrow account is an attempt to tap BP's funds by other means to pay the costs of Mr. Obama's own policy blunder.

and with the government in control?
Democrats are vowing this fund will be tightly crafted and used only for oil-spill payments. But only last week Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted to siphon money out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund—established in 1986 and funded by oil taxes to help clean-up spills—to pay for their extension of unemployment benefits. The history of such government funds is that they are always raided for politically favored purposes.
There is no 'lock-box'. The new arrangement assures that more locals will be victimized because payments that would have been paid by BP, will now go to Obama's political interest groups, and close allies (unions).

And what happened when some heretic stood up to speak the truth?

Apology to BP's Hayward triggers uproar
Representative Joe Barton, a major recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, triggered an uproar with his lengthy apology to Hayward for being the victim of a White House "shakedown."
State-run media is quick to say that the only way you could interpret actual laws and protections contrary to the presidents actions means corruption. The old adage that 'perception is reality' now applies to the law.
In addition, conservative Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was quoted as telling the Heritage Foundation think tank on Tuesday that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."
I think that pretty much sums it up. It's never about the crisis. It's about the opportunity it represents. "You can't let a good crisis go to waste"

Sunday, June 13, 2010

The Distinguished Gentlemen

File this one under 'be careful what you wish for'.

In what has become a stunning example of irony and unintended consequences, the progressive left is now protesting the fruits of their own platform.

South Carolina Pol Questions Dem Senate Candidate's 'Mental Status'

A South Carolina lawmaker on Sunday suggested that new Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene may be intellectually incapable of participating in the general election race.
State Rep. Todd Rutherford told Fox News that he went to Greene's house to discuss with him how Greene succeeded last week in becoming the candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the November election, but he found it difficult to decipher an answer.

The fact that the progressives who have championed 'one man one vote' and are now horrified by the very policy they fought so hard for is poetry. You can't make this stuff up. The founding fathers never intended this republic to be governed by a 'one man, one vote' electorate. Their criteria was that you at least had to own property. That was the test of your competency and the demonstration of your vested interest.
"I never said he was a Republican plant. I said he was someone's plant. ... I saw the patterns in this. I know a Democratic pattern, I know a Republican pattern and I saw in the Democratic primary elephant dung all over the place," he told CNN.
Precious. He's not saying it's a Republican conspiracy, he's just saying! The democrats also appear to dismiss the politics of hate and disdain that they ingrained into their base. The democrats brought the 'not that guy' campaign strategy to a crescendo with the 'hate Bush' rhetoric, and it worked perfectly for them. Obama wasn't elected because of his demonstrated skills and experience, he was elected because the electorate was not going to vote for 'those guys'.
As the questions mount over the selection of Greene, some have attributed it to the arbitrary alphabet since Greene's name appeared above Rawl's on the ballot. Rutherford said the Senate Democratic primary in South Carolina was low profile to begin with and probably "people just hit a button and had no idea who they were voting for."
Well? When you cultivate a base that is not supposed to think for themselves, and may not be able to think for themselves, you have to take special care. You have to be careful that you haven't taken their vote for granted. Sure, you might think, so what? Who else are they going to vote for? But, they might be thinking 'not that guy'.

If the progressives have worked so hard to cultivate an electorate of dummies, and the dummies decide they want to be represented by a dummy, then who are we to say? And, who are they to say?

Sorry SC dems. Time to reap what you sow.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The Code Pink Party Tax Protests

They are protesting because they are not getting enough of your money.

Wow. So Nancy Pelosi can be strong and stand up to protesters? As long as they are not from the Tea Party anyways. In what could only be called a spectacle, Code Pink protesters interrupted a speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was a spectacle because it highlights the many levels of hypocrisy that has been perpetrated on all of the American people by the radical left.

It wasn't that long ago that the Tea Party protests erupted in response to the looming healthcare bill and the sudden realization of the reality and the taxes that would be necessary to support such reckless spending. People who were never political in their entire lives went to 'Town Halls' so that they could be heard by their supposed representatives. To most of these people, government was going to go to far, and there was no end in sight.

Knowing, ah heck - inventing, the power of protest and the power of   disapproval, the left first looked to ignore the dissenting voices. Then they ridiculed the dissenting voices. And, when that did not work either, they tried to squelch the speech with the old, trusted, and reliably used political correctness card.

Yes, that is right, exhibiting your frustration and your opposition to the position that your elected official is taking is just down right aggressive and practically violent. Unless of course you are a right wing communist. The emotional outrage is par for the course here and you just have to manage your way through it. No big deal. It happens all the time.

Can you imagine if it were the Tea Party? The shrill of the voice, the manner of the delivery, and the temerity of the interruption would all be cause for hours of critiques and condemnation. But if you are on the left? Well then, that is just good politics.

It's great just to hear her hem and haw at the inconvenience. My favorite line is;
"They are throwing stuff, you're going to have to leave"
Can you imagine if they had that kind of footage from a Tea Party demonstration? The clip would be played non-stop. I am betting you won't see this clip at all on network news.

Gotta love it!

Monday, June 7, 2010

A Few Good Correspondents

Not that there are any. Regardless, like all people of conviction who pretend to be 'neutral' or 'impartial', Helen Thomas had her melt down moment. I am glad that she did not get to take her secret to the grave. Although it was no secret to anyone paying attention, Helen clearly hated Republicans, and was pro-Palestinian. She might feign the occasional disapproval of a democratic administration, but if you look back, odds are it was over a middle eastern issue, where maybe a Jimmy Carter, or a Bill Clinton re-enforced the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Like the one just the other day.

Helen Thomas to Retire 'Effective Immediately' Following Uproar Over 'Palestine' Comments

Thomas has a long history of anti-Israel rhetoric at White House press briefings. Last week at a briefing with Gibbs that followed a flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Thomas called the raid a "deliberate massacre" and "an international crime." 
"What is the sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people and boycotts -- and we aid and abet the boycott?" she asked.

Helen's melt down moment was reminiscent of Col. Nathan R. Jessep's famous melt down in one of the final scenes of "A Few Good Men". "you can't handle the truth!".  Just like the movie, where you almost felt sorry for the patriotic yet misguided Colonel, you almost felt bad for the 90 year old Thomas who has covered every president at the white house since Dwight D Eisenhower.

Is she just old and crazy? Or has she been emboldened and radicalized by the first administration since Dwight D. Eisenhower to hope that the U.S. might turn it's back on Israel.

Let this be a lesson to all the other sheep in wolves clothing over at the whiter house correspondents association. Your beliefs will betray you.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Sit Down, Shut up, and Pay up.

Rather than attacking the Tea Party directly, Yesterday Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick took a swipe at anyone who might disagree with the current administration.

Patrick reaches back to decry Obama foes
“It seems like child’s play compared to what’s going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels like to me,’’ the governor told students and faculty at a candidate’s forum at Suffolk Law School’s Rappaport Center. “People who have just resolved: If the president says, ‘Up,’ we will say, ‘Down.’ If the president says, ‘Go that way,’ we will say, ‘Go the other way.’ ’’
Wow! Along the same lines as the derision of the Tea Party, rather than debate the accusations merely state that there is no thought, and absolutely zero room for opposition

" I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say we are americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"
One Man's sedition is another man's free speech. The level of "hate Bush" rhetoric was like nothing else I have seen in my lifetime, and won't soon be forgotten. Although I was not a huge Bush fan and disagreed with him on many issues, I always thought the hate speech and hate imagery was over the top. And now, this thin skinned president is sending his friends out to set the stage for squelching the voice of opposition.

Obama uses drama to get his legislation through. You saw it in health care with the Wellpoint attacks. You saw it on financial reform in the Goldman Sachs attacks. Neither law addresses the issue's used as ammunition to get the bill passed, but that doesn't matter. Rhetoric is reality in the state-run-media era. And now, we set the stage for the next drama to unfold. The war on talk radio terrorism and the continued fear mongering of Tea Party activities.


  [si-dish-uhn]  Show IPA
incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
Archaicrebellious disorder.

Declaring speech as rebellious is lazy and stupid. It has happened in the past:

Sedition Act of 1798

The most important provision of the act codified the English common law of seditious libel and made it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment to speak disparagingly of the national government or government officials in a manner intending to hold them up to public ridicule and erode their authority. Still, the act liberalized the English common law insofar as it allowed evidence of the truth of a charge against the government to be entered into the defense at a trial and insofar as it allowed the jury to be the judge not only of the fact of publication, but also of the allegedly seditious character of the published matter. Both of these reforms were also part of the roughly contemporaneous English Fox's Libel Act of 1792, widely viewed as a triumph for English liberals. 
The act resulted in several important trials for seditious libel in the late 1790s, most notably those of Matthew Lyon, Thomas Cooper, and James Thompson Callender. Lyon was a feisty Irish Vermont congressman who had made intemperate remarks about the unnecessary pomp displayed by President Adams. An unsympathetic Federalist judge, William Paterson, presided over his trial (United States v. Matthew Lyon, 1798), and although Paterson instructed the jury that they must find Lyon guilty of having made his seditiously libelous statements beyond a reasonable doubt, he was still convicted, fined one thousand dollars and costs, and sentenced to imprisonment for four months. 
Thomas Cooper was a transplanted British social critic who allied himself with Thomas Jefferson against John Adams in the presidential election of 1800. Cooper had published remarks critical of Adams, notably that he had borrowed money at too high a rate during peacetime, that he had maintained a standing army and navy, and that he had interfered with the independence of the judiciary in a matter involving extradition of a British murder suspect. Cooper's statements were probably matters of opinion rather than fact, and though they were arguably more false than true, the presiding justice, Samuel Chase, in his jury instructions, required Cooper to prove the truth of his assertions “beyond a marrow” before he could be acquitted (United States v. Thomas Cooper, 1800). This was in stark contrast to Paterson's standards in the Lyon trial, and probably flowed from some understandable confusion in Chase's mind over whether he should apply the standards from English private libel law (which he did), or liberalize the standards in keeping with emerging American ideas about the value of free speech (which he did not). Cooper was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of four hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for six months. Like the other seditious libel defendants he was later pardoned by Thomas Jefferson, but he refused his pardon, with what one historian later called “commendable perversity,” and insisted on serving out his sentence. 

Look for similar legislation coming soon to a medium near you.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

The American Mussolini

I have many times seen the president purse his lips and put on a serious frown. The first time I saw it I immediately had visions of photos of Benito Mussolini. I swear, President Obama doe a great Mussolini impersonation, and he does it often. Most recently was at yesterdays graduation ceremony at the Military Academy at West Point. Like I said, I have seen this expression from the president many many times, and I usually just shake my head and chuckle to myself. A personal observation not worth sharing with anyone else. I despise the Saul Alinsky strategy, and regular tactic by the far left to denigrate their philosophical opponents with shallow epithets and derision of looks or speech. The type of thing typified by Bush hatred and anti Sarah Palin bile.

But, after yesterdays visual reminder of my shallow observation about the likeness and style between Mussolini and 'The One', I pondered about other similarities. This country has gone in a very Obama direction since I first observed the physical likenesses. Now I would like to observe their philosophical likenesses.

Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism
the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
You mean like taking control of the American auto industry? You mean like taking control of the medical insurance industry? You mean like taking control of Wall Street?

I think there are more than a few shallow comparisons between Obama and Mussolini. Strong and big government control. Political control of markets and economy. And maybe even a movement that reflects the will of the leader rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups?

Friday, May 21, 2010

Ridiculous Puppet Show

In the grand fashion of Obama drama, the White House propped up the Mexican President Felipe Calderon in front of congress to deliver the administrations admonishments. Until two years ago, the Mexican's immigration were far more severe than that of the united states, and today, they are virtually the same. The only difference is that they enforce their detention and deportation law, and we do not. They guard their southern border with their military, and we do not. But that did not stop the president from chastising the US.

Fix Border Policy, Mexican Leader Tells U.S. Congress

"I'm convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border," he said. "However, I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona."
He said the law could lead to racial profiling by police who would have the authority to detain people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

Since our laws are essentially the same, how do they avoid this? The answer is that they make everybody show their papers at check points scattered throughout a 25 mile buffer along their southern border. No profiling, everybody has to show their papers. Just like Nazi Germany.

Viva la Crimmigrants!

Calderon says he's worried about the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico — and he told lawmakers the violence started to increase in his country soon after an assault-rifle ban expired in the U.S. in 2004.
ummm..... How about we send our military to seal the border like they do? That would solve all sorts of problems for all sorts of people. No guns getting into Mexico, no illegal immigrant getting into the US, and no foreign governments changing the constitutional rights of American citizens. Win. Win. Win.

See, this stuff isn't do hard.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Cutting off the nose to spite the face

In typical liberal fighting fashion, the city of Los Angeles has been kicking, biting, and pulling the hair of its neighbor Arizona. When Arizona responded with a solid sock in the jaw they began to cry and run for the school yard supervisor.

The city of Los Angeles who is boldly, indignantly, righteously, and dramatically threatening to punish the State of Arizona for it's law that requires the enforcement of Federal law is now facing threats of losing 25% of it's electricity if they carry out their planned boycott.

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona. 

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation." 

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy." 
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The latino mayor's logic of 'No No. You have to take our sanctions and you can do nothing about it' is the same logic that says 'No No. We will brake your laws and enter your country and there is nothing you can do about it'.  Well, we'll see about that.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Viva la Crimmigrants!

With stunning irony Mexican President Felipe Calderon stood aside of president obama and talked about the warm relations and the growing partnership between the two countries.

Obama, Calderon pledge solidarity as issues mount

In a showy display of solidarity, President Barack Obama welcomed Mexican President Felipe Calderon to the White House on Wednesday and pledged cooperation on immigration, a violent drug war and economic struggles on both sides of the border.
Looming over Calderon's state visit is Arizona's controversial immigration law, which makes it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. Facing pressure at home, Calderon took on the law directly Wednesday, saying it encourages discrimination. He called for the U.S. and Mexico to work together to solve the complex, politically sensitive immigration issue.

Discrimination. Poor things. The hypocrisy is legion. The Mexican government demands that the US allow a free flow of Mexicans across it's border while militantly (literally) defending it's southern border.

Lawless roads: Mexico's southern border
Mexico’s southern border stretches for 960km (600 miles), snaking through remote highlands and thick jungle. Patrolling it is hard. So the government has sought to erect a “vertical border,” with army and police checkpoints spaced at 25km intervals along roads, as well as the railway that many migrants use after they have crossed the border. This strategy has forced migrants into the hills, where many fall victim to criminal gangs.
And if you get caught sneaking into Mexico? It's a felony with a mandatory 4 year sentence. In case you didn't know a 4 year sentence in a Mexican prison is a life sentence, most likely.

It sounds as though Mexico has the solution! Put the Army on the border. Problem solved. Moving topic NAFTA. So Mr President why don't you want free trade with Mexico?

UPDATE:  The law was 2 years for first offense and 10 years for the second offense. That changed 2 years ago and now it is the same as our law. Detention and deportation. Except they actually do it.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Kiss My Hamas Part VIII

چک کردن آی میت

Out maneuvered again! Our neophyte, Pollyanna president who convinced the country that engagement was the proper strategy and that talking to our enemies would yield diplomatic victories took a year to figure out that he was wrong. I was never a huge Bush fan but I certainly was not a Bush hater, no matter who you are you have to admit 'Bush was right'.  Evidently Bush was right because for the last few months  the Obama administration has been pursuing sanctions at the U.N. Security council. Just like Bush was doing before Obama took office.

So, OK, Whatever. The jingoistic, unilateral Bush administration which was allegedly hated by the entire world was able to get 3 sets of sanctions throughout the security council, so clearly Mr. Engagement, allegedly loved by the whole world should be able to get at least one set of sanctions through, right?!?!?!?

Nope! While the naive Obama administration was begrudgingly trying to put together a deal on tougher sanctions, the Iranian government produced a perfectly timed, and very dramatic show stopper. The game is over. Obama has lot the diplomatic option, and the the Iranians will get their bomb unless a military option is used, and you know that's not going to happen with this administration.

Iran's Nuclear Coup
Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama Administration and its hapless diplomatic strategy. Last October, nine months into its engagement with Tehran, the White House concocted a plan to transfer some of Iran's uranium stock abroad for enrichment. If the West couldn't stop Iran's program, the thinking was that maybe this scheme would delay it. The Iranians played coy, then refused to accept the offer.
So instead of the U.S. and Europe backing Iran into a corner this spring, Mr. Ahmadinejad has backed Mr. Obama into one.
At an estimated production rate of 78 kilograms per month the Iranians have already surpassed the amount they were unwilling to bargain away more than a year ago.
The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved "toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles." 
So now, the very deal that was on the table does not deliver the impact that it might have at that time. Now the Iranians can send away the uranium to buy time and still have enough enriched uranium to process and build a bomb.

Thanks Mr. President. Jimmy Carter put 55 Americans in danger of harm from the Iranians. You however, have put all American's in danger of harm from the Iranians.

Check Mate.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Pedophiles Love Obama!

You can't make this stuff up. And it is so revealing. It is the true heart of all democrats. They do want run your life, they do want to tell you to shut up and sit down, and they do want to bring fascism into vogue again. One man's progressive idea is another mans fascist attempt at central control. And why do they believe this? Because they are smarter than you, or so they think.

Woody Allen says President Obama should be granted dictatorial powers (seriously)

Woody Allen has a strange take on the democracy that allowed him to become rich and famous.
The "Scoop" director said it would be a cool idea for President Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years.
So he could get things done without all the hassle of opposing views getting in the way.
In an interview published by Spanish language newspaper La Vanguardia (that we translated), Allen says “I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”

A fascists wet dream! It is hilarious to see the democrats pretend to forget what a filibuster is. Poor things. America does not like what they are doing and it's getting in the way. It belies the very idea that there was ever even an intent for bi-partisanship. "Sit down, shut up, and surrender your right to opposing ideas"

What hypocrites!

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Fifth Amendment is Miranda

Some of the talk on TV and in the papers has brought the Miranda rights back into discourse. It seemed to start with the controversial reading of Miranda rights to the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber. In this case, someone who was not a citizen and could be easily classified as an enemy combatant was given rights that US citizens may presume. So the controversy is understood. However, some of the discourse has gone into areas of taking away someones citizenship, not reading Miranda rights so that intel may be extracted before a suspect can 'lawyer up'. All this is fine and well if you are not an American citizen. If you are not an American citizen you mat be classified as an enemy combatant, and so you cannot presume to have fifth amendment rights.

The message here is to remember this; if you are a US citizen you have fifth amendment rights. You do not have to wait for someone to read you the Miranda warning. You already have those rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

So if you are some white dude who clings to guns and god, and the men in black kevlar with helmets and guns swoop in to take your guns away, feel free to 'lawyer up'.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Revoking Citizenship?

Be careful here.

There has been talk, and news pieces regarding the possibility of revoking ones citizenship for involvement in terrorist activities. If you are a naturalized citizen, then sure. After all, your desire to become a citizen was a pretense to allow you to perform an act of war. However. if you were born in this country, and you are the child of parents who are legally residing in this country, then citizenship is a birthright that can never be taken away from you involuntarily.

I don't even know to what end this conversation is headed. The thought that Eric holder is going to take away citizenship and water board a terrorist in order to save lives is ridiculous. This administration has expressed a desire to treat truly qualified enemy combatants as citizens who should be tried in civil courts. Why the talk about removing citizenship? I mean what? They are suddenly going to actually deport someone?

This government welcomes and coddles illegal immigrants. It lavishes the rights of citizens onto enemy combatants. And so, we are supposed to believe that they actually place any value on citizenship? Hell, there is a segment of our population who is convinced that our president isn't a citizen!

Be very careful here. If this government grants itself the right to remove you as a citizen, it won't be in the name of protecting other citizens from foreign enemy combatants. It will be an overt attempt to silence the opposition. If you are one of those terrorists defined by homeland security chief Janet Nepolitano, you know, white male returning home from military duty, or if you own a gun, or if you disagree with obamacare, well then you will have earned your right to loose your citizenship, and need to leave the country.