Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Xanax anyone?

So according to a new study, one in five Americans has a personality disorder. These illnesses include obsessive or compulsive tendencies, the kind that might lead to violence or the purchase of Deepak Chopra love dolls. Basically, we`re a nation of nutcases – like the studio audience of the View, but without the compression hose or the drool bucket.

I`m sorry, but the only thing nutty about our nation, are studies like these. These new stats have nothing to do with an increase in mental problems, but a rise in diagnosis among people under 25.

The bottom line: if your kid is bored, lazy or self-absorbed, sometimes it`s just easier to treat him with pills – than to kick him in the pants. In a weird way, today's teens are like high risk borrowers and their parents are dodgy banks: instead of restricting their behavior, they`re just indulging their excesses in a way that leads to bigger problems later.

Look, I`m all for helping sick people – and teens and pills are my two favorite things! But once you say everyone has a problem- then having a problem becomes the norm. And being normal then becomes abnormal! So at that point, why treat anyone at all?

And, maybe anxiety disorders arise because you SHOULD be anxious. If people responded to anxiety instead of erasing it, maybe our nation`s collective unease would have prevented the housing crisis. Or at least the Jonas Brothers.

Besides, is it really wrong to obsess about stuff like unicorns all the time? Is it that unhealthy to believe unicorns can read my thoughts? Is it really a tragedy that I happen to know unicorns are sending me personal messages through my fillings?

I don`t think so. But if you do – then you`re worse than Hitler and you should be tortured or something.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Obama moves to the Right

No Cabinet Spot for al Zawahri

Al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al Zawahri, released a video today praising Malcolm X, and slamming America as an "criminal imperialist opressor".

I know what you're thinking: he's obviously angling for a spot in President Obama's cabinet. Well, too bad, Big Al, but you blew it with that "House Negro" remark. The Democrat Party does not tolerate such racially divisive language when its directed at anyone but a Black Republican. Perhaps if Zahawri clarifies his remarks and explains that he was actually referring to Condoleeza Rice, there might be a place for him on the pulpit at Obama's church. If he amps up his anti-American rants a little bit, I'm sure he could even get a job teaching at the University of Illinois.

He already attacked the Pentagon once, so that should look good on his resume.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Who is going to bail out Whorehouses?

Barack Obama wants Congress to approve $50 billion for the auto industry. He also wants to appoint a czar or board to "oversee the companies." This would be the person or committee in charge of restructuring the auto industry.

I can't make this any more clear: it is not the government's job to restructure the auto industry. The auto industry got itself into this mess, and it doesn't need government or the tax payers to get it out of this mess. And besides, what makes the auto makers believe that government could do a better job of restructuring their industry? Politicians aren't in the industry ... let the companies that once enjoyed such great success build on the ingenuity that made them great. The only guarantee you will have from government is mediocrity.

With Obama and Democrats it's all about government. What is he going to do, set up a Department of Automobiles? Who will he name to be the Secretary of Cars? Will there be an Undersecretary of Trucks? What's next? How about a homebuilding czar? Is it too late to appoint a steel czar? Come on my friends, get in the game here! Every industry is going to have its own czar in Washington to oversee operations! My God! Could this guy possibly love government any more?

Do you remember the words of one of Obama's transition czars? Obama will be ready to "take power and rule from day one." Rule? I guess we're beginning to see what this person meant.

If you'll notice, the Democrats are suddenly so focused and so worried about this auto industry bailout. That can be explained by two words: unions and votes. If they are the heroes of the auto industry, they can guarantee a win in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois for years to come. The line will be "we saved your job at a time when the Republicans wanted to let your employers fail."

Just in case you actually think it's a good idea to bail out the auto sector just remember the government will be putting $50 billion into a failed business model. Would you want them to put $50 billion into buggy whips. We still have horses don't we?

As an aside there is an auto industry that is doing fine all over the Southern and Midwestern States. Honda, Toyota, Nissan. And guess what? They are there because of "Right to Work" status. What does that say about unions?

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Happy Veterans Day

This is the day set aside to honor all men and women who have served in our armed forces. Here's a thought for you ... that old man driving that Buick at 20 mph below the speed limit? You know .. the one with the big ears and that driving hat? Give him a break. He might have been one of those who waded ashore on Utah Beach on D-Day. He might have dragged a buddy to safety after seeing him cut down by German fire. We owe these people so much ... whether they saw combat or not. They've been there to defend our freedoms. Now, more than ever, that should mean something to you.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Morning After

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy." The phrase really says it all. This is not an election where the American voters were looking for someone to protect their freedoms. Instead, it was an election where people were looking for someone to take care of them. Self-sufficiency seems a bit old-fashioned right now. Why work so hard to be self-sufficient when candidates are falling all over themselves to provide the American people with womb-to-tomb or, if you will, cradle-to-grave paternalism. The voters who put Barack Obama into office bear little resemblance to the people who fought for independence 224 years ago. Colonists fighting for our independence actually left their bloody footprints along the icy roads of New York and Pennsylvania while marching to engage the British troops. Today we can't even drum of a decent plurality of voters who will vote for liberty, let alone fight for it.

This has been a "what's in it for me" vote. Are you going to give me health care? Are you going to make sure my job is guaranteed? Are you going to cover my child care costs? You aren't going to make me pay taxes, are you? How about all those evil rich people? Aren't you going to take some of their money away from them and give it to me? After all ... I work for my money, they cheated and stole for theirs. Make them pay their fair share of taxes. Me? I'm tired of paying any share.

The big question for me today is whether or not freedom, economic liberty and self-sufficiency can make a comeback in America. Right now it seems that a dismaying number of Americans think that they are owed a living; that it is the government's job to guarantee their economic security. Can we ever turn that around and return to a time when people accept the responsibility for their own lives and eschew the idea of using government as a tool of legalized plunder?

I've mentioned the concept of "The Tipping Point." I'm using that term in the context of voting and taxpaying. Right now we are at the point where about 43% of American income earners pay absolutely NO income tax. I've been saying for years that if the Democrats ever gain absolute control in Washington we're going to see that percentage climb ... climb to over 50%. That's the tipping point. Imagine a political campaign where the majority of voters do not pay income taxes. Imagine a campaign where the majority of voters actually get a check from the government instead of writing a check to the government. Can you hear the Democrat campaign themes then? "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

In fact ... I've already developed the Democrat campaign themes for the next several presidential elections:

2012: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

2016: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay your own Social Security and Medicare taxes."

2020: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own health care."

2024: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own place to live."

Here we are my friends. We're at the point where virtually every voter out there understands that they can use their ballot as an instrument of plunder. For those of you who went to government schools, that means they can use their vote to take money away from other citizens. That would be the difference between a Democracy (rule of man) and a Republic (rule of law).

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Be careful what you wish for because now you're going to get it.

The last thing I would want to do is discourage any capable and qualified voter from heading out today to vote. Now by capable and qualified I mean someone who is actually a citizen and someone who has somewhat of a clue as to what is going on out there. The sad truth is that there are going to be legions of voters like that idiot woman at an Obama rally who thought that once Obama wins here mortgage payments and gas for her car were going to be taken care of.

Obama is going to win this thing. There are only two mysteries left. How big will the victory be, and will Obama get a filibuster-proof U.S. Senate.

So ... some Election Day thoughts:

Thanks, Republicans. This one belongs to you. The Republican Party completely abandoned its principles after the voter revolution of 1994. The GOP became the party of big spending and big government. Beltway Republicans became drunk on power and completely forgot why they were there. They gave us no real reason to go to the polls and vote for them save for that filibuster-proof Senate scare and the fear of what the election of a Marxist will mean to our freedoms.

Thanks, George Bush. Thanks for your spectacular lack of leadership on issues of spending and big government over the past two terms. You get all the credit in the world for keeping America safe from another terrorist attack ... but when a president signs a bill he thinks is unconstitutional (McCain-Feingold) just because he thinks the Supreme Court will straighten things out; and when a president introduces grand new entitlement programs (Medicare drug benefits) and fails to veto even one pork-laden spending bill ... well, the result is an uninspired electorate and ... Barack Obama.

Thanks, Public Schools and Teacher Unions. Back to that woman at the Obama rally: Does she really believe that once Obama is elected she won't have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage? Yup, she probably does. Then we have those Harlem voters who think that Barack Obama did a fine job in selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. This election, more than any I can remember, illustrates why Democrats are so determined to preserve our system of government education. American voters are, for the most part, spectacularly uninformed about the issues and the candidates they are voting for. Did I say "uninformed?" I meant to say ignorant. For the most part these people casting ballots today could not name their two U.S. Senators and their Congressman if their flat-screens and cell phones depended on it. Things are only going to get worse. Get ready for an all-out war on school choice .. and that includes the home schooling option. The era of the teacher's unions is upon us.

And thanks Voters. This is an election that has been driven by wealth envy and celebrity worship. I really don't see any of this changing anytime soon ... so, whatchagonnado?

I really should be saving most of this for tomorrow .. when we find out just how much trouble our Republic is really in. For today ... all we can realistically hope for is keeping those big-government numbers down in the Senate.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Another must Read

Celebrity beats Substance in today's electorate

Election day is tomorrow, so there's definitely a chance here to prevent perhaps irreparable harm to our Republic ... maybe not a huge chance ... but a chance.

Never in the last 100 years has someone so completely inexperienced and so far to the left been so close to becoming our president. It is beyond imagination that we've come to this.

I wish I had more time to craft (if that's the word) a lengthy narrative on this campaign and the importance of our vote tomorrow ... so we go with bullet points. They don't necessarily flow together all that well ... but each gets a point across that is, I think, important.

Who knows ... maybe someone will read some of these points and tell themselves that they just can't pull the trigger for this dangerous leftist when they get into the voting booth. Others will read this and just have their feelings about how much trouble freedom and economic liberty in this country are in totally reinforced.

  • One question about Obama that has never been satisfactorily answered is "What has he ever accomplished" other than write two books about himself? The best his supporters can come up with is "He was elected to the U.S. Senate." So was John McCain ... several times. Besides, take a look at his election. He had two opponents self-destruct with scandal. The GOP had to go to Maryland and talk Alan Keyes into moving to Illinois to run against Obama. Trust me, that win was no sterling accomplishment.
  • Don't argue with me here. You'll lose. There is NO constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. We're going to learn in a few days just how smart our founding fathers were in this regard.
  • Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. Several times during his political career Obama had a chance to either cast a vote or make a statement against the corruption that permeates Chicago's machine. Never – not on one occasion – did he do so.
  • The fact is, Obama has benefited from corruption (Tony Rezko?) but has never fought it.
  • Do you know how Obama won his first election in Illinois? He had campaign operatives go to the voting office and work hundreds of hours pouring over petitions to have his opponents thrown off the ballot. I guess that means that this is the first real election battle he's ever been in!
  • I guess it's just me, but all this time I thought that the government used its power to seize property ... i.e., to tax ... in order to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government. Now, under Obama, we've learned that one of the appropriate functions of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not. I prefer a different phraseology: Take from those who achieve, and give to those who achieve not. Karl Marx was of a like mind.
  • Obama's "spread the wealth around" mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves. The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors.
  • Obama's candidacy would have faltered before an educated electorate. Why do you think Democrats love government schools and teacher unions so much? Do you want examples? I've got examples.
  • Obama says he's going to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Americans don't realize that over 40% of their numbers don't pay income taxes; and since they don't realize that, they aren't asking themselves how Obama can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
  • Obama has effectively change the definition of "tax cut." From now on any government handout to any worker is a tax cut. Changing this definition may well be one of their greatest accomplishments in this election and that new definition will cause us problems for decades.
  • Obama constantly rants about those dirty corporations who shipped "our jobs overseas." An educated voter knows that those jobs belong to the employers, not the employees. Workers look for jobs. Employers with jobs look for workers. Pretty simple, really.
  • Obama also tells us that 95% of small businesses out there will not have their taxes increased. The only reason this line works is because our public educated voters cannot grasp the idea that it isn't the percentage of small businesses hit with tax increases that counts; it's the percentage of small business employees represented by the unfortunate 5% that counts. Tomorrow thousands of workers – perhaps tens of thousands of workers – employed by what we call "small businesses" will cast a vote that, a year or so down the road, will cost them their jobs.
  • Over the weekend Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry if they tried to build any more coal-fired power plants. Can any of you think of a time when any president has ever made an overt threat to bankrupt a large American industry?
  • Obama says that his "cap and trade" policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost electricity prices to "skyrocket." Oops ... there goes some of that middle class "tax cut." Guess he'll have to transfer some more wealth to help his constituents pay the increased price.
  • There are literally millions of Obama supporters out there who think that once Obama becomes the president their lives are going to become sweetness, roses and light. One woman at an Obama rally thinks he will pay her rent.
  • Remember Obama's 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation. Thanks, Obama, for the nice positive message.
  • How long after the election, whether Obama wins or loses, do you think it will take for that America-hater Jeremiah Wright to surface?
  • The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all income taxes. The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes. When these people don't want to give up a larger share of their earnings Obama call's them "selfish."
  • When someone is content to sit on their butts and wait for Obama to transfer some wealth from someone else to their pockets they are not "selfish."
  • Every one of the points I am bringing up here is "hate speech" to an Obamacon.
  • The great Democrat goal is to have more than 50% of the voters living, at least in part, on the efforts of the minority of voters. When we pass that tipping point ... and we're nearly there ... game over.
  • In every election since 1952 Democrats have told the voters "vote for the Republicans and they'll take your Social Security away." In every election after 2008 the Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay taxes." Then if Obama wins again, in every election after 2012 Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you pay for your own Social Security and Medicare." How long before we hear: "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you work for a living!"
  • Obama will definitely destroy your right to be armed outside of your own home for your own protection. The question is whether we count the time until he accomplishes this in days, weeks, months or years.
  • Surveys in Israel show that 76% of Israeli citizens want McCain to win. American Jews will vote for Obama by pretty much the same percentage. What do Jews in Israel know that Jews in America do not?
  • Peter Nicholas is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He has been traveling with Obama for almost the entire campaign. Nicholas writes "After all this time with him, I still can't say with certainty who he is." Nicholas doesn't know him, but so many voters are so sure they do.
  • Obama wants a national civilian security force that, in his words, is "just as strong as our military." Who would they serve under? What would their mandate be? Would they be unionized? (oh HELL yes!). Would this be like the Soviet Union under Communism where neighbors ratted on neighbors for anti-government statements? And what does he mean "as strong as our military?" Would this national civilian security force have nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? Are we just talking about a glorified national police? (Show us your papers!)
  • Obama has talked about reducing spending on our military. One leading Democrat Senator has suggested a 25% spending cut on defense. Do you feel comfortable with that? You do know that all of the savings would be spent on buying votes, don't you?
  • Do you home school your children? Obama has called home schooling a fraud. Put him in office and you'll be putting your kids back in government schools for their indoctrination.
  • Do you run a small business? If Obama wins start planning immediately to lower your work force. The best way to do this would be through efficiency measures and temporary staffing agencies. Not only is Obama going to make it easier for your workers to unionize ... he's going to expand onerous measures such as the Family Leave Act. You will end up paying your employees a good portion of their salary to lay out for weeks on end.
  • Maybe you shop at Wal-Mart. Get ready for higher prices. Obama's instant unionization bill will surely result in the unionization of Wal-Mart's workforce. In fact, as much as Democrat politicians hate Wal-Mart, it's safe to say that Wal-Mart is target number one. The result? Higher prices for you. If Obama can call a government handout a tax cut, we can call higher prices a tax increase. This will be Obama's tax increase on the poor and the middle class.
OK ... run with those.

Friday, October 31, 2008

If you're voting for Obama you're a racist.

So a liberal buddy of mine sent me a well-traveled email – one that argues that if Barack Obama had the same flaws as John McCain, he would be crucified. Meaning: the only reason McCain receives any support is because he's not black.

Which is intriguing – but asinine.

First of all, I always love how I`m told my judgment is inherently clouded by racism, according to people who don`t even know me. Fact is, I left the Aryan Brotherhood years ago. Even more, these jerks don`t realize I can use the very same argument on them. I mean, could it be their own innate and unconscious racism that`s causing them to believe I'm racist? I think shrinks call this "transference." These dopes are actually voting for Obama because THEY are racist - willing to overlook his inexperience and questionable judgment- in order to feel good about their own white liberal, pant-wetting guilt. Hence, their racism prevents them from comprehending anyone making a logical decision NOT to vote for Obama.

So this argument cuts both ways. I am not voting for him, because he's black. And you're voting for him - because he's black. But both cases are completely wrong. The fact is, if you're a liberal Democrat, you'd vote for Obama whether he was black or white (and, get this: he's both). But if you`re a conservative or a right-leaning libertarian, you wouldn`t vote for Obama whether he was black, white, or chartreuse. So when the left says the reasons behind your choice are racial instead of intellectual, it's way beyond arrogant, and bordering on an opinion that deserves a punch in the kisser. But that`s the beauty of stupidity – it knows no color.

And if you disagree with me, you`re probably a racist, xenophobic pig!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

I wonder how many TV's and computers these poor dupes have?

So I watched Obama's infomercial, and forgive me if, unlike Chris Mathews, I didn't soak my Depends.

As I watched, all I could be was...confused. Obama produced what can only be described as bizarro-propaganda - a dour documentary designed to undermine an eastern bloc country, circa 1974. Ten minutes into the thing, I was expecting a bunch of fat babushkas in headscarves fighting over the last loaf of stale bread. By the time it was over, I had boiled and ate a neighbor's dog.

This was a view of our country seen, grimly, from the outside looking in: a place where everyone is sick, poor, or sickly poor. I call it Hugo porn - the kind of stuff that gives Chavez a chubby.

It's as if the most successful and selfless country in the history of the world never existed. Instead, we have east Germany without the lederhosen or the sausage. But I guess, in order to sell himself, Barack has to sell the rest of the country short.

When it was over however, I felt like I always do after ingesting a hard sell: convinced I was being sold something I didn't need. To me - Obama's gleaming valentine to himself succeeded in only reminding me of the Soloflex in the garage. Once shiny and new, it's now covered in soiled shorts.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Chosen One is really a "Hot Chick".

So yesterday a friend of mine who is one of those star struck, Marxist, liberal, asshole asked me about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college. My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history – or lack thereof – is far less murkier than Barack Obama's. But it didn't seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn't stick.

Seriously, the man isn't a presidential candidate – he's a really hot chick.

You know what I mean, right?

You know how when a friend starts dating some girl – let's say a stripper with top of the line implants and a truly remarkable skill involving the projection of ping pong balls – he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading chlamydia like a Jehovah Witness unloading a case of Watchtowers, and it won't matter. Blinded by her beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke – riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.

I'm not saying Barack is anywhere near that bad. I'm just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses that impenetrable force field that every hot chick has – and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise – it won't work. Face it: if you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox - worked with Acorn, hung around with Ayers, and used to do coke back in college – would you care?

Of course you wouldn't! It's Megan Fox!!!

Congratulations: you're now the New York Times.

Who do you belong to???

Sounds like an odd question, doesn't it? But have you ever actually thought for a moment about who has ownership rights to you? This is no silly or meaningless exercise here. You exist. You have value. That value belongs to someone. The question is who? This is an important question in this election because there are quite a lot of people out there who earnestly believe that you belong not to yourself, but to the government. For the first time in my memory we have a presidential candidate who wants to raise taxes on a few not so much to cover the costs of the essential functions of government, but to bring about some sense of what he calls "fairness" in the distribution of wealth. This would mean that in the eyes of this particular presidential candidate (I would mention his name, but that would be racist.) the government owns a portion of you; a portion to be used by the government to enrich the lives of others in the quest for economic "fairness."

Let me know how this works out for you.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A Must Read

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina,

Just for you Loretta

Colin Powell - A House Negro no more:

Former Uncle Tom, House Negro, and unrepentant war criminal, Colin Powell, gave his coveted endorsement to Barack Obama last weekend, hailing our future President as a "transformational figure".

Transformational, indeed! Saturday night, Powell was a still just a lapdog of the Bush Junta, a lying liar who lied about WMD's in Iraq, and had blood on his hands for the millions of innocent Iraqis that Bush murdered so he could steal their oil. But on Monday morning, Powell crawled out of his bed a "man of courage", a "true patriot", and a "great American". That's quite a transformation. And all he had to do to cleanse himself of his past sins was declare his unconditional love for Obama.

When it comes right down to it, blind devotion is all Obama really asks of any of us. In return, he annointest us with hope, change, and free health care until our cup runneth over. Even DicKKK Halliburton Cheney, Rummy RumselKKKd, and KKKarl Rove can be absolved of their crimes - and cured of various maladies ranging from male-pattern baldness to racism - if they simply drop to their knees and declare fealty to our future President, Barack Obama. And he will be our president, as long as the superstitious, bible-clinging evangelical nutjobs of the GOP don't get in his way.

New Rules

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.


Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie Mae since 1989 than any other politician in Washington except one ... and that would be Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. This Obama has accomplished in only four years.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Know the truth about taxes

So now the media wants to get technical on taxes. Ok, fine. Bring it on. A reporter for Good Morning America did a report on the falsehood of McCain's argument that Obama "gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." The reporter says that McCain is wrong because Obama's tax cuts only go to people who work, therefore, by definition, Obama's plan "is not welfare." He says that "some working people eligible for Obama's tax cut make so little, they do not pay income taxes. But they do pay payroll taxes and other taxes." So now, the media is demanding that John McCain get specific ... what he should have said is Obama "gives an income tax cut to those who don't pay income taxes — and pays for it by raising income taxes on those who are already shouldering more than half of the nation's income tax burden."

Let's address this idea that all of these people who get the Obama welfare checks pay Social Security and Medicare Taxes. These are really not so much taxes as they are mandated premiums for a specific defined benefit. The idea here is that you pay for your Social Security and your Medicare while you are working, and receive the benefits when you retire. If Obama wants to eliminate these tax burden with his "refundable tax credits" then he is turning both of these programs into pure income redistribution efforts.

However you say it, folks, the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's tax plan is welfare – he takes money from the high achievers and spreads it around to those with lower incomes.

For those of you who really want to understand Barack Obama's "tax cuts" (which are not really tax cuts but welfare checks), I suggest you read this article again from the Wall Street Journal. To Barack Obama, "tax cuts" is the new way to say government handout. Why doesn't the mainstream media cover that side of the tax argument?

If you want to see this in visual terms, the Washington Post created a chart comparing Barack Obama's tax cuts to John McCain. Big difference, wouldn't you say?

Is it fair to censor

So if the Democrats win it all this year, you can bet one of the first things they`re going to do is gloat. Then, of course, they`re going to pick out some new window treatments for the White House. Then, finally, they will try to resuscitate the corpse that is the Fairness Doctrine. If you don`t know what this is, it`s basically a creepy ploy to "balance" talk radio – meaning imposing government regulation to offset Rush Limbaugh with an opposing idealogy. Think Jeanine Garafalo (without throwing up).

The Fairness Doctrine illustrates a key truth about liberal thinking: no one actually likes it. The fact that you`d need government regulation to force radio stations to broadcast this crap is proof that society has no need for it. Without forced indoctrination of liberal thought – there would be no liberal thought. If you want an example of how successful liberal talk radio is on its own, consider Air America. It was to radio broadcasting what crabs are to Spring Break.

Even more, the Fairness Doctrine reveals a scurvy of insecurity that riddles the left. They are so unsure of their own beliefs, that it`s not enough for them to control nearly every media entity on the planet (including movies, television, magazine publishing, off-Broadway one woman shows). They feel they must regulate talk radio, as a means to destroy talk radio – only because it`s not like them.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes to pass, most likely talk radio would cut back on their successful shows, because they`d lose money supporting liberal shows they`d be forced to run. And that`s the left`s real strategy all along: it`s not about giving Paul Begala another outlet to babble. It`s about eliminating dissent from the people they hate.

It's sleazy and wrong, but hardly surprising.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Ask a good question---become a target.

Don't you find it just a bit odd that the mainstream New York and DC media has spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers? Why attack Joe? It's very simple. Because his question hurt. His question led to another wonderful unscripted moment from Barack Obama .. that being his comment about spreading the wealth. Will this be our future in the ObamaNation? Become a critic of The Messiah and the investigations begin. Can't you see the big screen televisions in public places with the featureless face telling you "Do not question the Dear Leader." Didn't they write a book about that?

Friday, October 17, 2008

Joe the Plumber

Two days after the debate and we are still talking about Joe the Plumber. Could this one guy be the turning point for the entire McCain campaign? Don't count on it. But I do get the sneaking suspicion that at least a few people out there are catching on to what Barack Obama really stands for. Don't get me wrong ... they are going to vote for Obama anyway because they "just like the guy" or he "seems more presidential" or he's "like, so much cooler." But at least now you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Enter the unions ...

Now comes a plumbers union, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, saying that John McCain "manufactured outrage" over Barack Obama's tax plan by talking about Joe the Plumber. A spokesperson for the union said, "John McCain made Joe the Plumber a household name. His manufactured outrage on behalf of Joe would be a lot more believable if his economic plan had anything to do with helping working people deal with the economic crisis." Apparently this union, which has endorsed Barack Obama (go figure), doesn't understand what tax cuts will do for our economy, or even worse, what Obama's tax increases will do. And I wouldn't consider the idea of putting a Marxist in the White House "manufactured outrage." It should scare the living dog shit out of you ... or at least, out of anyone who wants to make something of themselves and be successful.

So what is really going on here? We've got Joe Biden saying that Joe isn't a real plumber because he makes too much money. We've got nit-wits like the women on "The View" calling Joe's plan to own his own business a "fantasy." Don't you love that? Liberals view the dream of owning your own business a "fantasy!" We've got the plumbers union saying that John McCain is using Joe for "manufactured outrage." We've got the mainstream media reporting on Joe's tax returns. We've got rumors that Joe was a plant by the Republican Party. We've got liberals bloggers saying that Joe is really related to Charles Keating. Notice that none of these people are actually talking about what Obama actually SAID to Joe the Plumber – the fact that he wants to "spread the wealth around" in a redistribution welfare scheme. People are clamoring because, for the first time, John McCain has actually found a way to explain the asinine tax plans of the Chosen One. Look, folks. It's not like this is a new concept for politicians. Remember in the last debate, Obama and McCain both talked about the bracelets they wore from soldiers. In stump speeches, candidates refer to the waitress at the restaurant or that family in North Dakota that can't afford healthcare. Using real people has always been a way for politicians to "connect" to the voters ... but the difference is that this one has stuck. Here, finally, is a real "real people." And this "real people" wants to work hard and own his own business. This guy is nothing like the hopeless "real people" the Democrats like to parade around ... but he's very much like the average American with dreams and the determination to make them come true. A plumber gets Obama away from his speech writers and teleprompter ... and look what we have.

As expected, the McCain campaign has produced a Joe the Plumber commercial exposing Obama's Marxist tax policies.

Oh and in case you didn't know ... Joe the plumber is racist because he compared Barack Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. Who didn't see that coming.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Debate tonight

The day has come. Tonight is the last debate ... well, that's what they like to call it ... between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's really a joint press conference. Wouldn't it be great just to give them both microphones and say "You have 90 minutes. Hash this thing out." Tom Brokaw virtually destroyed the last "debate" with his boring demeanor and pitiful choice of questions. So, tonight I'm not expecting much. John McCain hasn't taken off the boxing gloves yet, and my bet is that the 24 oz. gloves are waiting for him in his dressing room.

Time to set the rules for the drinking games.

For Barack: For every time he says "middle class" you take a shot. For every time he says "but what the American people really want to talk about" or some derivate thereof "is the economy" you eat a jalapeno. By the end of the session any continence or bowel problems you might have should be taken care of.

For McCain: Not so easy, this is going to be a little subjective. Let's just say that ever time The Chosen One tees it up for McCain, and McCain wiffs, you hit the bottle. You'll pass out before this mess is over.

Now McCain did say yesterday that Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers will probably come up in the debate tonight. If it does, which Obama excuse would you like to choose from?

  • "He just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

  • "Bombs? You're not serious! I thought he was just an English professor. English professors throw bombs? Surely you're talking about metaphorical bombs."
  • "I was only 8-years-old when he threw bombs at the Pentagon."
  • "I thought he had been rehabilitated."
  • "Oh yeah? Well you knew Charles Keating!"

  • "It all depends on what your definition of 'terrorist' is."
  • "Hey, I didn't know anything about his past when he nurtured my political career."
  • "Did he help me write my book? Look, let's talk about issues that matter to the American middle class."

I'm going to go with, "Let's focus on the economy" option.

I guess there is the possibility that McCain will hit Obama with something about his long-term association with ACORN. Here are some possible responses,

  • "Everybody knows that from little acorns mighty oak trees grow. That has to mean something. I don't really know what ... but something."
  • "All they're trying to do is to get more Americans to exercise their right to vote."
  • "This stuff would really be bad if they were working for Republicans. But with Democrats, the rule is 'whatever's necessary'."
  • I don't really know who put that thing on my website listing as a "fact" that I never worked with or for ACORN. It's gone now though. So all is forgiven, right?"

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


One of the amazing things about this election is that there are so many people out there who are eager to vote for Obama are people who are very concerned about their jobs ... and yet Obama is by far the greater threat to their job security of the two. Just two examples:
  1. Obama wants to raise taxes on the very people who we depend on for 70% of existing jobs and 80% of new jobs. Obama hides these tax increases behind his class warfare rhetoric saying that he is only going to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year. The problem here is most of America's small businessmen and women fall smack dab into this territory. They run a small business, they employ several people, and they report all of their business income on their personal tax returns. Just what do you think happens when their taxes go up? Do they take the hit themselves? Not if they can help it, they don't. They look for ways to cut businesses expenses to compensate for the tax increase. Well, guess what? You're a business expense. Good luck with that.
  2. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections, and he has the full Democrat congress ready to go along. This will mean that the Democrat's precious unions will be able to organize a workplace simply by intimidating a majority of the workers to sign a petition saying they want to unionize? Secret ballot? No way! Now when this so-called "Card Check" bill passes businesses are going to be looking for an escape valve ... a way to avoid having to deal with a union workplace. After all, we see how it worked out for the American auto industry. How do you escape? You pack up and move to a more business-friendly location. Millions of jobs have already fled our shores to escape our punishing tax system. Now will millions more run for the hills to escape forced-unionization? Businesses that can't flee? They'll be looking for ways to increase automation and reduce the number of employees. Count on it.

But that's OK. Obama has the rhetoric. He has the narrative. He has celebrity worship and mass hysteria behind him. It's going to be an interesting four (or two) years.

Monday, October 13, 2008

You want hate speech--I'll give you hate speech!

Right now, in the press, "rage" is all the rage.

At the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich - who may be the same person since they both wear dresses - have columns on the rising tide of anger in McCain's campaign. Dowd is calling the whole thing "seamy," and whenever someone brings up Bill Ayers, Rich sees a "violent escalation" in rhetoric. He links addressing real issues to an increased risk of Obama's assassination – meaning if you think voter fraud is important, you probably also want to kill black people.

True, a few nutbags in the GOP crowd shouted "terrorist" at the mention of Obama's name. But how does that compare to the insane froth found among the left? Christ: How many times have you heard President Bush called a "terrorist"? The Angry Left calls Bush a "war criminal," a "chimp," and have referred to him as a Nazi so many times he now goose-steps instead of jogs.

You want to talk about hate speech? Go to any Lefty protest. You'll see Old Glory remade with swastikas replacing stars. And what of those ironic hipsters wearing "Saran Palin is a C__t" t-shirts in Philadelphia the other day? I suppose when the media sees that, it's just edgy. However, I just see assholes destined for a lifetime manning the counter at Kinko's.

Nope, when the Left calls people horrible names, it's just politics -- a few fringe loonies, not be taken seriously. When that same anger comes from the Right, though, it reflects a larger philosophy of hate – one that labels anyone who doesn't want to spoon Noam Chomsky an Aryan Brother.

Look: the right knows Obama isn't a terrorist. He never tried to bomb the Pentagon and Capital Building. That was only a friend of his. Obama never said 9/11 happened because America's "chickens are coming home to roost" or screamed "G-d Damn America!" from the pulpit. That was just his pastor. We get it.

But the left realizes that if you want to kill a legitimate line of questioning, simply call something racist or hateful - and the media nods. It's the best way to make sure McCain loses gracefully – and it's working.

Frankly, I'd say it makes them all worse than Hitler.

It's the Jews--no-no-wait--It's the WASPs


Throughout this campaign, we have heard the steady cries of racism ... people say that the only reason the most liberal Senator ever to run for president – a leftist Senator with a penchant for Marxist ideology – could possibly lose this election is because he is black and people are racist. As we get closer to the election, these stories have exploded into the media.

Let's go down the list of the few we got just over the weekend!

We have foreign leaders (technically a former leader) like Fidel Castro saying that the only reason million of people will not vote for Barack Obama is because of "profound racism in the United States."

In South Carolina, we have vandals spray painting "Republican means slavery" on the door of the GOP campaign headquarters. Because, to the mind of an ignorant voter with a racial chip on his shoulder, being a Republican automatically makes you a racist because you don't want Barack Obama to be president. Please remember the idiot Whoppi Goldberg when McCain appeared on The View. She asked McCain if he were elected would she become a slave again.

Here's Time Magazine proclaiming that the John McCain and Sarah Palin are using Obama's race to make him appear "anti-American." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his view of this country, could it?

Then we have Frank Rich in the New York Times over the weekend. Frank Rich says, "From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes." So there you have it. Not surprising that The New York Times publishes a column proclaiming that it is the Republicans who are playing the race card, and if Obama loses, it is because Republicans have stirred the racist pot.

Remember also other charges of racism in this campaign:

  • The use of the word "skinny" in referring to Obama is racist.
  • Using the words "community organizer" is racist.
  • Saying Obama – an ultra-leftist – doesn't see America the same way a conservative would is racist.
  • Using his middle name is racist.

Just remember my friends: This is only the beginning. When Obama becomes our (czar) President any utterance of disapproval with any proposal he floats before the congress will, of course, be racist. It is going to be a fun four years.


Too little too late? You betcha. But the McCain campaign is finally trying to hit on Barack Obama's relationship with this corrupt, voter fraud organization ACORN. On Friday, McCain's campaign released a memo saying that Obama's affiliations with ACORN "raise serious questions about his judgment and ability to lead this nation." We know, we know ... this is a racist statement because Republicans are referring to Obama's days as community organizer. The McCain campaign has also posted a video which points to the connections between ACORN and the current mortgage crisis – the fact that ACORN, with the blessing of our own government, bullied banks into giving loans to people who they know could not pay for them. Question ... where was all of this information in the last debate? Why has John McCain waited until now to make these connections?

Naturally, the Obama campaign responds with my favorite line ... these attacks from the McCain campaign attempt to "'turn the page from the issues that matter to American families." So there you go. The people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the economy! Hey, Barack, how about explaining the fact that an organization you worked for and have hired to get out the vote for your campaign is partly responsible for the current economy, thanks to the mortgage meltdown. Here's a picture of Our Savior at an ACORN meeting! Look at the picture and remember that some Obama mouthpieces say that he wasn't involved with ACORN. Yeah ... we're buying that.

Oh and the other response from Democrats ... the only reason the McCain campaign is hitting on ACORN is because McCain and Republicans are "hostile to the group's political agenda." Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says, "They're scared of too many poor people preparing to vote this year." So now the McCain campaign is engaged in class warfare and the only reason they are attacking ACORN is because they don't want poor people to vote. That is the logic of a Democrat.

Donkeys planning on a win

And who can blame them, considering the intelligence of the American voter.

As soon as the Move-On Democrat Party gets their Democrat president-elect they'll be off to the races ... first up, a new wealth redistribution bill, sometimes called a stimulus bill. It's a very simple plan. They take money away from people who don't support them and give it to people who do.

You did hear The Chosen One over the weekend ... I hope. Some plumber caught him in public without his teleprompter and started asking him some pointed questions about his tax plans. The Democrat/Socialist candidate told the plumber dude that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Well excuse the ever-loving crap out of me, but that wealth isn't the government's to "spread around" as Barack puts it. The wealth belongs to the people who earned it, and the government can't spread it around without first seizing it. Of course seizing that wealth from the evil high-achievers is something that appeals to a huge number of voters in this country.

You've heard people say that politicians derive power through the current tax code by creating winners and losers. This is what Obama has been proposing all along with his "reduce taxes on 95% of Americans" lie. What Obama really proposes to do is to create winners of the middle class by making losers of the high-achievers ... taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If Pelosi calls the congress back into session after an Obama win it's BOHICA time. Pelosi says that the special session would require what she says "harsh measures." Harsh for whom? For people who didn't vote for Obama, I suspect.

Here's something else you need to know. Remember the "drill here, drill now" bit? Democrats got worried. They thought that their refusal to exploit our own domestic oil reserves might cost them votes, so they rushed through a bill to open up some of our offshore sites and other federal lands to drilling. Now Pelosi's dog-washer Steny Hoyer is saying that as soon as Obama is elected they're going to re-institute the drilling ban. And just what is the message here? We'll promise you anything to get your vote, and then as soon as the election is over we'll go right back to doing what we were doing. In other words ... screw you suckers!

Jesus H. Christ....

Articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times today about The Chosen One's phony promise to deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Thinking voters thought that something may be a bit weird when you consider the fact that over 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes. If you weren't educated in a government school you might wonder "Well, that's all good Senator Obama, but how do you give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes?" Good question; and Barack the Magnificent has an answer for you. It's simple, really. You just change the definition of "tax cut." On Planet Reality a tax cut is when the amount of taxes you have to pay is reduced. On Planet Obama, which pretty much occupies the same orbit as Uranus, a tax cut is when you don't owe any taxes so the government writes you a check. After considerable thought I think that I prefer the old definition. What Obama the Incredible is proposing is nothing less than a massive welfare program. Let me know if you're surprised.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008


The questions from the audience were, for the most part, unimaginative. Obama was the more boring of the two, but only by a narrow margin. That would be because he is leading in the polls and his job last night was to avoid mistakes. McCain, on the other hand, had to push harder to make some headway. I just don't see that he did it.

Every time I watch one of these debates I find myself inwardly screaming "Why didn't you say such-and-such? Finally I've come to realize a basic truth. These people – these politicians – spend most of their political lives trying to avoid telling people what they really think. Then, once every two, four or six years, they find themselves having to communicate with the people. A talk show host, on the other hand, is in the business of communicating ideas to people from 15 hours a week in most cases to my 22.5 hours a week. This is why you'll almost never hear a candidate come up with a line like this:

"Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you're out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?"

Americans would get that.

Jobs are a big issue .. and an issue that is so easily addressed. Here's another line that you won't hear from a candidate:

"Do you know what has happened to so many of your jobs? The corporations who own those jobs sent them overseas to escape our punishing corporate tax rates. If you want to bring some of those jobs back, lower corporate taxes. What do you want corporations to do with that money? Pay it to the government in taxes, or use it to expand and provide new jobs. If we lower our corporate tax rate those companies who have been fleeing from our tax system may come back, and perhaps they'll bring some of their corporate friends with them. Now I'm suggesting a cut in corporate tax rates ... a cut that will create more jobs. When I make that suggestion my opponent counters with "John McCain wants to give big oil a huge tax cut." Instead of worrying about increasing job opportunities in this country, Barack Obama would rather demagogue oil companies."

Then Obama comes up with this "I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of the American public." Would someone please explain to me why McCain has never directly responded to this absurd line? Here's some more help from a small business guy:

"You're going to lower taxes for 95% of the people? Perhaps you don't know this, but 45% of American wage earners don't pay any federal income taxes. That places the entire federal income tax burden on just 55% of income earners. Please ... we're waiting ... tells us how you lower taxes on 95% of the people when only 55% are paying those taxes in the first place. I suspect that when you start explaining your plan we're going to learn that what you're really proposing is not tax cuts, but income redistribution."

So many lost opportunities last night ... how in the world does someone light a fire under this guy? There's not all that much time left.


Saturday, September 20, 2008

Sandra Bernhard--Stop a clock ugly on every level

Just when you think things couldn't get any uglier, along comes Sandra Bernhard, who's ugly in her sleep.

Following the lead of Chevy Chase, Lindsey Lohan, and something called Margaret Cho, Sandra has attacked Sarah Palin - warning that if the governor were to come to New York, she'd be raped by "big black brothers."

Yep, that's not all (Paging Al Sharpton).

But what you're really seeing, once again, is the amazing effect Palin has on the fragile minds of the C-list celebrity. It's as though Palin's success is a dog whistle that only unhappy has-beens like Sandra can hear. And it unhinges them completely. It would be funny if the responses were funny. But they're not. They're just vicious.

So where, again, does this hatred come from? A lot of it, simply, is envy. Perhaps Sandra realizes, sadly, that if we were to poll a group of rapists, they'd prefer Palin over her. But then again, they'd probably prefer a donkey, a blowfish, or maybe even a small discarded sponge dipped in lye. It's why she only does one-woman shows. No one else can stand to be near her.

Of course, Sandra's words are just another example of the rich intolerance only the tolerant left can muster. For more of it, check out how reporters are handling Palin's hacked emails. The media thinks the real story is about her use of a private email account - as opposed to her actual privacy being invaded. This cowardly garbage, mind you, comes from the same folks who decry Bush's imaginary infringements on our own personal liberties.

But here's the real hypocrisy: all of these media whores have private email accounts separate from work - which helps them jump from job to job. I mean, do you actually think the wussy bloggers who exposed Palin's emails don't have a private account that they use to apply for entry level jobs at Vanity Fair? Private email is as common at work as stealing Post-it notes.

Finally, if Obama's email had been hacked instead, and something embarrassing had been found, imagine the media hellfire that would have been unleashed. Heads would roll and Republicans would be gang-raped.

I don't know... maybe all this hate is what Obama needs to get elected. And if it works, Sandra... then Palin won't be vice-president.

But you'll still be ugly.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Lipstick, Pigs, Paint and Turds

So to quote Reverend Wright, it looks like the chickens have come home to roost. Commenting on his Republican adversaries, Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig," which has now created what he calls a "made-up controversy." He claims the McCain campaign seized "an innocent remark," taking it out of context "because they knew it's catnip for the news media."

Okay so we've got chickens, pigs and catnip. What is it about Obama and his lurid obsession with animals? More important, no unicorns. I simply hate the politics of exclusion.

Anyhoo, Can I be the first to say, "I adore his manufactured outrage."

"I adore his manufactured outrage."

So, let me get this straight: Barack is bent out of shape because his own words have been twisted to make him look like a mean-spirited sexist. But isn't this what his supporters have been doing to anyone who dare question Barack's own sainthood?

They tried to railroad Hillary as a bigot, they've seized every phrase uttered on Fox News as proof of racism, and the crap they've spewed about Sarah Palin defies any level of explanation. Obama-mites have spent the last two years making it clear that any criticism of their savior comes not from common sense, but from a darker place – that subconscious level where every single one of us is an undocumented member of the Aryan Book Club.

But here's the thing: I don't think Obama meant to call Sarah a pig. He was applying an old slang phrase meant to describe someone trying to gussy something up that's inherently bad. So Obama is innocent of the charge, I think. But I wonder if the leftwing media would be as fair to the right, if they had made the same mistake. I mean, in my opinion, when Obama's tries to camouflage his own foibles by shifting blame to others, he's simply "painting a turd" - to use an old phrase that's identical to "lipstick on a pig."

I wonder what Media Matters, the Huffington Post and Keith Olbermann thinks of that.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Satire Alert--Just for you Loretta

Poor Repuglikkkans think they have a dream ticket on their hands, but startling revelations are now coming to light that will put the final nail in the coffin of John McSame's illegal and immoral candidacy: Sarah Palin has cooties.

Apparently, McSame didn't thoroughly vett his darling little bimbot before choosing her for his running mate. Then again, the senile old man doesn't know how many houses he can he be expected to know whether or not his own Veep has cooties? He'll probably deny she even has cooties or try to bury the truth. But the folks over at Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground have it on good authority that Sarah Palin does indeed have Cooties, and that her daughter is a slut (and not even the good kind of slut - she's keeping her baby). But more importantly, Sarah Palin has Cooties.

Can working families who are facing mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, and skyrocketing gas prices thanks to Bush's failed economic policies really afford putting someone with Cooties a mere heartbeat away from the presidency? And how exactly can a Cootie-sufferer find the time to perform her duties as Vice President while raising five kids, one of whom is a slut? Perhaps Palin should just go back to Alaska and concentrate on being a Mom and finding a cure for those Cooties of hers.

No one is really sure how Cooties are transmitted, but the general consensus is that you get them by being a pro-life, pro-drilling, Christian Conservative member of the NRA...and by kissing *YUCK!* boys. Any Hillary supporters or Evangelical Christians who do not want Cooties would be advised to refrain from voting for McSame/Palin this November.

No empty rethoric from a man of substance

Substance topped eloquence last night in St. Paul. It's what you actually say, not how you say it ... and John McCain got quite a lot said last night. Watch it yourself here, or read it here.

Here are just some of the excerpts from his speech that I particularly liked:

  • I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party.
  • We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.
  • We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.
  • I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
  • His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
  • We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now
  • My grandfather came home from that same war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home with me. I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination.
  • The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.
  • Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power. They invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world's oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire.
  • I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

I particularly liked it when McCain addressed government schools. The teacher's unions must have been throwing things at the TV.

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm President, they will.

And then there was McCain's story of Vietnam. Compare this narrative to John Kerry's endless repetitions of his Swift Boat escapades .. and his band air purple hearts and hasty run back home:

On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam. I hadn't any worry I wouldn't come back safe and sound. I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn't think there was a cause more important than me.

Then I found myself falling toward the middle of a small lake in the city of Hanoi, with two broken arms, a broken leg, and an angry crowd waiting to greet me. I was dumped in a dark cell, and left to die. I didn't feel so tough anymore. When they discovered my father was an admiral, they took me to a hospital. They couldn't set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me. When I didn't get better, and was down to about a hundred pounds, they put me in a cell with two other Americans. I couldn't do anything. I couldn't even feed myself. They did it for me. I was beginning to learn the limits of my selfish independence. Those men saved my life.

I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn't in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down.

A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Here is what the "New York Times" said about the Surge

Surge of Ignorance

The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07

There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. -- NYT Editorial, 1/11/07

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07

Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07

W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07

The senator supported a war that didn't need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won't work. -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07

Now the ''surge'' that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07

Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. -- NYT Editorial, 3/29/07

There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. -- NYT Editorial, 4/12/07

... the empty hope of the "surge" ... -- Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07

Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. -- NYT Editorial, 5/11/07

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. -- Maureen Down, NYT, 5/27/07

Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. -- NYT Editorial, 7/25/07

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07

U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency. -- NYT, 9/1/08

Sunday, August 31, 2008

You decide

Sarah Palin

Barack Obama

Office being sought Vice President President of the United States and Leader of the Free World
Full name Sarah Louise Heath Palin Barack Hussein Obama II
Nickname Sarah Barracuda Barry Obama; “The One”
Public opinion Smoking hot in a “naughty librarian” sort of way May be The Messiah
Age 44 48
Children 5: two sons, three daughters 2: two daughters
Religion/Church attendance Evangelical Christian;

attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God

Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a “black liberation theology” church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System
Current Job Governor of Alaska Junior Senator from Illinois
Previous Public Jobs Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors;

City Council member (1992-1996)

State Senator (1997-2004);

Community Organizer

Executive Experience Governor for 2 years;

Mayor for 10 years

Foreign Relations experience Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia) Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session;

once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans

Military Affairs experience Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard;

Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army

Private Sector Experience Sports reporter;

Salmon fisherman

Associate at civil rights law firm
Speaking ability Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton, OH hockey arena without a teleprompter An enter…wait–did you say without a teleprompter??
Spouse’s name Todd Mitchell Palin Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
Spouse’s occupation Salmon fisherman;

Former North Slope production supervisor for BP Oil

Vice President for Community and External Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals;

former Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago;

former Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies;

former Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago;

former associate at Sidley Austin law firm

Reaction to spouse’s political success Quit 17-year BP oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with wife’s administration Promoted and given 160% pay raise by UofC hospitals within months of husband’s election to U.S. Senate;

Employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion

Coolest thing about Spouse Tesoro Iron Dog Snowmobile race champion (longest snowmobile race in the world);

In 2008, while defending his championship, was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. He was sent to the hospital but still finished in fourth place

Sister of Oregon State University head basketball coach Craig Robinson
Most Courageous Moment in Public Service Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail. Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002
In Current Office Because… Upset sitting Governor in GOP primary due to public support for her efforts to clean up corrupt government establishment Republican opponent, who was leading in the polls, was forced to leave race after unsealing of divorce records exposed a sex scandal
Theme: Change and Clean Government Hope and Change;

“Bringing Change from Outside Washington”

What they’ve done to live that theme: Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest;

Resigned from position of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose corruption among members of own party

Selected 36-year incumbent Senator as running mate
Family Affairs May have removed State Public Safety Commissioner as part of effort to protect sister in messy divorce and child custody battle Often says, “I am my brother’s keeper”;

Brother lives in a hut in Nairobi on $12 per year

Union affiliation Union member, married to Union member Endorsed by a union
Iraq and Troop Support Formerly (pre-surge) critical of apparent lack of long-term strategy for Iraq;

Visited wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany;

visited AK National Guard soldiers deployed to Kuwait;

Son deploying to Iraq on 9/11/08 as Army infantryman

Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators;

almost visited wounded troops in Germany, but decided to go shopping in Berlin instead

Bipartisan/”maverick” credentials Married to a non-Republican;

Exposed corruption within own party;

Campaigned for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell against corrupt GOP congressman Don Young;

Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to “come clean” about financial dealings that are under fed investigation

Talks about bipartisanship
Legislative Record Passed a landmark ethics reform bill;

Used veto to cut budgetary spending;

Prevented “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

Voted “present” over 100 times as IL state senator
How they dealt with corrupt individuals in home city/state Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders;

Campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative;

Ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary

Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”;

Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko

Guns Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter;

video can be found on YouTube of Palin firing an M4 at a military firing range

Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms
Earmarks Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project;

Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects;

Campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary

Secured federal earmarks for wife’s employer and for campaign bundlers
Abortion Pro life;

gave birth to 5th child knowing that he would have Down’s syndrome


only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions

Energy Believes energy independence is a matter of national security;

For drilling in ANWR, which is in her state

Says Americans should “get tune-ups” and “check tire pressure”;

Says “we can’t expect the world to be okay with” our use of heating and air conditioning

Environment Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4);

Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK

Talks about the environment a lot
Athletic prowess Runs marathons Has reporters tailing him to the gym

* *